We have a judge and he DOES make such a distinction.
That may be but he was not the point of the discussion was he? I think we were discussing a judge's ruling.
If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine CONFORMING TO GODLINESS, he is CONCEITED and UNDERSTANDS NOTHING; but he has a MORBID interest in controversial questions and DISPUTES ABOUT WORDS, out of which ARISE ENVY, STRIFE, ABUSIVE language, EVIL SUSPICIONS, and constant FRICTION between men of DEPRAVED mind and DEPRIVED of the TRUTH. 1Tim 6 3-5
Conforming to Godliness:does NOT include sexual abuse-drinking(Drambuie anyone?), smoking(got the beanbag ashtray and Kool shorties?),
abortion, abusive language, foul language, and on we go. . . . . .
Concieted: Man of God for our day and time(Choke)
Understands nothing: Those collaterals come to mind---- not to mention JCING
Morbid: Advanced Class need I say more?
Disputes about Words: I am now laughing--throughly/thoroughly-My God My God why hast though forsaken me-I could go on. . . .
Envy/Strife/Abusive language--Ever hear a Sunday Night Service
Evil Suspicions: Seed boys and a devil spirit under every rock or in most questioning believers
Friction-Depraved--LOL
Behavior does separate one from scriptural truth.(Actual Scriptural truth, not the free-love doctrine of VP the Ohio Huckster)
WD -- Your arguments while verbose are ridiculous. Men like VP et al do not accept sound healthy teaching. They advocate a different doctrine and they reject doctrine conforming to Godliness
Teaching not based on scripture will always result in a life that is UNHOLY and is marked by sin. These men usually have known the truth and walked away.
They are predators. They can fill their bathtubs full, but cannot walk on water.
VP will have his day in court. I don't want to be standing next to him shoring up his "Ministry" on that day. I think I will just stay on my knees before a HOLY God.
every one (every belief) Your point was that scriptural truth was not mentioned it was as a belief he just did not list every one specifically he included all beliefs in the word beliefs .
My point was:
Similarly, the actions of sexual misconduct stemmed from a belief. The judge merely separated the belief from the act. He never condoned those beliefs - he merely stated that the court could not review them. The state only had jurisdiction over the act.
You keep wanting to change the words so you can promote your agenda. Actions point very accurately what a person believes.
evidently, as that old adage says, "old habits are hard to break"...............
whitedove said....."WOW TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND AMERICAN WAY That sounds like something the bird would say....Oh wait he did. Glad to see my post inspired you Mr. Tongue Man, not bad for a morally repugnant, intellectually vapid, psychologically unsound, rife with logical fallacies, contentious, malignantly opinionated, and mean-spirited.... post. Oh wait I see you went back edited that inspired part out of you post. "...........actually, "the bird" simply reminded me of the opening of the old 50's tv series "superman", with george reeves, which is where i first heard the phrase, "truth, justice, and the american way"........maybe the first place "the bird" heard it too?...........i did not edit my post #130 on the "lingo" thread you must be referring to.........it's still there, exactly as it's been since i first posted it!..............as i said, old habits are hard for "the bird" to break!
"the bird" said,....."Upon reading the snips of judge John D.Schmitt that you provided it appears to me that he correctly ruled that The right to believe is absolute. The right to act is subject to reasonable regulation. I concur with his ruling They are two separate things, belief of truth and actions are not one in the same. I think a few of us have been saying that for awhile around here. We absolutely have the right to believe and accept scriptural truth despite or regardless of any good or bad actions by the speaker. Actions of the speaker while subject to civil law as they should be ,do not however change the truth of scripture or earthly knowledge one can learn from their words into untruth. If one beats his dog does that make 2+2 not equal 4, hardly, if one is morally unsound does that change by magic the truth of the scripture."
