Dang, Wordwolf, that was good! I'd go to a party with you, all get high, drive to MacDonald's, have everyone in the car scream out their orders in the drive through lane, and then when we get to the window, let you collate the whole order into how many burgers, fries, shakes of what flavors, etc. are included in the order. The only thing I'm afraid of is that I'll be driving and relaying the order as you say it, and then after you finish with the order, you'll say, "And tell her it is 'to go,' and I'll say it before I realize I'm already at the take out window.
That HAVING BEEN SAID, I'd like to say that when this gets to the Doctrinal forum, people realize that things posted in the Doctrinal forum are no more to be lectures than things posted anywhere else in the cafe.
DOCTRINES, posted in the DOCTRINAL forum, as all DOCTRINES are supposed to be, are supposed to be as much ideas posted for DISCUSSION, and not LECTURE, as any other thread posted in the cafe.
PLEASE don't relegate the doctrinal forum to the ranks of the pharisaical. There have been some real discussion oriented threads there of late.
Addenda to Mike's view on VPW's atrocities: they are all excuseable, according to Mike, because God was using Vic for a bigger purpose, the transmission of His new Word of God. That gives him a bye on rape, verbal abuse, drunkenness, and plagiarism. In fact, his very rebellious nature made him more able to stand on God's New Word, according to Mike.
Never mind that the Bible says that God gives his revelation to HOLY men, and Wierwille was not a holy man. He was not holy while he was formulating PFAL, while he was teaching it, nor after. And I'm not talking about the day-to-day mistakes that everyone makes. I'm talking about repeated, systematized rape and cruelty.
I have pointed this out to Mike more than once on his threads, without name-calling or nastiness. He has NEVER responded to my charge that Wierwille was not a holy man. But Mike has accused me of being a Corps Nazi and an "unfit researcher," among other things. Galen, do you now see why peple get on his case, where they might listen more politely to others?
I do appreciate the freedom this board to have the opportunity to thread and reply with my words. And apreciate that my threads are responded to either by reply or views. If I were to have even a 50% disapproval rating, that just shows me I do have a voice that is heard among mutual expeiences of background. Although I may make an a$$ out of myself, present cheap shots, agree, disagree, agree to disagree, disagree to agree, engage in verbal melee, apoligise, forgive, vent, be bitter, discuss, cuss, digress, choo-choo, pray, ROFLMAO, and all other prisms of thought and emotion displayed in our words to speak with each other, WHEW... I enjoy GSC and posters involved.
As far as grammer vs posting style, here is a section of a missive my Ma-Ma wrote in her beautiful long hand to me dated 11 / 03 / 03 : "...We went to eat out at resturant with Larry + Dianne and their friends. We enjoyed and chatted with their friends outside porch to relax and talked each other after eating that we stayed out in the porch that have tables + chairs about 1 hour before we went home Larry + Dianne are funny-very sweet." Now tht's my 70 year young Ma-Ma.
She has been writing that way ever since I could read. Any one care to critique such a rare style of words, be my guest.
Many times I have considered to leave this GSC, but I know I won't at this time, so I just 'ghost' in and out. There are plenty who have left this board for good, some change their sns and return, some etc etc etc ad infinitum reasons the transient flow and steady threads.
So I say my say and rok on.
So I guess I said what I want to say today regarding this thread and look forward the audience this thread responses down the moments ahead.
Wordwolf - Thank you so much for that Reader's Digest version of the Mike threads. I had been reading your other synopsis of his threads which you wrote a while back, but even they got too long for my short attention span!
Song - I didn't mean to imply that the people who misspell are ignorant, wierd, creepy or stupid. I merely said that I personally have had trouble understanding some of the misspellings at times. Moi. Me. It's me oh Lord. Mea Culpa. It's my problem - not theirs.
Do I mispell? Knot if eye kan help it... but sumtimes...
Hope R. color>size>face>
What a long, strange trip it's been!size>face>color>
" . . . Never mind that the Bible says that God gives his revelation to HOLY men, and Wierwille was not a holy man."
We each have our sins. I have certainly sinned. I will likely sin tomorrow. I think that perhaps so have you, and so will you.
It is only through recognizing the shed blood of Jesus that we can hope to obtain holiness. I have said this recently in another thread, and there upset people as it is considered that holiness comes from their ideals of sexual purity. My understanding of the Bible, would include that our holiness comes from G-d our Heavenly Father.
