I guy says "read my book" and, just like that, he's like Moses on the mountaintop.
How could I have missed it all these years?
The same way I missed it: we weren't looking for it.
I didn't see this one, which is characterized by "...edified, exhorted and comforted," until around 1999, and well after I had seen the 3 sledgehammer statements. At that time I was looking for it.
It looks to me that you severely mis-characterized this statement with "...guy says 'read my book' and, just like that..."
You left out the best part, and then you implied my logic was totally leaning on the 'read my book' phrase. Did you do all that on purpose?
This is just as true with Dr's books as with the ancient scriptures. In fact, it's MORE true with Dr's books, because we don't really HAVE original scriptures to work with, just slightly mis-copied fragments, scholarly compilations, questionable translations, and religious versions. At best we only have man's translations, or versions like the KJV.
If we had believed that Dr's books were of God, we would have obeyed his final instructions to master them, and the ministry would have straightened out, instead of careening into the big meltdown. But we did NOT do this and as a result many difficulties appeared. I believe as we return to a meek receiving of the PFAL books "MANY DIFFICULTIES WILL DISAPPEAR."
Don't know you, Mike, or when or how you were involved in TWI... but evidently (and very plainly) you didn't sit much at the feet of vpw (literally, as well as figuratively) and listen (and actually hear, or understand) much of what he said. I'd have asked that as a question... but, think you've already shown (at least some, if not most of) us the answer.
As prideful, egotistical, or narcissistic (take your pick) vpw might have been, I don't believe that he ever saw or thought of himself being capable of writing on par with scripture... else he never would have allowed (or requested) anyone to touch or edit what he wrote. Obviously you never heard or paid attention to him talking about how the writers of scripture did or surely DIDN'T write them...
Mike, there is nothing in the premise referenced in your most recent post to suggest PFAL is divinely inspired. Wierwille used some common words that can also be found quite easily in the Bible. What does that mean? Absolutely nothing.
I hope you catch your golden pony. He's pretty elusive.
Mike, there is nothing in the premise referenced in your most recent post to suggest PFAL is divinely inspired. Wierwille used some common words that can also be found quite easily in the Bible. What does that mean? Absolutely nothing.
I agree with you that none of the 22 statements do anything "to suggest PFAL is divinely inspired" as you put it.
You missed the 2 points that ARE BEING proving by those statements: VPW claimed it and we missed it. Two tiny points. But they will be useful later.
Wierwille never claimed it. You're seeing something that just isn't there. Wierwille was skilled at using ambiguity whenever and wherever it suited his agenda. That's what con men do. They gain your confidence.They make you believe they are telling you the truth. Even Wierwille, himself, stressed this in one session of PFAL when he used an example of a guy who successfully sold a toothbrush though it had only one bristle.
You might have missed the meaning of that lesson. Lots of older grads never saw it in its fullness..
The same way I missed it: we weren't looking for it.
Or maybe it wasn't there in the first place. We often see in text our preconceived notions.
Quote
I didn't see this one, which is characterized by "...edified, exhorted and comforted," until around 1999, and well after I had seen the 3 sledgehammer statements. At that time I was looking for it.
You mean the three cartoon rubber mallet statements? Roget's Theasaurus has more convincing Thus sayeth the Lord statements.
Quote
It looks to me that you severely mis-characterized this statement with "...guy says 'read my book' and, just like that..."
Or he did a very good job characterizing the statement. You mis-characterized it by claiming it was good as scripture by claiming its God-breathe.
Quote
You left out the best part, and then you implied my logic was totally leaning on the 'read my book' phrase. Did you do all that on purpose?
Dude, of the statements you posted: the back of a Count Chocula box has more convincing thus sayeth the Lord statements.
Another thing that undermines your Thus sayeth the Lord statement validity (in addition to Saint Vic's inability to recieve revelation and the verbal gymnastics your presenting) is why were these so-called Thus sayeth the Lord statements hidden?
Saint Vic could have said Thus sayeth the Lord and no one would have batted an eyelash.
So what was his motivation for hiding them?
The usual reason for hiding something is you don't want it known: like Saint Vic's boozing and commiting adultry.