two "bad habits" common to "the bird's" discussion style are again glaringly apparent in this one paragraph...........the logical fallacy known as "attacking the straw man", and the flagrant revision of facts or statements which setting up "the straw man" requires!................the first 2 sentences of this paragraph actually reflect accurately what judge schmitt wrote in the final decree as posted on the greasespot homepage.....the 3rd sentence reflects that "the bird" has corrected his use of the word "concur"..........i'm glad that the judge's decree agrees with "the bird's" legal accumen!............then, the first revision occurs as "the bird" begins gathering his straw.............the judge NEVER WROTE "belief of truth and actions are not one in the same".................what he did write was "The Court finds that an important distinction exists between belief and conduct"
And if there is a distinction between the two that means they are not one in the same. If they were the same there would be no distinction between them. He said The Court finds that an important distinction exists between belief and conduct" an important distinction exists between belief ( that covers all beliefs and belief of truth) is a belief, and conduct
.......somehow, "the bird" revised the judge's actual statement by arbitrarily adding the words "of truth" to what the judge wrote!........the judge NEVER PRESUMED to throw out an opinion as to what "TRUTH" is when pointing out the distinction between "belief and conduct"! that is a presumption typically made by the vic apologists.....that is, that "mere religious beliefs and opinions" along with, and including, "The beliefs espoused by The Way" are beliefs or opinions "of truth"!.........that is a presumption which neither judge schmitt nor i agree with nor accept!...........it is, however, a presumption, interpretation, and opinion absolutely necessary for the bird to make in order to build his "straw man"!!
the rest of the paragraph is now uselessly spent in "the bird's" attempt to tear down the "straw man " fallacy he's built for himself to attack!....."I think a few of us have been saying that for awhile around here. We absolutely have the right to believe and accept scriptural truth despite or regardless of any good or bad actions by the speaker. Actions of the speaker while subject to civil law as they should be ,do not however change the truth of scripture or earthly knowledge one can learn from their words into untruth. If one beats his dog does that make 2+2 not equal 4, hardly, if one is morally unsound does that change by magic the truth of the scripture.Doubtful"..........yes, a few of you have been tearing down this same "straw man" argument around here for years!!.........no one has ever argued your "right" to accept vic's interpretation, or opinions of the bible as "scriptural truth"........some just take offence at your expectation that the rest of us, along with the rest of christendom, should also accept it as such, and that we are somehow "wrong before god" for not accepting those same interpretations and opinions of the bible you presume to be "scriptural truth"!!
Sharing scripture from a Bible is not opinion, it is reading what is written, I think most Christians accept the Bible as truth.
"the bird's" debate with himself now continues building and tearing down the "straw man" that's been hangin' around the twi cornfield of "scriuptural truth" for so many years!........"Now another issue as some have brought before us is....... does it change they way one might or might not accept what the person is saying? I believe that most of us agree that it could affect the believability of such a message, but that is not one in the same as nullify the message. It may to the hearer , that is the choice of each hearer, but the truth of the message still none the less is intact regardless of the opinion of each hearer. Another words one may not accept that 2+2 =4 from a immoral person ,but that fact remains that it does not change the truth that it does equal 4. It only prevents the hearer from accepting and believing the truth due to their actions. Another may not care about their actions, they may just want to learn math and so to them the lesson is learnable despite the moral state of the teacher. Scripture is not dependant on the teachers actions either Christians accept it as so because God declares it so ,in spite of mans actions. I think that is the message of Romans (Good for us......) I think we all understand that one should be living the words we speak, as best as we are able. But when we don't it does not make the words of the scripture untrue"
it is a well-known historical fact, that prior to the letter to FDR from albert einstein, in which al strongly encouraged the president to begin what was to be called "the manhattan project", (that was the US's top secret devolpment program for the atomic bomb).........hitler's nazi physicists and engineers, many of whom were among the most renowned "teachers" of these subjects in the world at that time, were well on their way to developing their own such weapon!........many of the world's leading physicists and engineers were busily at work for the third reich in the development of nuclear weaponry........i, for one, am most certainly glad that einstein, oppenheimer, and others "cared enough" about the immoral, evil, "actions" of those nazis, and refused to "learn" their physics and engineering from them, or join their nazi leaders, because they "just wanted to learn" from them how to build the bomb!!............. "the bird's" paragraph as quoted above, is, imo, just another myopic argument in support of the logically false premise he "snuck in" with his 2nd paragraph!
Nothing to do with the discussion, I can tell stories as well So? Many people have contributed information on cures for diseases have you checked to see if any of these has sin in their lives maybe we ought to throw out some cures? I mean if they are morally wrong they must be flawed in their help.
It is quite possible to teach scripture from a bible and not color anything. I can invent a story where that happens as well your story proves nothing
Nothing to do with the discussion, I can tell stories as well So?
Well? Where are these stories?
Many people have contributed information on cures for diseases have you checked to see if any of these has sin in their lives maybe we ought to throw out some cures? I mean if they are morally wrong they must be flawed in their help.
But did these people who found cures for diseases also teach that God had taught them science as it had not been known since The First Century Alchemists? Did they then proceed to teach a class on alchemy and then teach their students that they were so blessed with knowledge that they had some secret no one else could handle unless duly enlightened? (I"ve found the secret to changing lead into gold. But the process is expensive so I'll need $5,000.00 in gold bullion to continue my work.))
