the snowstorm thread branches yet again... my question is:
is it necessary in life to have one sole source for your rule of faith and practice?
Mike seems to contend that everyone needs to have one, and only one. I disagree and would like to start a discussion on this topic.
and I do believe that this falls under "about the way" and not doctine, because it's something that vpw pushed hard, leading us to give up all outside points of reference by which to judge whether something is right or wrong.
I contend that we were taught to have one, and I contend that many don't understand this part of the teaching very well.
I think if someone has more than one rule they need TO KNOW that they have more than one,
and not delude themselves (or others) into thinking they have one when they have many shifting changing rules.
standards are simply references that have been agreed upon ahead of time.
of course there can be multiple standards.
They're not a standard then, if there's more than one. By definition, setting a standard means agreeing on one, at least in a certain context.
Some might step out of that context and adopt another standard for their own separate context. But within any context setting a standard means selecting ONE and only one to go by.
For instance, for the metric system there can be only one standard for the length of the meter.
Someone can say "Let's not use the metric system" and go back to the English system using inches, feet and yards, but WITHIN that English system there MUST be only one length that's the agreed upon distance for inches, feet, and yards. If there's more than one then it's not a system, it's confusion.
***
Like I said on another thread, this is new learning for most, but in science this is Physics 101 material. Ditto for Chemistry 101. This is where those kinds of classes start: with their agreed on standards, their ONLY rule for practice. It's usually Chapter One.
the snowstorm thread branches yet again... my question is:
is it necessary in life to have one sole source for your rule of faith and practice?
Mike seems to contend that everyone needs to have one, and only one. I disagree and would like to start a discussion on this topic.
and I do believe that this falls under "about the way" and not doctine, because it's something that vpw pushed hard, leading us to give up all outside points of reference by which to judge whether something is right or wrong.
No, it isn't necessary to have one sole source for your faith and practice. However it is necessary to have one sole source for truth. I realize how it would be easy to confuse these two, as there can be a lot of things in ones faith and practice that is true, but one's faith and practice does not always equal "the truth". Of course, believing the truth is going to end up setting you apart from the rest of the world. It all depends if you want to be a friend of Jesus Christ, or if you want to be a friend of the world. Either way, it's your decision. (See the gospel of John, chapter 17).
They're not a standard then, if there's more than one. By definition, setting a standard means agreeing on one, at least in a certain context.
Some might step out of that context and adopt another standard for their own separate context. But within any context setting a standard means selecting ONE and only one to go by.
For instance, for the metric system there can be only one standard for the length of the meter.
Someone can say "Let's not use the metric system" and go back to the English system using inches, feet and yards, but WITHIN that English system there MUST be only one length that's the agreed upon distance for inches, feet, and yards. If there's more than one then it's not a system, it's confusion.
***
Like I said on another thread, this is new learning for most, but in science this is Physics 101 material. Ditto for Chemistry 101. This is where those kinds of classes start: with their agreed on standards, their ONLY rule for practice. It's usually Chapter One.
101?
This what I refer to my students as "training wheels". they're usually quite resistant to taking them off.
besides, I think you may have just disproved yourself on your own, if you havn't already done it in the first post.
For instance, for the metric system there can be only one standard for the length of the meter.
Someone can say "Let's not use the metric system" and go back to the English system using inches, feet and yards, but WITHIN that English system there MUST be only one length that's the agreed upon distance for inches, feet, and yards. If there's more than one then it's not a system, it's confusion.
Confusing ALL of life with precisely calculable things like Math, Physics and Chemistry is a pretty consistent
error of the twi system. That's why things like "you should believe God and trust God" was transformed into
"If you decide that you'll be dead by this time next year, God would have to change the Laws of the Universe
to stop you". It's also a common quibble with the "Social Sciences" and even the Biological sciences,
since there's elements of UNPREDICTABILITY in dealing with both. Some people with narrow minds dismiss
Psychology and Sociology as fields of study, since they can't be calculated to decimal places like the
"hard sciences."
There's no "one rule" for either Psychology or Sociology. I'm sure some will say that means they are "confusion".