So what was the motivation for hiding the so-called Thus sayeth the Lord statements?
How do you know what goes on in his mind? How do you know his reason for rejecting the statement?
Yet, when it comes to Saint Vic all his drunkeness, wantoness, and theif are beyond reproach, right?
Of course you know, it's called projecting. He doesn't know what goes on in the mind of his readers.
"... humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually intolerant may constantly accuse other people of being intolerant. It incorporates blame shifting."
7 hours ago, Mike said:
Ok. I get asked many questions about little old me.
But then, when I answer some of those questions, I'm slammed for focusing only little old me.
So what was the motivation for hiding the so-called Thus sayeth the Lord statements?
I already discussed this at least once and several times referred to this motivation, so more details are here.
In a nutshell, if any of us had any inkling that VPW intention was shipping out God-breathed English texts, then we would have backed off.
We would not have helped distribute the publications around the globe. It had to be a secret project in order to get it done.
Remember all the teaching he gave us on secrets? When God keeps a secret NO ONE finds out. God, in His foreknowledge, knows if someone is going to be able to keep a secret. This was an ultra secret project.
It had to be secret to get past all the religious error that's been infused into Christian cultures for 2000 years. Religion says God can't be so good or so able as to give us His Authoritative Word in modern English. It's an abomination to religion.
Strict requirements in religion are robes, sandals, beards, and ancient settings before any God-breathed texts are allowed to be given.
I already discussed this at least once and several times referred to this motivation, so more details are here.
In a nutshell, if any of us had any inkling that VPW intention was shipping out God-breathed English texts, then we would have backed off.
We would not have helped distribute the publications around the globe. It had to be a secret project in order to get it done.
Remember all the teaching he gave us on secrets? When God keeps a secret NO ONE finds out. God, in His foreknowledge, knows if someone is going to be able to keep a secret. This was an ultra secret project.
It had to be secret to get past all the religious error that's been infused into Christian cultures for 2000 years. Religion says God can't be so good or so able as to give us His Authoritative Word in modern English. It's an abomination to religion.
Strict requirements in religion are robes, sandals, beards, and ancient settings before any God-breathed texts are allowed to be given.
What?
So, God, who trusts us with his spirit, and God, who trusts us with the greatest secret in the world (the Word of God is the will of God) has to trick us--like the devil would--to get his words out.
We were told PLAF was one thing; now your claiming it's another and we were lied to to get it out: that's trickery and deception.
So God, the creator of the heavens and the earth, who could have just as easily wrote it across the sky, has to resort to deception?
Have I encapsulated your assertation correctly?
First, what makes you think we would have backed off shipping out God-breathe text?
What makes you think we, or some other group wouldn't have distributed it? Word over the world remember?
Abomination? I think it be a shoulder shrug: Meh, we have another religious text to join all the other books being written about religion. And you can see that's the attitude about PLAF: Meh, another religious text to join the others.
So, God, who trusts us with his spirit, and God, who trusts us with the greatest secret in the world (the Word of God is the will of God) has to trick us--like the devil would--to get his words out.
The whole first century church had the same spirit, yet they also were stuck with a natural man mind, and the whole thing fell apart within one generation. I call it the Golden Calf Effect.
We were told PLAF was one thing; now your claiming it's another and we were lied to to get it out: that's trickery and deception.
STOP! We're both right.
It's two, two, two classes in one.
Yes, it's a candy mind. Yes, it's a breath mint.
So God, the creator of the heavens and the earth, who could have just as easily wrote it across the sky, has to resort to deception?
Is not telling the whole truth always deception? I think not.
.He actually DID write it in the sky, but the same Golden Calf thing again, and eventually He had to abandon it, for an upgrade to Moses.
First, what makes you think we would have backed off shipping out God-breathe text?
.People's reactions that I've seen, both here and even with proPFAL people. You gotta figure, it's at the top of the devils priority to get rid of the Word. God is strategic. He did that with The Mystery.
What makes you think we, or some other group wouldn't have distributed it? Word over the world remember?