You keep building these straw men and they keep burning up. Perhaps you should stop bringing them to the bonfire.
But did these people who found cures for diseases also teach that God had taught them science as it had not been known since The First Century Alchemists? Did they then proceed to teach a class on alchemy and then teach their students that they were so blessed with knowledge that they had some secret no one else could handle unless duly enlightened? (I"ve found the secret to changing lead into gold. But the process is expensive so I'll need $5,000.00 in gold bullion to continue my work.))
You keep building these straw men and they keep burning up. Perhaps you should stop bringing them to the bonfire.
You burned nothing up ........his premise was that because the were Nazis and immoral he was glad that we did not use their abilities by the same stretch we should question everyone that contributes to the cure of diseases then to see if they have some fault as well we may not want to use their abilities as well. People use information that is useful to their cause moral faults do not nullify information.
I Cor 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. 16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
1 Cor 11: 1Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
Phil 3: 16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.
17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.
1 Thess 1: 5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men wewere among you for your sake. 6 And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost: 7 So that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia. 8 For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing. 9 For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you.
White Dove: Do you believe these verses?
See, we are to follow the word and conduct of those who are our spiritual leaders. And we ourselves are to teach it to others by word and example.
May I ask how many women you have sexually abused? (sorry, sexually healed)
You burned nothing up ........his premise was that because the were Nazis and immoral he was glad that we did not use their abilities by the same stretch we should question everyone that contributes to the cure of diseases then to see if they have some fault as well we may not want to use their abilities as well. People use information that is useful to their cause moral faults do not nullify information.
I believe DWBH's premise was something different altogether:
it is a well-known historical fact, that prior to the letter to FDR from albert einstein, in which al strongly encouraged the president to begin what was to be called "the manhattan project", (that was the US's top secret devolpment program for the atomic bomb).........hitler's nazi physicists and engineers, many of whom were among the most renowned "teachers" of these subjects in the world at that time, were well on their way to developing their own such weapon!........many of the world's leading physicists and engineers were busily at work for the third reich in the development of nuclear weaponry........i, for one, am most certainly glad that einstein, oppenheimer, and others "cared enough" about the immoral, evil, "actions" of those nazis, and refused to "learn" their physics and engineering from them, or join their nazi leaders, because they "just wanted to learn" from them how to build the bomb!!............. "the bird's" paragraph as quoted above, is, imo, just another myopic argument in support of the logically false premise he "snuck in" with his 2nd paragraph!
Beyond the morality issue, had Einstein, Oppehheimer and others NOT cared enough about the "immoral, evil, "actions" of those nazis," ....They would have remained in Germany where they either would have become Nazis themselves (ie - drank "der Koolaide") or they would at the very least would have been controlled by the Nazi's.
These men certainly could have looked at the situation in a very cold and calculating way and said, "Hey - scientific findings are scientific findings - I don't care who helps me get them." Instead they saw the moral depravity of those who would seek to use them as scientists and researchers and abuse their research to gain more power and do even more destruction. They saw that their intellects could be exploited to further a cause they found deplorable - so they left Germany. The actions of these men show that they believed that Hitler and his Nazi regime was wrong.
The actions of The Victoid and Co. nullify their teachings because their actions expose their true beliefs. They talked out of both sides of their mouth. They said one thing but believed another and acted on what they truly believed and in turn those actions served to teach others.
What DWBH has said is that ungodly actions negate scriptural truth as spoken by the one doing the acting, not that scriptural truth itself is negated.
In other words the sins of the communicator does not negate the truths in the communication.
or
"If the music is not played properly or with love, doesn't mean the music is wrong, it means the person playing it is playing it wrong. The solution is not to throw away the music "because the person may be playing it wrong", the solution is to go find someone who plays the same music the right way."
or
"Now another issue as some have brought before us is....... does it change they way one might or might not accept what the person is saying? I believe that most of us agree that it could affect the believability of such a message, but that is not one in the same as nullify the message. It may to the hearer , that is the choice of each hearer, but the truth of the message still none the less is intact regardless of the opinion of each hearer. Another words one may not accept that 2+2 =4 from a immoral person ,but that fact remains that it does not change the truth that it does equal 4. It only prevents the hearer from accepting and believing the truth due to their actions. Another may not care about their actions, they may just want to learn math and so to them the lesson is learnable despite the moral state of the teacher. Scripture is not dependant on the teachers actions either Christians accept it as so because God declares it so ,in spite of mans actions. I think that is the message of Romans (Good for us......) I think we all understand that one should be living the words we speak, as best as we are able. But when we don't it does not make the words of the scripture untrue"
( I am not sure whether the last one is from DWBH himself or DWBH quoting the Dove, but whoever said it, I agree. :) )
In other words the sins of the communicator does not negate the truths in the communication...