That, of course, will either indicate a bias, or a rank ignorance, on their behalf.
***
Like I said on another thread, this is new learning for most, but in science this is Physics 101 material. Ditto for Chemistry 101. This is where those kinds of classes start: with their agreed on standards, their ONLY rule for practice. It's usually Chapter One.
You opined it on another thread. Your opinion that "this is new learning for most" was a blatant falsehood and a blanket insult.
That you're unable to see the difference between Physics and Chemistry, and the things of God
IS a "101" level of error. Even vpw himself knew the difference SOMETIMES.
He asked what laboratory you could take "love" to and measure it.
"As I said before, a young man in love with a lady. He can't take that love, bring it to a laboratory,
stick it under a Bunsen Burner and come out with 'hot love.'
You just don't get it that way, I suppose."
(For those paying attention, the Bunsen Burner would go under the 'love' in this example.
I'm considering this a simple slip of the tongue, and including it in the interest of accuracy.)
Oh, and since our advocate of a supposed single unchanging source of truth, a supposed single unchanging
source of rules for faith and practice, himself DOES NOT HAVE ONE EITHER,
No, it isn't necessary to have one sole source for your faith and practice. However it is necessary to have one sole source for truth. I realize how it would be easy to confuse these two, as there can be a lot of things in ones faith and practice that is true, but one's faith and practice does not always equal "the truth". Of course, believing the truth is going to end up setting you apart from the rest of the world. It all depends if you want to be a friend of Jesus Christ, or if you want to be a friend of the world. Either way, it's your decision. (See the gospel of John, chapter 17).
not really looking for the old "if you're not a christian, you're going to hell" type of discussion.
courtesy of Mike: the 1967 version that we all heard in segment 31 Session 7 of THE CLASS:
Now knowing logically that we have to have a center of reference, every person, and I put it in the singular because this is truth. We have to have at least one center for learning which is outside of the individual. But most of us have had multiple centers; we are confused in a multiple way.
This knowing how the law of learning operates and how this thing works I came to the conclusion many years ago that for me this Word of God, this Bible--not the King James version, but THE Word of God which was given when holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy spirit--that this Word of God is my only source for truth outside of the individual seeking.
This is my primary and sole rule for faith and practice. This is why the law of learning operating the way it does and our knowledge of this I have to have some center of reference. For years I read around the Word of God; two, three theological works a week, every week. Because I just love to read and so I read and read and read. Well, these men were all centers of reference for learning and all I got was a hodge-podge of personal conviction but it was basically confusion. Because equally great men regarding the same verse of scripture would contradict each other.
So, when I began to understand the operation of the senses in relationship to learning I finally came to the conclusion that instead of staying in confusion with all of men's opinions a lifetime I was willing to come to one point, one center of reference for truth which was outside of the individual seeking and that was THE Word of God. And I've staked my life on the accuracy and the integrity of God's Word. If this Word is wrong then I'm going to be wrong in what I teach. But I'm willing to take that "chance" as you would call it. As John Paul Jones or someone said "he's willing to go down with the ship." I'm willing to go down with the ship.
If the Word of God is wrong I'm going to be wrong in everything that I've taught you in this foundational class on Power for Abundant Living. And everything we are dealing with now I could be wrong on but if the Word of God is right then the law of learning substantiates the truth that we're presenting and that is that this becomes our sole reference, our primary, our only rule of faith and practice outside of the individual seeking. We have to have something to turn to because you must learn, you must learn from something which is outside of you. Man needs a point of contact which is outside of him.
vpw contends that the truth must be your only rule for faith and practice.
the problem is, the truth is defined by him in PFAL, thereby making PFAL and all derivative teachings the truth which must be our only rule for faith and practice, thereby limiting us to one source for truth: twi. it's the pitfall we all fell into if we stuck around more than a couple of days.
truth isn't so easy to get an absolute grasp of, IMO. the final arbiter of truth is god, I suppose, if god exists. or math, if god doesn't exist. while we wait for the answer to that unknown, I wanted to explore vpw's assertion that we must have one rule for faith and practice.