.Natural man minds, no matter how spiritual it looks at times, is no0t trustworthy. I think this is similar, and even related to, the phrase "like a thief in the night."
Abomination? I think it be a shoulder shrug: Meh, we have another religious text to join all the other books being written about religion. And you can see that's the attitude about PLAF: Meh, another religious text to join the others.
.For me it just means the researching to obtain the text is over, and now it's all study, right dividing, and application. Did you know VPW said almost this EXACT same thing at LCM's inauguration, and it's on the SNS tape?
So, God, who trusts us with his spirit, and God, who trusts us with the greatest secret in the world (the Word of God is the will of God) has to trick us--like the devil would--to get his words out.
The whole first century church had the same spirit, yet they also were stuck with a natural man mind, and the whole thing fell apart within one generation. I call it the Golden Calf Effect.
And that has what to do with your claim God decieved us and tricked us?
We were told PLAF was one thing; now your claiming it's another and we were lied to to get it out: that's trickery and deception.
STOP! We're both right.
It's two, two, two classes in one.
Yes, it's a candy mind. Yes, it's a breath mint.
I always tell people to pay special attention when someone ridicules rather than answers. I remember one tape where Saint Vic was ridiculing people who were saying he was using ministry money to party. How'd that work out for you?
So God, the creator of the heavens and the earth, who could have just as easily wrote it across the sky, has to resort to deception?
Is not telling the whole truth always deception? I think not.
.He actually DID write it in the sky, but the same Golden Calf thing again, and eventually He had to abandon it, for an upgrade to Moses.
Not telling the whole truth is lying, otherwise known as a sin of omission.
In this case however its not, as you claim, not telling the whole truth. It's claiming something is one thing, to get your bidding done, when its really something else. Like that sweet old lady that wants you to help her get her suitcase through customs, then you find its full of cocaine.
First, what makes you think we would have backed off shipping out God-breathe text?
.People's reactions that I've seen, both here and even with proPFAL people. You gotta figure, it's at the top of the devils priority to get rid of the Word. God is strategic. He did that with The Mystery.
No he didn't he made no claim what so ever about the mystery. Nor did he claim it was one thing when it was another. He certainly didn't tell christians it was a class, to get them to do his bidding, then suprise they find out he lied and then they found out what you claim it really was.
Life is just a bowl of oat bran. You wake up every morning and it's there.
Are you all sitting comfybold two square on your botty? Then I'll begin....HERE
oh my gosh !
i had that Small Faces album Ogdens' Nut Gone Flake in the original novelty metal packaging...sigh - lost my album collection when my folks' basement was flooded while i was out WOW.
So, God, who trusts us with his spirit, and God, who trusts us with the greatest secret in the world (the Word of God is the will of God) has to trick us--like the devil would--to get his words out.
The whole first century church had the same spirit, yet they also were stuck with a natural man mind, and the whole thing fell apart within one generation. I call it the Golden Calf Effect.
And that has what to do with your claim God decieved us and tricked us?
.Why do you call it deception? Suppose you buy a CD and SURPRISE! It has a bonus track not mentioned on the cover. Are you angry for being deceived? Lighten up.
We were told PLAF was one thing; now your claiming it's another and we were lied to to get it out: that's trickery and deception.
STOP! We're both right.
It's two, two, two classes in one.
Yes, it's a candy mind. Yes, it's a breath mint.
I always tell people to pay special attention when someone ridicules rather than answers.
.Lighten up. I'm not ridiculing you.
I'm forcing my response to break far away your glum, stern, in-my-face, churchlady holierthanthou evil eye.
Now if you feel that is ridicule, I have 2 suggestions. (1) Look away while I'm cheering myself up a little and entertaining any readers who also think that your glum, stern, in-my-face, churchlady holierthanthou evil eye is not a fun read at all. OR (2) you could lighten up a bit. Maybe if you tried to lighten up it would inspire me, and vice versa in some positive feedback?
But please know I'm not ridiculing you. I'm not making light of anything in you that's inherent. It's your attack style that I feel unnecessary. You think I should just bend over and ask your for another demand or insinuation or evil intention suspicion?