Reviewing the minutes from the last meeting:
Matthew 15: 1-9 NASB...
16he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition....
Mark 7:5-13 NASB...
13thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that."
In other words, the sins of the communicator usurp the authority of the Word of God.
~~
...or
"If the music is not played properly or with love, doesn't mean the music is wrong, it means the person playing it is playing it wrong. The solution is not to throw away the music "because the person may be playing it wrong", the solution is to go find someone who plays the same music the right way."
That's a confusing analogy when it comes to the communication of truth. You need to define "played properly or with love". Furthermore, music appeals to emotions and our sense of harmony/beauty whereas truth appeals to the intellect and logic.
Another thing to consider - usually a musician adds something to the piece – even if it's a variation of volume or attack of certain notes, or maybe even a completely different interpretation of the piece. Personally, I like Jimi Hendrix's interpretation of The Star Spangled Banner in Woodstock. Some would consider that interpretation wrong. I think it's a matter of taste. He hit all the right notes as far as I can tell – I mean, I recognized the tune – but what I love is the way he played those notes and the addition of other stuff too [the guitar sounds that mimicked the bombs bursting in air]. And considering the context/audience, I believe Hendrix played the tune properly and with love.
But for argument's sake - if we're going to float this music/truth analogy across the board – let's see if we can make it more applicable. If a preacher just reads the Bible without making a single comment – perhaps that would be considered playing the music "properly" – or playing it straight – not introducing any interpretation by the musician – he is merely quoting it verbatim.
But throw some select verses together and make comments on them – most folks call that a sermon or commentary – and as such – there's the possibility that some of the comments [interpretation] are wrong. And while we're at it – we should also consider the context/audience of a sermon. Like vp saying to a woman he is molesting in the motor coach untothe pure all things are pure. Anything done in the love of God is okay. Or showing his favorite porn video to the Family Corps and saying I've so renewed my mind that this stuff doesn't bother me. The combination of context, certain behavior, audience and choice of words definitely renders an interpretation of those scriptural references that is totally repugnant to the moral intent of the Bible [iMHO, of course!] and I would think to any Christian with even half a conscience.
What DWBH has said is that ungodly actions negate scriptural truth as spoken by the one doing the acting, not that scriptural truth itself is negated.
In other words the sins of the communicator does not negate the truths in the communication.
What I see is a fundamental difference in approaches.
One side sees the teachings in PFAL as fundamentally sound, maybe a few errors here and there, but for the most part consistant with the bible. This side sees no connection between the actions and what was taught.
Another side sees the actions as fundamentally affecting what was in the teachings. That the actions were inseparable from how the teachings were developed and therefore how they should be regarded. This side sees the "fuit" as being indicative of what was taught.
Technically, I suppose one could come up with scenarios where a person's lack of morals and what he said were totally unrelated. But does it usually work that way in the real world? Did it work that way in Wayworld?
Is "truth" something that can be broken up in bite-sized parts? 73.6% true, 26.4% false? Or is it a sum total of everything that is being said including the purpose for which it is said?
Is anyone saying that something that is demonstrably true becomes magically false because someone like Wierwille utters it. No, no one is. Arguing against that point is setting up a strawman. DWBH only seems to be saying that if you don't take the time to read all of what he is saying.
To go back to the Satan quoting scripture angle: Satan said to Jesus that the angels would bear him up lest he dash a foot against a stone [excuse the very loose paraphrase, I don't have time to find a bible]. Is that statement false because the devil said it? No, that truth is still truth as long as it is uttered in context and in the manner which the author meant it. Satan meant it as a reason for Jesus to take a foolhardy "leap of faith" and jump off the pinacle of the temple. So was it "truth" as Satan uttered it? No.
Wierwille may have reliably quoted scripture and may have even interpreted it in an biblically consistant manner, but if his purpose was to defraud and control, to abuse and lie, was it "truth"? No more than when Satan had his say.
sending the vicster on an expedition with a message of truth and "right living" would make as much sense as sending Capone on a crusade for the improvement of law enforcement in america..
or sending J. Dahmer with a message for the right dividing of cuisine in every restaurant in the land..