Originally published in 1860, Outlines of Theology is now in the public domain. This chapter may therefore be copied and distributed without restriction.
THE RULE OF FAITH & PRACTICE
The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, Having Been Given By Inspiration of God, Are the All-Sufficient and Only Rule of Faith and Practice, and Judge of Controversies.
1. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice?
Whatever God teaches or commands is of sovereign authority. Whatever conveys to us an infallible knowledge of his teachings and commands is an infallible rule. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only organs through which, during the present dispensation, God conveys to us a knowledge of his will about what we are to believe concerning himself, and what duties he requires of us.
A.A. Hodge (1823-1886), Professor in Systematic Theology at Princeton Seminary from 1877 until his death in 1886, urged that the aim of every Christian teacher should be to produce a vitalizing impression — giving students ‘theology, exposition, demonstration, orthodoxy, learning, but giving all this to them warm.’ ‘He taught the knowledge of God,’ said one of his hearers, ‘with the learning of a scholar and the enthusiasm of a loving Christian’. These qualities not only crowded his classrooms, they also led to frequent appeals for the delivery of popular lectures. This article is taken from his Outlines of Theology, first published in 1860 by the Banner of Truth Trust
I think my use of science was limited to the idea of ONE rule and an UNCHANGING rule. If I was wrong in this limited area, please point out my specific error. Otherwise I'll blow off your unjustified criticism of me and continue using the analogy undaunted.
Let's try this, not using science at all:
If you are a member of a church that has some written standard for rules of conduct, and you decide to adopt another standard for your conduct, then you have either quit your church in heart, or you have introduced confusion to your church.
I do too, I just wanted it out of the snowstorm thread :D
people have a lot of viewpoints, and some of us are christian and some aren't. I've found since leaving twi that I don't need to be so concerned with worrying about having one source for my rules of faith and practice, and that I can go back to the beginning and start over from scratch, assessing morality and ethics and even the existence of god from different points of view. and I don't even feel compelled to make a decision on something just because someone else claims it to be true.
I think my use of science was limited to the idea of ONE rule and an UNCHANGING rule. If I was wrong in this limited area, please point out my specific error. Otherwise I'll blow off your unjustified criticism of me and continue using the analogy undaunted.
It's a fundamental error in both YOUR theology and in vpw's theology.
If you really want to discuss it, make a new thread, and I will gladly break it down in all its glory.
In fact, since it's a fundamental error of vpw's theology, I'd appreciate a chance to highlight it.
Instead, I'll be expecting you to mislabel it "unjustified criticism", blowing it off, pretending I never
said it, and declaring victory a few months later.
Feel free to surprise me.
Let's try this, not using science at all:
If you are a member of a church that has some written standard for rules of conduct, and you decide to adopt another standard for your conduct, then you have either quit your church in heart, or you have introduced confusion to your church.
Now we get to the issue.
Let's posit a theoretical church- a formal local organization with a building and a congregation.
They have an official name, and an official set of rules.
They will, perforce, begin with SOME set of rules, SOME standard.
That's the nature of organizations.
How AUTHORITATIVE is this?
Perhaps I have an advantage over you in having been involved in drafting rules for an organization,
interpreting standing rules for an organization, and AMENDING standing rules for an organization.
Groups that cover all their bases make a notation in their practices, to the effect that anything they
did not include will default to a generic set of rules like Roberts Rules of Order (specifying the edition.)
That allows them to encounter things they never considered, and bring in SOME sort of rule to
operate by.
Adopting a set of rules is necessary for an organization- we agree on this.
We disagree on the ROLE of such a set of rules.
Adopted rules are not GUARANTEED to be the PERFECT set of rules for that group. That's why all
formal constitutions and bylaws include a set of rules to cover how to CHANGE the set of rules.
That's true in the US Constitution, and many other places, some of them having adopted them from
the US Constitution.
To have an UNCHANGING set of rules in an organization, a set of rules that CAN'T ever change,
will, in the LONG term, enforce conformity- there is ONE set of rules and any thinking that doesn't
line up is discouraged or PUNISHED, depending on the group and the specifics.