I remember one tape where Saint Vic was ridiculing people who were saying he was using ministry money to party. How'd that work out for you?
.It works badly, assuming I have the story full and accurate, which is a huge assumption, but it saves a lot of time also. Yeah, it works with pain. It works like when I think of the relatives of Uriah. Or the victims of Solomon when he got old and out of it. Whenever a human (even a good one) has a lot of power, using that power wrongly no longer surprises me, but it still is just as painful. The whole creation groans in pain, still. I'm thankful for the islands of relief that only God can supply.
You can tell when I start and when I end my shtick.
I've been trying to answer a lot of your ammunition.. I mean questions. So, why not look at that part of my responses more?
So God, the creator of the heavens and the earth, who could have just as easily wrote it across the sky, has to resort to deception?
Is not telling the whole truth always deception? I think not.
.He actually DID write it in the sky, but the same Golden Calf thing again, and eventually He had to abandon it, for an upgrade to Moses.
Not telling the whole truth is lying, otherwise known as a sin of omission.
.sometimes
In this case however its not, as you claim, not telling the whole truth. It's claiming something is one thing, to get your.......it was God's bidding , not VPW's....... bidding done, when its really something else. Like that sweet old lady that wants you to help her get her suitcase through customs, then you find its full of cocaine. .NOPE. It's like the bonus track on the CD..... and here we are NOT both right.
First, what makes you think we would have backed off shipping out God-breathe text?
.People's reactions that I've seen, both here and even with proPFAL people. You gotta figure, it's at the top of the devils priority to get rid of the Word. God is strategic. He did that with The Mystery.
No he didn't he made no claim what so ever about the mystery. Nor did he claim it was one thing when it was another. He certainly didn't tell christians it was a class, to get them to do his bidding, then suprise they find out he lied and then they found out what you claim it really was.
.Calm down. It might be better to ponder a new idea for a while if it's understanding you want.
Did you find the other recent sections where I mentioned the WHY of the 22 statements being sort of buried and subtle, and the secret bonus benefit of the class to us? They might make this a little more clear.
I think God blessed us all more than we deserved because we were doing His bidding. We were moving the Word in more ways than we knew and we got blessed more than we knew. Like the first century though, that LACKING OF CHRIST FORMED IN US did us in and the blessings stopped. The Corps happened. It was usually new people scene where the real blessing action was.
The whole first century church had the same spirit, yet they also were stuck with a natural man mind, and the whole thing fell apart within one generation. I call it the Golden Calf Effect.
And that has what to do with your claim God decieved us and tricked us?
.Why do you call it deception? Suppose you buy a CD and SURPRISE! It has a bonus track not mentioned on the cover. Are you angry for being deceived? Lighten up.
**Bonus track on a CD? More like the CD's cover claimed Elvis singing gospel, but when it was played Twisted Sister came blaring from the speakers. Then, upon investigating, you find Twisted Sister intentionally put on the Elvis cover to boost their sales. That's deception and trickery, not to mention false advertising.
As far as lightening up, your the one that made the assertation that God used deception and trickery, not me.
We were told PLAF was one thing; now your claiming it's another and we were lied to to get it out: that's trickery and deception.
STOP! We're both right.
It's two, two, two classes in one.
Yes, it's a candy mind. Yes, it's a breath mint.
I always tell people to pay special attention when someone ridicules rather than answers.
.Lighten up. I'm not ridiculing you.
I'm forcing my response to break far away your glum, stern, in-my-face, churchlady holierthanthou evil eye.
**Says the person with the glum, stern, in-your-face, church lady holierthanthou attitude. Which one of the two of us thinks only they have the truth and refuses to look at anything contrary to their beloved thesis?Which one of the two of us refuses to answer questions that would cast doubt on their beloved thesis? And which one of the two of us starts ridicling when a point is made? And which one of the two of us starts crying lighten up whenever there are questions they can't answer?
Now if you feel that is ridicule, I have 2 suggestions. (1) Look away while I'm cheering myself up a little and entertaining any readers who also think that your glum, stern, in-my-face, churchlady holierthanthou evil eye is not a fun read at all.