The holy men of the Old Testament had their own issues and weaknesses, yet G-d calls them holy. I do not mean to turn a blind eye, or in anyway forgive or forget what VPW did wrong. I am not excusing his err. However I know that I err, and it is my understanding that all men have err'ed with the single exclusion of Jesus the Christ (Our Lord).
All of G-d's Word has came to us via sinful men who He calls 'holy'.
"He has NEVER responded to my charge that Wierwille was not a holy man."
I have responded.
I think that Mike would possibly agree with my response.
:=)
"Galen, do you now see why peple get on his case, where they might listen more politely to others?"
I fully 'see', not un-like seeing chickens in a hen-house.
Song - I didn't mean to imply that the people who misspell are ignorant, wierd, creepy or stupid. I merely said that _I personally_ have had trouble understanding some of the misspellings at times. Moi. Me. It's me oh Lord. Mea Culpa. It's my problem - not theirs.
Do I mispell? Knot if eye kan help it... but sumtimes...
***
Hope R... I'ma just postn' too
Dig,
Rok On Dudette,
[This message was edited by TheSongRemainsTheSame on December 27, 2003 at 18:35.]
It is interesting, I think, that it is Mary Magdaline to whom the Lord first appears in His new body. This is the resurrected body described by Dr. Wierwille as "unlimited in scope and activity". This reference can be found on page 35 of 'Are the Dead Alive Now'.
How interesting that you might find this interesting!
[This message was edited by seaspray on December 27, 2003 at 21:37.]
Dadgumit, I know I saw it snow at a rodeo on the 4th of July in Arizona. 'course this was a long time ago in a universe far, far away. But if you're callin' me a liar...
quote:...and there upset people as it is considered that holiness comes from their ideals of sexual purity.
What was that the Pharisee's said unto Jesus - We be not born of fornication ... (John 8:41)
It's remarkable to realize exactly where the idea of holiness stemming from the ideal of sexual purity had started. It wasn't started by our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather by some legalisitic Pharisees.
Now I would say that is pretty revealing as to having an understanding of exactly where some people are coming from - spiritually speaking.
Christmas!! I thought Smikeol was done away with when he fell into the lava at the Mountain of Doom where his 'preciousssss' was forged! Now he's b-b-a-a-a-c-c-k-k-k!!
:(-->
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
quote:...and there upset people as it is considered that holiness comes from their ideals of sexual purity.
What was that the Pharisee's said unto Jesus - We be not born of fornication ... (John 8:41)
It's remarkable to realize exactly where the idea of holiness stemming from the ideal of sexual purity had started. It wasn't started by our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather by some legalisitic Pharisees.
Now I would say that is pretty revealing as to having an understanding of exactly where some people are coming from - spiritually speaking.
Have you ever bothered to read the context of "We be not born of fornication;" say even just the next six words? It has nothing to do with sexual purity. Yep, Wierwille ignored "in the verse" and "in the context," in order to make it seem that the Bible says something it doesn't say. He did that a lot, both in PFAL and elsewhere.
Speaking of ignoring context, both in the paragraph from which a quote came, and the paragraph preceding it, Galen, whom you quoted, did just that when he quoted shazdancer. She specifically said that she wasn?t talking about day-to-day mistakes, and clearly indicated that she wasn?t talking about sexual impurity, such as adultery. She listed repeated rape, cruelty, verbal abuse, drunkenness, and plagiarism. Those, and other things Shaz could have listed, but didn't, are not characteristics of what the Bible would call ?holy men,? but rather, are characteristics of what the Bible would call wicked men, false prophets, serpents, hypocrites, ?like unto whited sepulchres?, etc. If someone wants to believe that Wierwille?s plagiarized works and fraudulent claims are the ?Word of God?, that?s fine with me. But, if the Bible is the standard, then Wierwille was no ?holy man of God.?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
6
20
5
Popular Days
Dec 26
49
Dec 27
27
Dec 29
14
Dec 28
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Tom 9 posts
Hope R. 6 posts
TheSongRemainsTheSame 20 posts
seaspray 5 posts
Popular Days
Dec 26 2003
49 posts
Dec 27 2003
27 posts
Dec 29 2003
14 posts
Dec 28 2003
14 posts
WordWolf
Oh, and Mike,
In case you missed it,
Pawtucket has spoken.
"These are discussion threads, not lecture threads."
And most of your threads, proposing Doctrine as they do,
go in the DOCTRINAL forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Dang, Wordwolf, that was good! I'd go to a party with you, all get high, drive to MacDonald's, have everyone in the car scream out their orders in the drive through lane, and then when we get to the window, let you collate the whole order into how many burgers, fries, shakes of what flavors, etc. are included in the order. The only thing I'm afraid of is that I'll be driving and relaying the order as you say it, and then after you finish with the order, you'll say, "And tell her it is 'to go,' and I'll say it before I realize I'm already at the take out window.