"Renewing one's mind" was really code for being a pig.
Thats was my point buried way back in the posts--
the Way theology ("not scriptural truth" ) opened the door for that type of thing.
I.e Speak 'the word' and all is well (you can be a total screwball or criminal but that doesnt matter if you speak the word)
Christ is absent (you (or VP) replace him on earth..ie no one to answer to..)
.....you are righteous now(regardless of what you do) ....
.
.....no sense of sin or guilt......
etc etc etc....
Put together it's the theology of a seered conscience that holds no one personally responsible for their actions--if they are " spiritual" (seered) enough.
What came first the theology or the actions I dont really know (chicken and egg argument)
but they feed into and are inseperable from each other
Sending the vicster with a message from the almighty about how to live the bible.. it'd make as much sense as to send Evel Kneivel on a mission to improve the accuracy in performing motorcycle stunts safely..
What I see is a fundamental difference in approaches.
One side sees the teachings in PFAL as fundamentally sound, maybe a few errors here and there, but for the most part consistant with the bible. This side sees no connection between the actions and what was taught.
Another side sees the actions as fundamentally affecting what was in the teachings. That the actions were inseparable from how the teachings were developed and therefore how they should be regarded. This side sees the "fuit" as being indicative of what was taught.
Technically, I suppose one could come up with scenarios where a person's lack of morals and what he said were totally unrelated. But does it usually work that way in the real world? Did it work that way in Wayworld?
Is "truth" something that can be broken up in bite-sized parts? 73.6% true, 26.4% false? Or is it a sum total of everything that is being said including the purpose for which it is said?
Is anyone saying that something that is demonstrably true becomes magically false because someone like Wierwille utters it. No, no one is. Arguing against that point is setting up a strawman. DWBH only seems to be saying that if you don't take the time to read all of what he is saying.
To go back to the Satan quoting scripture angle: Satan said to Jesus that the angels would bear him up lest he dash a foot against a stone [excuse the very loose paraphrase, I don't have time to find a bible]. Is that statement false because the devil said it? No, that truth is still truth as long as it is uttered in context and in the manner which the author meant it. Satan meant it as a reason for Jesus to take a foolhardy "leap of faith" and jump off the pinacle of the temple. So was it "truth" as Satan uttered it? No.
Wierwille may have reliably quoted scripture and may have even interpreted it in an biblically consistant manner, but if his purpose was to defraud and control, to abuse and lie, was it "truth"? No more than when Satan had his say.
Very incisive post! I think you've nailed it, Oak!
I Cor 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. 16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
1 Cor 11: 1Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
Phil 3: 16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.
17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.
1 Thess 1: 5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men wewere among you for your sake. 6 And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost: 7 So that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia. 8 For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing. 9 For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you.
White Dove: Do you believe these verses?
See, we are to follow the word and conduct of those who are our spiritual leaders. And we ourselves are to teach it to others by word and example.
May I ask how many women you have sexually abused? (sorry, sexually healed)
If none – why not?
Again different subject, following the word and conduct of those who are our spiritual leaders. And we ourselves are to teach it to others by word and example. Have nothing to do with the accusation that someones conduct makes scripture null and void . Scripture stands on its own , some human really has no chance of changing it into untruth by their actions. How people receive it from such a person is another matter. some may ,some may not but it changes the scripture zero.
That's the point! When the example used to "support" the teaching is tainted- the whole teaching is tainted. The doctrine is contaminated.
Not at all , only their example is contaminated I can still look at scripture and see truth. And where they shared scripture it remains true. Where the did not it does not.
Sorry wd, I can't agree. I don't think it's true.....or else you would be looking with double vision....one eye on one thing and the other eye on the other thing.
Not at all , only their example is contaminated I can still look at scripture and see truth. And where they shared scripture it remains true. Where the did not it does not.
Not at all , only their example is contaminated I can still look at scripture and see truth. And where they shared scripture it remains true. Where the did not it does not.
I'm curious...
When you "look at scripture and see truth" do you see it the same way you would have seen it PRE-twi?
Or do the words of the collaterals ring in your inner ears as you read the Bible? If this is the case, then you have submitted to a mediated experience. It's not "truth" you hear or read, it's what you've been told is truth.
And we ourselves are to teach it to others by word and example.
Again, just how true to sound doctrine was vp, lcm, rfr, dm, cg et al, if what they believed was evidenced in such an unsound example?