**I just find it interesting when you choose to entertain yourself. What was that you were saying about attacking the messanger? As you would claim, what's up the message too hard for you to take?
As for my writing, if they can slog through those long post of yours that seem to go on forever (I find myself skimming) then I think they'll manage with my short posts.
OR (2) you could lighten up a bit. Maybe if you tried to lighten up it would inspire me, and vice versa in some positive feedback?
**As I recall, I did that several posts back, before your rubber cartoon mallet statements, you ridiculed me then too. So obviously you don't know how to recieve any feedback
But please know I'm not ridiculing you. I'm not making light of anything in you that's inherent. It's your attack style that I feel unnecessary.
**Feeling attacked? Maybe its your glum, stern, in-your-face, church lady holierthanthou attitude. Quite the ego you have their to think people are attacking you. Maybe you should look at what your really saying sometime instead of accusing other people of attacking you.
You think I should just bend over and ask your for another demand or insinuation or evil intention suspicion?
**I don't have to think that, you prove it when you post?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
63
252
68
130
Popular Days
Jan 25
114
Jan 6
58
Jan 9
51
Jan 3
45
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 63 posts
Mike 252 posts
waysider 68 posts
So_crates 130 posts
Popular Days
Jan 25 2018
114 posts
Jan 6 2018
58 posts
Jan 9 2018
51 posts
Jan 3 2018
45 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."........Thomas Paine.
penworks
Here's an idea: we each drop out of this topic and go read a book.
DontWorryBeHappy
Can anyone tell me dictor paul's scriptural position on the word "Covfefe"? What is the true meaning of that word?? Mike's textual criticism, and use of the basic dictor "keys to research", is as made
Posted Images
Mike
The same way I missed it: we weren't looking for it.
I didn't see this one, which is characterized by "...edified, exhorted and comforted," until around 1999, and well after I had seen the 3 sledgehammer statements. At that time I was looking for it.
It looks to me that you severely mis-characterized this statement with "...guy says 'read my book' and, just like that..."
You left out the best part, and then you implied my logic was totally leaning on the 'read my book' phrase. Did you do all that on purpose?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Don't know you, Mike, or when or how you were involved in TWI... but evidently (and very plainly) you didn't sit much at the feet of vpw (literally, as well as figuratively) and listen (and actually hear, or understand) much of what he said. I'd have asked that as a question... but, think you've already shown (at least some, if not most of) us the answer.
As prideful, egotistical, or narcissistic (take your pick) vpw might have been, I don't believe that he ever saw or thought of himself being capable of writing on par with scripture... else he never would have allowed (or requested) anyone to touch or edit what he wrote. Obviously you never heard or paid attention to him talking about how the writers of scripture did or surely DIDN'T write them...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Mike, there is nothing in the premise referenced in your most recent post to suggest PFAL is divinely inspired. Wierwille used some common words that can also be found quite easily in the Bible. What does that mean? Absolutely nothing.
I hope you catch your golden pony. He's pretty elusive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I agree with you that none of the 22 statements do anything "to suggest PFAL is divinely inspired" as you put it.
You missed the 2 points that ARE BEING proving by those statements: VPW claimed it and we missed it. Two tiny points. But they will be useful later.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Wierwille never claimed it. You're seeing something that just isn't there. Wierwille was skilled at using ambiguity whenever and wherever it suited his agenda. That's what con men do. They gain your confidence.They make you believe they are telling you the truth. Even Wierwille, himself, stressed this in one session of PFAL when he used an example of a guy who successfully sold a toothbrush though it had only one bristle.
You might have missed the meaning of that lesson. Lots of older grads never saw it in its fullness..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Or maybe it wasn't there in the first place. We often see in text our preconceived notions.
You mean the three cartoon rubber mallet statements? Roget's Theasaurus has more convincing Thus sayeth the Lord statements.
Or he did a very good job characterizing the statement. You mis-characterized it by claiming it was good as scripture by claiming its God-breathe.
Dude, of the statements you posted: the back of a Count Chocula box has more convincing thus sayeth the Lord statements.