That HAVING BEEN SAID, I'd like to say that when this gets to the Doctrinal forum, people realize that things posted in the Doctrinal forum are no more to be lectures than things posted anywhere else in the cafe.
DOCTRINES, posted in the DOCTRINAL forum, as all DOCTRINES are supposed to be, are supposed to be as much ideas posted for DISCUSSION, and not LECTURE, as any other thread posted in the cafe.
PLEASE don't relegate the doctrinal forum to the ranks of the pharisaical. There have been some real discussion oriented threads there of late.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Wordwolf:
You are the MAN
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Mike:
Who really gives a rat's @$$?
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wyteduv58
I for one have missed Mike, he was alot of fun to tease and be teased by him, so wecome back Mike.
Topic.......the emmaculate conception............
Dovey....proud owner of two low riders...Dovey's Doxies...... Dovey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Thanks, WordWolf, well done!
Addenda to Mike's view on VPW's atrocities: they are all excuseable, according to Mike, because God was using Vic for a bigger purpose, the transmission of His new Word of God. That gives him a bye on rape, verbal abuse, drunkenness, and plagiarism. In fact, his very rebellious nature made him more able to stand on God's New Word, according to Mike.
Never mind that the Bible says that God gives his revelation to HOLY men, and Wierwille was not a holy man. He was not holy while he was formulating PFAL, while he was teaching it, nor after. And I'm not talking about the day-to-day mistakes that everyone makes. I'm talking about repeated, systematized rape and cruelty.
I have pointed this out to Mike more than once on his threads, without name-calling or nastiness. He has NEVER responded to my charge that Wierwille was not a holy man. But Mike has accused me of being a Corps Nazi and an "unfit researcher," among other things. Galen, do you now see why peple get on his case, where they might listen more politely to others?
Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
I do appreciate the freedom this board to have the opportunity to thread and reply with my words. And apreciate that my threads are responded to either by reply or views. If I were to have even a 50% disapproval rating, that just shows me I do have a voice that is heard among mutual expeiences of background. Although I may make an a$$ out of myself, present cheap shots, agree, disagree, agree to disagree, disagree to agree, engage in verbal melee, apoligise, forgive, vent, be bitter, discuss, cuss, digress, choo-choo, pray, ROFLMAO, and all other prisms of thought and emotion displayed in our words to speak with each other, WHEW... I enjoy GSC and posters involved.
As far as grammer vs posting style, here is a section of a missive my Ma-Ma wrote in her beautiful long hand to me dated 11 / 03 / 03 : "...We went to eat out at resturant with Larry + Dianne and their friends. We enjoyed and chatted with their friends outside porch to relax and talked each other after eating that we stayed out in the porch that have tables + chairs about 1 hour before we went home Larry + Dianne are funny-very sweet." Now tht's my 70 year young Ma-Ma.
She has been writing that way ever since I could read. Any one care to critique such a rare style of words, be my guest.
Many times I have considered to leave this GSC, but I know I won't at this time, so I just 'ghost' in and out. There are plenty who have left this board for good, some change their sns and return, some etc etc etc ad infinitum reasons the transient flow and steady threads.
So I say my say and rok on.
So I guess I said what I want to say today regarding this thread and look forward the audience this thread responses down the moments ahead.
I am just a simple guy living day to day...
Rok On,
Song
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grizzy
hey 2027........
God Bless them or f*** em!!!!!!!!
and I think the hearty support for you Roy is the best thing I have seen in a long time............
post away dude!!!!!!!!! look forward to them even if I don't reply.......
as *Song* says................ ROCK ON DUDE!!!!!
God Bless America; SIZE>
Grizz SIZE>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
Wordwolf - Thank you so much for that Reader's Digest version of the Mike threads. I had been reading your other synopsis of his threads which you wrote a while back, but even they got too long for my short attention span!
Song - I didn't mean to imply that the people who misspell are ignorant, wierd, creepy or stupid. I merely said that I personally have had trouble understanding some of the misspellings at times. Moi. Me. It's me oh Lord. Mea Culpa. It's my problem - not theirs.
Do I mispell? Knot if eye kan help it... but sumtimes...
Hope R. color>size>face>
What a long, strange trip it's been!size>face>color>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
shazdancer:
" . . . Never mind that the Bible says that God gives his revelation to HOLY men, and Wierwille was not a holy man."