Exactly .....beliefs I don't think he figured that he needed to list everyone , or that he could . the belief in the Bible as scriptural truth is a belief That means when John D.Schmitt said The right to believe is absolute. The right to act is subject to reasonable regulation. They are two separate things, belief of scriptural truth ( which is a belief) and actions are not one in the same. We absolutely have the right to believe and accept scriptural truth despite or regardless of any good or bad actions by the speaker. Actions of the speaker while subject to civil law as they should be ,do not however change the truth of scripture or earthly knowledge one can learn from their words into untruth.
Jesus dealt with this issue when confronting the Pharisees in Matt. 12:34 - O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
The difficulty presented by the Pharisees was that they had an appearance of goodness, and spoke words that sounded like truth. Yet their actions did not line up. What he was showing there was that in reality they were not speaking truth. The words they taught were tainted by leaven. It tainted the whole of what they taught. So he taught disciples to "beware" of this leaven. The Pharisees made up rules that protected themselves and caused their ailing parents to suffer.
Like this the teachings of VPW have to be viewed as tainted with leaven. With the same heart that he performed acts of sexual predation he prepared teachings, classes, research.
Can you remove the leaven out of bread? Take the little piece out that was tainted? No, as it spreads throughout the whole loaf, and you're unable to determine which section is leavened and which section is not.
VPW's teachings are of a similar sort. Like the leaven of the Pharisees, you can't remove the leaven out of his classes, teachings, research. The loaf has been leavened. If you want unleavened bread, the only solution is to throw out the loaf and bake a new loaf.
Unfortunately what you see with many of the offshoots is that instead of throwing out the loaf, they keep it and start a ministry around it, only changing the "behavior" to be more godly. Therefore what they attract is those who are accustomed to a leavened diet, as opposed to the unsaved, the untrained Christian, the pure soul in need of instruction. It just doesn't work.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
13
13
9
Popular Days
Jun 27
44
Jun 30
23
Jun 29
23
Jun 28
22
Top Posters In This Topic
oldiesman 7 posts
WhiteDove 13 posts
doojable 13 posts
Bumpy 9 posts
Popular Days
Jun 27 2008
44 posts
Jun 30 2008
23 posts
Jun 29 2008
23 posts
Jun 28 2008
22 posts
Popular Posts
geisha779
"it is my opinion that, the conduct of these hypocritical "whited sepulchres" indeed nullifies their purported "beliefs" as being "biblically accurate"...........it is also my opinion that, despite th
geisha779
Excathedra, Your dignity inspires-so right back at ya sister! Sunesis, Ain't it the truth. Step away from the light, I mean the church. WOW! Been years since I have played "Bible Gotcha" Seems to
geisha779
Sounds reasonable, except when you consider the "Word" or "Commandments of God" taught by VP. Then the whole premise is flawed. As many times as we heard--It's the word-the word and nothing but the wo
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
every one (every belief) Your point was that scriptural truth was not mentioned it was as a belief he just did not list every one specifically he included all beliefs in the word beliefs .
My point was:
Similarly, the actions of sexual misconduct stemmed from a belief. The judge merely separated the belief from the act. He never condoned those beliefs - he merely stated that the court could not review them. The state only had jurisdiction over the act.
You keep wanting to change the words so you can promote your agenda. Actions point very accurately what a person believes.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Well? Where are these stories?
But did these people who found cures for diseases also teach that God had taught them science as it had not been known since The First Century Alchemists? Did they then proceed to teach a class on alchemy and then teach their students that they were so blessed with knowledge that they had some secret no one else could handle unless duly enlightened? (I"ve found the secret to changing lead into gold. But the process is expensive so I'll need $5,000.00 in gold bullion to continue my work.))
You keep building these straw men and they keep burning up. Perhaps you should stop bringing them to the bonfire.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
You burned nothing up ........his premise was that because the were Nazis and immoral he was glad that we did not use their abilities by the same stretch we should question everyone that contributes to the cure of diseases then to see if they have some fault as well we may not want to use their abilities as well. People use information that is useful to their cause moral faults do not nullify information.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I Cor 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. 16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
1 Cor 11: 1 Be ye followers of me , even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
Phil 3: 16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.
17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.
1 Thess 1: 5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake. 6 And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost: 7 So that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia. 8 For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing. 9 For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you.
White Dove: Do you believe these verses?
See, we are to follow the word and conduct of those who are our spiritual leaders. And we ourselves are to teach it to others by word and example.
May I ask how many women you have sexually abused? (sorry, sexually healed)
If none – why not?