Another thing that undermines your Thus sayeth the Lord statement validity (in addition to Saint Vic's inability to recieve revelation and the verbal gymnastics your presenting) is why were these so-called Thus sayeth the Lord statements hidden?
Saint Vic could have said Thus sayeth the Lord and no one would have batted an eyelash.
So what was his motivation for hiding them?
The usual reason for hiding something is you don't want it known: like Saint Vic's boozing and commiting adultry.
So what was the motivation for hiding the so-called Thus sayeth the Lord statements?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Of course you know, it's called projecting. He doesn't know what goes on in the mind of his readers.
"... humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually intolerant may constantly accuse other people of being intolerant. It incorporates blame shifting."
Go away?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Dude, you're pulling a Goebbels on your hoped for audience of "pro-PFLAP" readers. Tell the big lie often enough and you hope people will believe it.
Edited by RockyIn fact, you're proving nothing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I already discussed this at least once and several times referred to this motivation, so more details are here.
In a nutshell, if any of us had any inkling that VPW intention was shipping out God-breathed English texts, then we would have backed off.
We would not have helped distribute the publications around the globe. It had to be a secret project in order to get it done.
Remember all the teaching he gave us on secrets? When God keeps a secret NO ONE finds out. God, in His foreknowledge, knows if someone is going to be able to keep a secret. This was an ultra secret project.
It had to be secret to get past all the religious error that's been infused into Christian cultures for 2000 years. Religion says God can't be so good or so able as to give us His Authoritative Word in modern English. It's an abomination to religion.
Strict requirements in religion are robes, sandals, beards, and ancient settings before any God-breathed texts are allowed to be given.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
What?
So, God, who trusts us with his spirit, and God, who trusts us with the greatest secret in the world (the Word of God is the will of God) has to trick us--like the devil would--to get his words out.
We were told PLAF was one thing; now your claiming it's another and we were lied to to get it out: that's trickery and deception.
So God, the creator of the heavens and the earth, who could have just as easily wrote it across the sky, has to resort to deception?
Have I encapsulated your assertation correctly?
First, what makes you think we would have backed off shipping out God-breathe text?
What makes you think we, or some other group wouldn't have distributed it? Word over the world remember?
Abomination? I think it be a shoulder shrug: Meh, we have another religious text to join all the other books being written about religion. And you can see that's the attitude about PLAF: Meh, another religious text to join the others.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
My original comments in black
Mikes in red
My response in BF and large type
So, God, who trusts us with his spirit, and God, who trusts us with the greatest secret in the world (the Word of God is the will of God) has to trick us--like the devil would--to get his words out.
The whole first century church had the same spirit, yet they also were stuck with a natural man mind, and the whole thing fell apart within one generation. I call it the Golden Calf Effect.
And that has what to do with your claim God decieved us and tricked us?
We were told PLAF was one thing; now your claiming it's another and we were lied to to get it out: that's trickery and deception.
STOP! We're both right.
It's two, two, two classes in one.
Yes, it's a candy mind. Yes, it's a breath mint.
I always tell people to pay special attention when someone ridicules rather than answers. I remember one tape where Saint Vic was ridiculing people who were saying he was using ministry money to party. How'd that work out for you?
So God, the creator of the heavens and the earth, who could have just as easily wrote it across the sky, has to resort to deception?
Is not telling the whole truth always deception? I think not.
.He actually DID write it in the sky, but the same Golden Calf thing again, and eventually He had to abandon it, for an upgrade to Moses.
Not telling the whole truth is lying, otherwise known as a sin of omission.
In this case however its not, as you claim, not telling the whole truth. It's claiming something is one thing, to get your bidding done, when its really something else. Like that sweet old lady that wants you to help her get her suitcase through customs, then you find its full of cocaine.
First, what makes you think we would have backed off shipping out God-breathe text?
.People's reactions that I've seen, both here and even with proPFAL people. You gotta figure, it's at the top of the devils priority to get rid of the Word. God is strategic. He did that with The Mystery.