To have an UNCHANGING set of rules in an organization, a set of rules that CAN'T ever change,
will, in the LONG term, enforce increasing problems as external events are unable to be adapted
to. It's like having an animal like the dodo, and introducing hunters with guns to shoot them down.
If the dodo can't change- and the dodo can't (certainly it DID not) - it's going to be wiped out.
Its UNCHANGING aspect guaranteed that external change would erode it.
I am a person who says that rules are good. (Try driving through an area with lots of cars
and no TRAFFIC LIGHTS.) I am a person who says that rules, policies and procedures must
be INTERPRETED based on the situation. That's why this country has courts of law, where a
professional expert (an arbitrator or a judge) interprets the application of laws, what they
say concerning a specific situation.
Some laws work for a time, and then it becomes necessary to abolish them or annul them.
There's laws on the books concerning the behavior of the drivers of automobiles that concern
horses. A driver is supposed to stop at a crossroads and fire a shot into the air to ensure
carriages and riders are aware he is approaching. This is on the books as a law- except where
it's been removed since it's a bad idea to do this NOW.
Rules are a good idea, but I hold they are inferior to the people they are written for.
In fact, I consider that to be one of the fundamental differences between YOUR approach on life,
and MY approach on life. I hold that the law is for the people and less important than the people,
and I think you hold the Rule to be more important than the people, and the people are less important
If PFAL is our only rule of faith and practice, how does that affect the monetary value of the thousands of SNS tapes that don't deal directly with The "Orange"Book?
We'll start with the remedial stuff for you. The fact that there is an arithmetic set of equivalences between metric and English does not equate to a single standard by any stretch. History shows that those systems had radically different development for radically different applications. Thus there are two standards for two different reasons. The English system was based on ease of measurement while the metric system was based on ease of computation. However both are arbitrary as I will explain shortly. Considering the fact that both systems were originally developed before there was good instrumentation let us consider. It is easy to divide a pile of green beans into two approximately equal piles while much more difficult two divide it into 10 approximately equal piles. However for computation it is much easier to work with the metric system, eg 1CC of water (pure and at sea level) = 1 gram of weight and requires 1 C(cal) of energy to raise its temperature 1 degree celsius. Very nice for computation.
We can't deny that the English system as arbitrary roots, 1 inch = the length of three barley corns side by side, 1 foot is the length of a kings foot etc etc.
However the metric system itself was also based on an arbitrary standard. A meter was originally defined as a function of one minute of arc of the earth's circumference (also known as a great circle). If you apply the same function to a great circle on Jupiter the meter will change size based on its original definition not based on how it has been standardized today.
Finally you seem to keep drawing some kind of analogy between the metric system and having a single standard for faith and practice (not a quote but the gist is correct). This is not logical. Two arbitrary and man made standards, both subject to change as measurements get finer and finer, cannot make a good analogy to a standard that God would have set down - an immutable standard for truth - and even then not an immutable standard for actions considering things changed when Jesus showed up on the scene.
Man's "standards" compared to God's standards?!?! That has been the classic conflict between God and man.
I would flunk you at your physics, chemistry and history but instead I will give you a passing grade of "D" for effort.
The place where others make mistakes in analyzing your posts is when they insist you are using circular logic. There is no such thing in real logic. You use a lot of circular reasoning but certainly not logic.
It's a nice day here in San Diego - perhaps you want to go get some windows cleaned while the sun is out bright and shining.
They're not a standard then, if there's more than one. By definition, setting a standard means agreeing on one, at least in a certain context.
Some might step out of that context and adopt another standard for their own separate context. But within any context setting a standard means selecting ONE and only one to go by.
For instance, for the metric system there can be only one standard for the length of the meter.
Someone can say "Let's not use the metric system" and go back to the English system using inches, feet and yards, but WITHIN that English system there MUST be only one length that's the agreed upon distance for inches, feet, and yards. If there's more than one then it's not a system, it's confusion.