Edited by TwinkyLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I believe DWBH's premise was something different altogether:
Beyond the morality issue, had Einstein, Oppehheimer and others NOT cared enough about the "immoral, evil, "actions" of those nazis," ....They would have remained in Germany where they either would have become Nazis themselves (ie - drank "der Koolaide") or they would at the very least would have been controlled by the Nazi's.
These men certainly could have looked at the situation in a very cold and calculating way and said, "Hey - scientific findings are scientific findings - I don't care who helps me get them." Instead they saw the moral depravity of those who would seek to use them as scientists and researchers and abuse their research to gain more power and do even more destruction. They saw that their intellects could be exploited to further a cause they found deplorable - so they left Germany. The actions of these men show that they believed that Hitler and his Nazi regime was wrong.
The actions of The Victoid and Co. nullify their teachings because their actions expose their true beliefs. They talked out of both sides of their mouth. They said one thing but believed another and acted on what they truly believed and in turn those actions served to teach others.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
In other words the sins of the communicator does not negate the truths in the communication.
or
"If the music is not played properly or with love, doesn't mean the music is wrong, it means the person playing it is playing it wrong. The solution is not to throw away the music "because the person may be playing it wrong", the solution is to go find someone who plays the same music the right way."
or
( I am not sure whether the last one is from DWBH himself or DWBH quoting the Dove, but whoever said it, I agree. :) )
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It ain't music 'til somebody plays it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Reviewing the minutes from the last meeting:
In other words, the sins of the communicator usurp the authority of the Word of God.
~~
That's a confusing analogy when it comes to the communication of truth. You need to define "played properly or with love". Furthermore, music appeals to emotions and our sense of harmony/beauty whereas truth appeals to the intellect and logic.
Another thing to consider - usually a musician adds something to the piece – even if it's a variation of volume or attack of certain notes, or maybe even a completely different interpretation of the piece. Personally, I like Jimi Hendrix's interpretation of The Star Spangled Banner in Woodstock. Some would consider that interpretation wrong. I think it's a matter of taste. He hit all the right notes as far as I can tell – I mean, I recognized the tune – but what I love is the way he played those notes and the addition of other stuff too [the guitar sounds that mimicked the bombs bursting in air]. And considering the context/audience, I believe Hendrix played the tune properly and with love.
But for argument's sake - if we're going to float this music/truth analogy across the board – let's see if we can make it more applicable. If a preacher just reads the Bible without making a single comment – perhaps that would be considered playing the music "properly" – or playing it straight – not introducing any interpretation by the musician – he is merely quoting it verbatim.
But throw some select verses together and make comments on them – most folks call that a sermon or commentary – and as such – there's the possibility that some of the comments [interpretation] are wrong. And while we're at it – we should also consider the context/audience of a sermon. Like vp saying to a woman he is molesting in the motor coach unto the pure all things are pure. Anything done in the love of God is okay. Or showing his favorite porn video to the Family Corps and saying I've so renewed my mind that this stuff doesn't bother me. The combination of context, certain behavior, audience and choice of words definitely renders an interpretation of those scriptural references that is totally repugnant to the moral intent of the Bible [iMHO, of course!] and I would think to any Christian with even half a conscience.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
What I see is a fundamental difference in approaches.
One side sees the teachings in PFAL as fundamentally sound, maybe a few errors here and there, but for the most part consistant with the bible. This side sees no connection between the actions and what was taught.
Another side sees the actions as fundamentally affecting what was in the teachings. That the actions were inseparable from how the teachings were developed and therefore how they should be regarded. This side sees the "fuit" as being indicative of what was taught.
Technically, I suppose one could come up with scenarios where a person's lack of morals and what he said were totally unrelated. But does it usually work that way in the real world? Did it work that way in Wayworld?
Is "truth" something that can be broken up in bite-sized parts? 73.6% true, 26.4% false? Or is it a sum total of everything that is being said including the purpose for which it is said?
Is anyone saying that something that is demonstrably true becomes magically false because someone like Wierwille utters it. No, no one is. Arguing against that point is setting up a strawman. DWBH only seems to be saying that if you don't take the time to read all of what he is saying.
To go back to the Satan quoting scripture angle: Satan said to Jesus that the angels would bear him up lest he dash a foot against a stone [excuse the very loose paraphrase, I don't have time to find a bible]. Is that statement false because the devil said it? No, that truth is still truth as long as it is uttered in context and in the manner which the author meant it. Satan meant it as a reason for Jesus to take a foolhardy "leap of faith" and jump off the pinacle of the temple. So was it "truth" as Satan uttered it? No.