No he didn't he made no claim what so ever about the mystery. Nor did he claim it was one thing when it was another. He certainly didn't tell christians it was a class, to get them to do his bidding, then suprise they find out he lied and then they found out what you claim it really was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Life is just a bowl of oat bran. You wake up every morning and it's there.
Are you all sitting comfybold two square on your botty? Then I'll begin....HERE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
oh my gosh !
i had that Small Faces album Ogdens' Nut Gone Flake in the original novelty metal packaging...sigh - lost my album collection when my folks' basement was flooded while i was out WOW.
Edited by T-Bonedetails
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Just one question to Mike... Do you think that Christ is formed, or is being formed, in you, Mike?
(Hint: the answer would be in the range "Yes" or "No.")
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
My original comments in black
Mikes in red
My response in BF and large type
Mike's response in blue
My new comments in **bf and large type
The whole first century church had the same spirit, yet they also were stuck with a natural man mind, and the whole thing fell apart within one generation. I call it the Golden Calf Effect.
And that has what to do with your claim God decieved us and tricked us?
.Why do you call it deception? Suppose you buy a CD and SURPRISE! It has a bonus track not mentioned on the cover. Are you angry for being deceived? Lighten up.
**Bonus track on a CD? More like the CD's cover claimed Elvis singing gospel, but when it was played Twisted Sister came blaring from the speakers. Then, upon investigating, you find Twisted Sister intentionally put on the Elvis cover to boost their sales. That's deception and trickery, not to mention false advertising.
As far as lightening up, your the one that made the assertation that God used deception and trickery, not me.
We were told PLAF was one thing; now your claiming it's another and we were lied to to get it out: that's trickery and deception.
STOP! We're both right.
It's two, two, two classes in one.
Yes, it's a candy mind. Yes, it's a breath mint.
I always tell people to pay special attention when someone ridicules rather than answers.
.Lighten up. I'm not ridiculing you.
I'm forcing my response to break far away your glum, stern, in-my-face, churchlady holierthanthou evil eye.
**Says the person with the glum, stern, in-your-face, church lady holierthanthou attitude. Which one of the two of us thinks only they have the truth and refuses to look at anything contrary to their beloved thesis?Which one of the two of us refuses to answer questions that would cast doubt on their beloved thesis? And which one of the two of us starts ridicling when a point is made? And which one of the two of us starts crying lighten up whenever there are questions they can't answer?
Now if you feel that is ridicule, I have 2 suggestions. (1) Look away while I'm cheering myself up a little and entertaining any readers who also think that your glum, stern, in-my-face, churchlady holierthanthou evil eye is not a fun read at all.
**I just find it interesting when you choose to entertain yourself. What was that you were saying about attacking the messanger? As you would claim, what's up the message too hard for you to take?
As for my writing, if they can slog through those long post of yours that seem to go on forever (I find myself skimming) then I think they'll manage with my short posts.
OR (2) you could lighten up a bit. Maybe if you tried to lighten up it would inspire me, and vice versa in some positive feedback?
**As I recall, I did that several posts back, before your rubber cartoon mallet statements, you ridiculed me then too. So obviously you don't know how to recieve any feedback
But please know I'm not ridiculing you. I'm not making light of anything in you that's inherent. It's your attack style that I feel unnecessary.
**Feeling attacked? Maybe its your glum, stern, in-your-face, church lady holierthanthou attitude. Quite the ego you have their to think people are attacking you. Maybe you should look at what your really saying sometime instead of accusing other people of attacking you.
You think I should just bend over and ask your for another demand or insinuation or evil intention suspicion?
**I don't have to think that, you prove it when you post?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Too complicated. I forget. What we were talking about?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Surely you won't mind if I answer a question with a question, will you?
or two
Do you know what "Christ formed in you" is yet?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
How convenient, now you never have to answer to the claim that God used deception and trickery--like the devil.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
WOW! You really HAVE mastered the PFAL material..."Answer a question with a question."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
No, I won't consider the word of someone who says God uses the devil's tactics--deception and trickery.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I'm more interested in understanding "Christ formed" than I am debating on it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
And we're more interested in debating "Christ formed", so?
Besides you haven't completed the last topic: God using deception and trickery
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.