***
Like I said on another thread, this is new learning for most, but in science this is Physics 101 material. Ditto for Chemistry 101. This is where those kinds of classes start: with their agreed on standards, their ONLY rule for practice. It's usually Chapter One.
does length even have an absolute meaning? (like time, doesn't time change with gravity or something?)
How would you measure a ruler? The ends, when you "look" very closely, are electron clouds. That's the quantum chemistry and probability, so mabye some averages and assumptions are needed and :wacko:
Correct Bolshevik - time dilates as a function of velocity, gravity or both and the changes are well documented mathematically. Length - which we will call a unit of distance in one dimension - also changes relative to velocity.
Kinda negates comparing using the metric system as a standard to a standard set forth by God.
does length even have an absolute meaning? (like time, doesn't time change with gravity or something?)
Correct Bolshevik - time dilates as a function of velocity, gravity or both and the changes are well documented mathematically. Length - which we will call a unit of distance in one dimension - also changes relative to velocity.
Kinda negates comparing using the metric system as a standard to a standard set forth by God.
"mathematical precision", was how the cyclops put it?
The limits of math (no pun). That'd be interesting to explore sometime.
Part of a post from the other thread; this relates to the One Rule question:
Mike,
You keep saying, "which version?" every time I mention the Bible. VP himself said his standard is "not the King James Version, but THE Word of God which was given when holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy spirit." I consider that to be my standard as well. And how did VP get to that "original" Word of God? By utilizing the keys by which the Bible interprets itself, which he taught and expected his followers to use. They are a system of checks and balances within the Scriptures themselves which enable us to know when we have the "God-breathed Word" on a given subject. Far from "tuning this out," many of us did use them, and by doing so have seen the errors in his doctrines. You have yet to deal with this; you just keep harping about "which version."
You want a single printed version of THE TRUTH that is unchangeable and never varies. Guess what, that's never going to happen. You know why? Because language changes, people change, cultures change, idiomatic expressions change, and the way the same ideas are communicated in one culture at one point in history is not the same way they'd be communicated in other languages and at other points in history. Witness your difficulty with Bullinger's writing, and that wasn't even a century before PFAL.
God knew that language changes, and that His truth would be communicated with different words over the centuries. In fact when the Bible itself uses the term "the Word" it is referring not to the written Scriptures, but to the message which is COMMUNICATED by the written Scriptures. That's why He made sure there were MANY MULTIPLE manuscripts which could be diligently compared, so that people could discover what the correct understanding would be, and thus learn His message. If you think that's "loosey-goosey" you obviously know nothing about how textual criticism, and languages in general, work.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
74
42
33
32
Popular Days
Feb 2
66
Jan 30
53
Feb 1
50
Feb 3
23
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 74 posts
waysider 42 posts
potato 33 posts
Bolshevik 32 posts
Popular Days
Feb 2 2009
66 posts
Jan 30 2009
53 posts
Feb 1 2009
50 posts
Feb 3 2009
23 posts
Popular Posts
potato
the snowstorm thread branches yet again... my question is: is it necessary in life to have one sole source for your rule of faith and practice? Mike seems to contend that everyone needs to have on
waysider
Would that include VP Wierwille? Would that include VP Wierwille?
geisha779
Wordwolf, So glad that is what you took away rom my heart felt and honest post. Because I reject this doctrine and do not have any interest in reading the theology. . . I am hiding and possibly afra
Posted Images
Bolshevik
standards are simply references that have been agreed upon ahead of time.
of course there can be multiple standards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I contend that we were taught to have one, and I contend that many don't understand this part of the teaching very well.
I think if someone has more than one rule they need TO KNOW that they have more than one,
and not delude themselves (or others) into thinking they have one when they have many shifting changing rules.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
They're not a standard then, if there's more than one. By definition, setting a standard means agreeing on one, at least in a certain context.
Some might step out of that context and adopt another standard for their own separate context. But within any context setting a standard means selecting ONE and only one to go by.
For instance, for the metric system there can be only one standard for the length of the meter.
Someone can say "Let's not use the metric system" and go back to the English system using inches, feet and yards, but WITHIN that English system there MUST be only one length that's the agreed upon distance for inches, feet, and yards. If there's more than one then it's not a system, it's confusion.