Wierwille may have reliably quoted scripture and may have even interpreted it in an biblically consistant manner, but if his purpose was to defraud and control, to abuse and lie, was it "truth"? No more than when Satan had his say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
OMFG! I just had an epiphany! Now I know what I was doing wrong all those years ago.
I thought "renewing my mind" meant that I was supposed to be changing my thinking to line up with the Bible.
How could I miss it?
"Renewing one's mind" was really code for being a pig. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I think the idea that the vicster had some kind of biblical from the hand of gawd "message" is a rather large assumption.
in all fairness, I MIGHT hesitantly trust a coniving, adulterous pompous abusive sob to get a pizza order right.. and one chance at that.
I wouldn't trust him with something as important as a life or death message.
Edited by HamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
really..
sending the vicster on an expedition with a message of truth and "right living" would make as much sense as sending Capone on a crusade for the improvement of law enforcement in america..
or sending J. Dahmer with a message for the right dividing of cuisine in every restaurant in the land..
good gawd..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Thats was my point buried way back in the posts--
the Way theology ("not scriptural truth"
) opened the door for that type of thing.
I.e Speak 'the word' and all is well (you can be a total screwball or criminal but that doesnt matter if you speak the word)
Christ is absent (you (or VP) replace him on earth..ie no one to answer to..)
.....you are righteous now(regardless of what you do) ....
.
.....no sense of sin or guilt......
etc etc etc....
Put together it's the theology of a seered conscience that holds no one personally responsible for their actions--if they are " spiritual" (seered) enough.
What came first the theology or the actions I dont really know (chicken and egg argument)
but they feed into and are inseperable from each other
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
Does that get served on a bun with some kind of sauce like a wow burger?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Sending the vicster with a message from the almighty about how to live the bible.. it'd make as much sense as to send Evel Kneivel on a mission to improve the accuracy in performing motorcycle stunts safely..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Very incisive post! I think you've nailed it, Oak!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Again different subject, following the word and conduct of those who are our spiritual leaders. And we ourselves are to teach it to others by word and example. Have nothing to do with the accusation that someones conduct makes scripture null and void . Scripture stands on its own , some human really has no chance of changing it into untruth by their actions. How people receive it from such a person is another matter. some may ,some may not but it changes the scripture zero.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
That's the point! When the example used to "support" the teaching is tainted- the whole teaching is tainted. The doctrine is contaminated.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Not at all , only their example is contaminated I can still look at scripture and see truth. And where they shared scripture it remains true. Where the did not it does not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Sorry wd, I can't agree. I don't think it's true.....or else you would be looking with double vision....one eye on one thing and the other eye on the other thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I'm curious...
When you "look at scripture and see truth" do you see it the same way you would have seen it PRE-twi?
Or do the words of the collaterals ring in your inner ears as you read the Bible? If this is the case, then you have submitted to a mediated experience. It's not "truth" you hear or read, it's what you've been told is truth.
Again, just how true to sound doctrine was vp, lcm, rfr, dm, cg et al, if what they believed was evidenced in such an unsound example?
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Jesus dealt with this issue when confronting the Pharisees in Matt. 12:34 - O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
The difficulty presented by the Pharisees was that they had an appearance of goodness, and spoke words that sounded like truth. Yet their actions did not line up. What he was showing there was that in reality they were not speaking truth. The words they taught were tainted by leaven. It tainted the whole of what they taught. So he taught disciples to "beware" of this leaven. The Pharisees made up rules that protected themselves and caused their ailing parents to suffer.
Like this the teachings of VPW have to be viewed as tainted with leaven. With the same heart that he performed acts of sexual predation he prepared teachings, classes, research.
Can you remove the leaven out of bread? Take the little piece out that was tainted? No, as it spreads throughout the whole loaf, and you're unable to determine which section is leavened and which section is not.
VPW's teachings are of a similar sort. Like the leaven of the Pharisees, you can't remove the leaven out of his classes, teachings, research. The loaf has been leavened. If you want unleavened bread, the only solution is to throw out the loaf and bake a new loaf.
Unfortunately what you see with many of the offshoots is that instead of throwing out the loaf, they keep it and start a ministry around it, only changing the "behavior" to be more godly. Therefore what they attract is those who are accustomed to a leavened diet, as opposed to the unsaved, the untrained Christian, the pure soul in need of instruction. It just doesn't work.
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.