We each have our sins. I have certainly sinned. I will likely sin tomorrow. I think that perhaps so have you, and so will you.
It is only through recognizing the shed blood of Jesus that we can hope to obtain holiness. I have said this recently in another thread, and there upset people as it is considered that holiness comes from their ideals of sexual purity. My understanding of the Bible, would include that our holiness comes from G-d our Heavenly Father.
The holy men of the Old Testament had their own issues and weaknesses, yet G-d calls them holy. I do not mean to turn a blind eye, or in anyway forgive or forget what VPW did wrong. I am not excusing his err. However I know that I err, and it is my understanding that all men have err'ed with the single exclusion of Jesus the Christ (Our Lord).
All of G-d's Word has came to us via sinful men who He calls 'holy'.
"He has NEVER responded to my charge that Wierwille was not a holy man."
I have responded.
I think that Mike would possibly agree with my response.
:=)
"Galen, do you now see why peple get on his case, where they might listen more politely to others?"
I fully 'see', not un-like seeing chickens in a hen-house.
:=)
enjoy your weekend Dancer, dance on. . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Yo Grizzy!!!
AUMMMM and Oceans Edge...
From a former dog warior...
Come on give me a hug
:D-->
Rok On
oneyedjackswild1
[This message was edited by TheSongRemainsTheSame on December 27, 2003 at 18:48.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grizzy
heck I knew dat wuz you!!!!!! (jack-song
)
and you claim to have made an a$$ of yourself?????
:D--> when?????????? where????
hehe
haven't we all at one time or another........
God Bless America; SIZE>
Grizz SIZE>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
metastic&ocular
us older leader grads?
mike when were you EVER a leader?
if memory serves me you have never been so much as twig co-ordinater,not even an assistant.
and you were in twi how long? 30+/- years?
and never went corp?
and by your own admission werent you M & Ad from your splinter?
at what point in your life did you appoint yourself the title of leader?
a thing of beauty
http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_DEATH.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
I guess so much for the wine and canapes and the din of murmur and laughter and whispers in the mezzanine... the banquet is being served...
Welcome to the show that never ends
Come inside
Come inside
[This message was edited by TheSongRemainsTheSame on December 27, 2003 at 21:02.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
seaspray
Is this the way it works?
[This message was edited by seaspray on December 27, 2003 at 21:36.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
seaspray
It is interesting, I think, that it is Mary Magdaline to whom the Lord first appears in His new body. This is the resurrected body described by Dr. Wierwille as "unlimited in scope and activity". This reference can be found on page 35 of 'Are the Dead Alive Now'.
How interesting that you might find this interesting!
[This message was edited by seaspray on December 27, 2003 at 21:37.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
seaspray
WordWolf,
Dadgumit, I know I saw it snow at a rodeo on the 4th of July in Arizona. 'course this was a long time ago in a universe far, far away. But if you're callin' me a liar...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hay
What was that the Pharisee's said unto Jesus - We be not born of fornication ... (John 8:41)
It's remarkable to realize exactly where the idea of holiness stemming from the ideal of sexual purity had started. It wasn't started by our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather by some legalisitic Pharisees.
Now I would say that is pretty revealing as to having an understanding of exactly where some people are coming from - spiritually speaking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
seaspray
Hope R.
Why don't you learn how to knit or something?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
seaspray
Nifty
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Christmas!! I thought Smikeol was done away with when he fell into the lava at the Mountain of Doom where his 'preciousssss' was forged! Now he's b-b-a-a-a-c-c-k-k-k!!
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Oh geez. I thought this was the thread about clothes shopping, daddio.
--> Never mind. 
baby's calling me home,
she keeps on callin' me home....
(boz scaggs)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Speaking of ignoring context, both in the paragraph from which a quote came, and the paragraph preceding it, Galen, whom you quoted, did just that when he quoted shazdancer. She specifically said that she wasn?t talking about day-to-day mistakes, and clearly indicated that she wasn?t talking about sexual impurity, such as adultery. She listed repeated rape, cruelty, verbal abuse, drunkenness, and plagiarism. Those, and other things Shaz could have listed, but didn't, are not characteristics of what the Bible would call ?holy men,? but rather, are characteristics of what the Bible would call wicked men, false prophets, serpents, hypocrites, ?like unto whited sepulchres?, etc. If someone wants to believe that Wierwille?s plagiarized works and fraudulent claims are the ?Word of God?, that?s fine with me. But, if the Bible is the standard, then Wierwille was no ?holy man of God.?
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.