***
Like I said on another thread, this is new learning for most, but in science this is Physics 101 material. Ditto for Chemistry 101. This is where those kinds of classes start: with their agreed on standards, their ONLY rule for practice. It's usually Chapter One.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
No, it isn't necessary to have one sole source for your faith and practice. However it is necessary to have one sole source for truth. I realize how it would be easy to confuse these two, as there can be a lot of things in ones faith and practice that is true, but one's faith and practice does not always equal "the truth". Of course, believing the truth is going to end up setting you apart from the rest of the world. It all depends if you want to be a friend of Jesus Christ, or if you want to be a friend of the world. Either way, it's your decision. (See the gospel of John, chapter 17).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
And that makes it true because-------?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
This what I refer to my students as "training wheels". they're usually quite resistant to taking them off.
besides, I think you may have just disproved yourself on your own, if you havn't already done it in the first post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Confusing ALL of life with precisely calculable things like Math, Physics and Chemistry is a pretty consistent
error of the twi system. That's why things like "you should believe God and trust God" was transformed into
"If you decide that you'll be dead by this time next year, God would have to change the Laws of the Universe
to stop you". It's also a common quibble with the "Social Sciences" and even the Biological sciences,
since there's elements of UNPREDICTABILITY in dealing with both. Some people with narrow minds dismiss
Psychology and Sociology as fields of study, since they can't be calculated to decimal places like the
"hard sciences."
There's no "one rule" for either Psychology or Sociology. I'm sure some will say that means they are "confusion".
That, of course, will either indicate a bias, or a rank ignorance, on their behalf.
***
You opined it on another thread. Your opinion that "this is new learning for most" was a blatant falsehood and a blanket insult.
That you're unable to see the difference between Physics and Chemistry, and the things of God
IS a "101" level of error. Even vpw himself knew the difference SOMETIMES.
He asked what laboratory you could take "love" to and measure it.
"As I said before, a young man in love with a lady. He can't take that love, bring it to a laboratory,
stick it under a Bunsen Burner and come out with 'hot love.'
You just don't get it that way, I suppose."
(For those paying attention, the Bunsen Burner would go under the 'love' in this example.
I'm considering this a simple slip of the tongue, and including it in the interest of accuracy.)
Oh, and since our advocate of a supposed single unchanging source of truth, a supposed single unchanging
source of rules for faith and practice, himself DOES NOT HAVE ONE EITHER,
I consider this discussion rather limited.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
not really looking for the old "if you're not a christian, you're going to hell" type of discussion.
courtesy of Mike: the 1967 version that we all heard in segment 31 Session 7 of THE CLASS:
vpw contends that the truth must be your only rule for faith and practice.
the problem is, the truth is defined by him in PFAL, thereby making PFAL and all derivative teachings the truth which must be our only rule for faith and practice, thereby limiting us to one source for truth: twi. it's the pitfall we all fell into if we stuck around more than a couple of days.
truth isn't so easy to get an absolute grasp of, IMO. the final arbiter of truth is god, I suppose, if god exists. or math, if god doesn't exist. while we wait for the answer to that unknown, I wanted to explore vpw's assertion that we must have one rule for faith and practice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Looks like Weirwille pinched this phrase as well.
"The Rule of Faith and Practice"
by A. A. Hodge (1823-1886)
From Outlines of Theology (Chapter Five)
Originally published in 1860, Outlines of Theology is now in the public domain. This chapter may therefore be copied and distributed without restriction.
Rest of the article can be viewed here:
http://www.the-highway.com/Scripture_Hodge.html
A.A. Hodge (1823-1886), Professor in Systematic Theology at Princeton Seminary from 1877 until his death in 1886, urged that the aim of every Christian teacher should be to produce a vitalizing impression — giving students ‘theology, exposition, demonstration, orthodoxy, learning, but giving all this to them warm.’ ‘He taught the knowledge of God,’ said one of his hearers, ‘with the learning of a scholar and the enthusiasm of a loving Christian’. These qualities not only crowded his classrooms, they also led to frequent appeals for the delivery of popular lectures. This article is taken from his Outlines of Theology, first published in 1860 by the Banner of Truth Trust
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
I think my use of science was limited to the idea of ONE rule and an UNCHANGING rule. If I was wrong in this limited area, please point out my specific error. Otherwise I'll blow off your unjustified criticism of me and continue using the analogy undaunted.
Let's try this, not using science at all:
If you are a member of a church that has some written standard for rules of conduct, and you decide to adopt another standard for your conduct, then you have either quit your church in heart, or you have introduced confusion to your church.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
I do too, I just wanted it out of the snowstorm thread :D
people have a lot of viewpoints, and some of us are christian and some aren't. I've found since leaving twi that I don't need to be so concerned with worrying about having one source for my rules of faith and practice, and that I can go back to the beginning and start over from scratch, assessing morality and ethics and even the existence of god from different points of view. and I don't even feel compelled to make a decision on something just because someone else claims it to be true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It's a fundamental error in both YOUR theology and in vpw's theology.
If you really want to discuss it, make a new thread, and I will gladly break it down in all its glory.
In fact, since it's a fundamental error of vpw's theology, I'd appreciate a chance to highlight it.
Instead, I'll be expecting you to mislabel it "unjustified criticism", blowing it off, pretending I never
said it, and declaring victory a few months later.
Feel free to surprise me.
Now we get to the issue.
Let's posit a theoretical church- a formal local organization with a building and a congregation.
They have an official name, and an official set of rules.
They will, perforce, begin with SOME set of rules, SOME standard.
That's the nature of organizations.
How AUTHORITATIVE is this?
Perhaps I have an advantage over you in having been involved in drafting rules for an organization,
interpreting standing rules for an organization, and AMENDING standing rules for an organization.
Groups that cover all their bases make a notation in their practices, to the effect that anything they
did not include will default to a generic set of rules like Roberts Rules of Order (specifying the edition.)
That allows them to encounter things they never considered, and bring in SOME sort of rule to
operate by.
Adopting a set of rules is necessary for an organization- we agree on this.
We disagree on the ROLE of such a set of rules.
Adopted rules are not GUARANTEED to be the PERFECT set of rules for that group. That's why all
formal constitutions and bylaws include a set of rules to cover how to CHANGE the set of rules.
That's true in the US Constitution, and many other places, some of them having adopted them from
the US Constitution.
To have an UNCHANGING set of rules in an organization, a set of rules that CAN'T ever change,
will, in the LONG term, enforce conformity- there is ONE set of rules and any thinking that doesn't
line up is discouraged or PUNISHED, depending on the group and the specifics.
To have an UNCHANGING set of rules in an organization, a set of rules that CAN'T ever change,
will, in the LONG term, enforce increasing problems as external events are unable to be adapted
to. It's like having an animal like the dodo, and introducing hunters with guns to shoot them down.
If the dodo can't change- and the dodo can't (certainly it DID not) - it's going to be wiped out.
Its UNCHANGING aspect guaranteed that external change would erode it.
I am a person who says that rules are good. (Try driving through an area with lots of cars
and no TRAFFIC LIGHTS.) I am a person who says that rules, policies and procedures must
be INTERPRETED based on the situation. That's why this country has courts of law, where a
professional expert (an arbitrator or a judge) interprets the application of laws, what they
say concerning a specific situation.
Some laws work for a time, and then it becomes necessary to abolish them or annul them.
There's laws on the books concerning the behavior of the drivers of automobiles that concern
horses. A driver is supposed to stop at a crossroads and fire a shot into the air to ensure
carriages and riders are aware he is approaching. This is on the books as a law- except where
it's been removed since it's a bad idea to do this NOW.
Rules are a good idea, but I hold they are inferior to the people they are written for.
In fact, I consider that to be one of the fundamental differences between YOUR approach on life,
and MY approach on life. I hold that the law is for the people and less important than the people,
and I think you hold the Rule to be more important than the people, and the people are less important
than the Rule.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Ya know, I'm just wondering.
If PFAL is our only rule of faith and practice, how does that affect the monetary value of the thousands of SNS tapes that don't deal directly with The "Orange"Book?
I hope the ebay crowd doesn't get wind of this.
It could plummet the market into a tailspin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Well Mike then you just flunked physics 101.
We'll start with the remedial stuff for you. The fact that there is an arithmetic set of equivalences between metric and English does not equate to a single standard by any stretch. History shows that those systems had radically different development for radically different applications. Thus there are two standards for two different reasons. The English system was based on ease of measurement while the metric system was based on ease of computation. However both are arbitrary as I will explain shortly. Considering the fact that both systems were originally developed before there was good instrumentation let us consider. It is easy to divide a pile of green beans into two approximately equal piles while much more difficult two divide it into 10 approximately equal piles. However for computation it is much easier to work with the metric system, eg 1CC of water (pure and at sea level) = 1 gram of weight and requires 1 C(cal) of energy to raise its temperature 1 degree celsius. Very nice for computation.
We can't deny that the English system as arbitrary roots, 1 inch = the length of three barley corns side by side, 1 foot is the length of a kings foot etc etc.
However the metric system itself was also based on an arbitrary standard. A meter was originally defined as a function of one minute of arc of the earth's circumference (also known as a great circle). If you apply the same function to a great circle on Jupiter the meter will change size based on its original definition not based on how it has been standardized today.
Finally you seem to keep drawing some kind of analogy between the metric system and having a single standard for faith and practice (not a quote but the gist is correct). This is not logical. Two arbitrary and man made standards, both subject to change as measurements get finer and finer, cannot make a good analogy to a standard that God would have set down - an immutable standard for truth - and even then not an immutable standard for actions considering things changed when Jesus showed up on the scene.
Man's "standards" compared to God's standards?!?! That has been the classic conflict between God and man.
I would flunk you at your physics, chemistry and history but instead I will give you a passing grade of "D" for effort.
The place where others make mistakes in analyzing your posts is when they insist you are using circular logic. There is no such thing in real logic. You use a lot of circular reasoning but certainly not logic.
It's a nice day here in San Diego - perhaps you want to go get some windows cleaned while the sun is out bright and shining.
Edited by RumRunnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
potato
case in point: along came jesus.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
does length even have an absolute meaning? (like time, doesn't time change with gravity or something?)
How would you measure a ruler? The ends, when you "look" very closely, are electron clouds. That's the quantum chemistry and probability, so mabye some averages and assumptions are needed and :wacko:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
just noticed you pointed that out as well, RumRunner.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Correct Bolshevik - time dilates as a function of velocity, gravity or both and the changes are well documented mathematically. Length - which we will call a unit of distance in one dimension - also changes relative to velocity.
Kinda negates comparing using the metric system as a standard to a standard set forth by God.
Edited by RumRunnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
Are you talking about Legalism?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
"mathematical precision", was how the cyclops put it?
The limits of math (no pun). That'd be interesting to explore sometime.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
no, it is not necessary to find one rule of faith and practice
but yes, we all already always have one whether we know it or not
...whether or not we are consciously aware of it,
or are able or willing to try and describe/express/summarize it
so yes, it can also be described as a necessity...
as somehow being a generic part of being human
to have some sort of inner rule (set of rules)
whether we get it from paper books
...or a much bigger book called the universe
which includes ALL books
i favor a rule-set that allows me to freely discover and compare and practice all rules
as well as create rules when emerging conditions are not covered by anything in the current pool of existing rules
and i find that noticing where rulers overlap
is as important as finding where they do not
as both sets of data are true, good and beautiful
but it seems PFAL is one of many many kinds of rules (rule-sets) in the world
that taught us out of trusting our own experience of God and life
as if we replaced the living epistles of our own inner compass
with a twig we called a tree
which had been snapped off the vast tree of life
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
fabulous post, sirguessalot!
I think what I've been experiencing this past few years is a paradigm shift from "ONE rule" to a "rule-set" as you so elegantly put it.
this is so well expressed, it moved me deeply:
Edited by potatoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Part of a post from the other thread; this relates to the One Rule question:
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.