Even if we allow you the see saw example, they are NEVER parallel. They are either coincidental or intersecting.
The see saw is parallel to the ground when the children's' weights are balanced.
Another mind image: parallel lines point in the SAME direction, they are harmonious, they are not at "cross purposes," they are balanced in that sense. This section of the class ALWAYS made sense to me, but then again I was 23 and already had a huge Physics, Math, Mechanical Drawing background. That whole teaching was crystal clear and flawless to me, and still is.
Has anyone thought to consult the Oxford Dictionary? I wonder what usage #8 of "parallel" is.
"Aren't we full of ourselves?" ... Both churchlady talk and churchlady grammar. Nice.
If you're not interested in discussing it any more, and I'm not interested in discussing it any more, then I guess we wont discuss it any more.
Isn't it strange that everytime someone reminds you that its your ego working, not PLAF, not the holy ghost, you resort to calling it churchlady stuff. Remind me again what you said about attacking the messenger, what's up message to strong for you?
As you would say: context
In this case the context is if you didn't get your way you'd lose interest.
The see saw is parallel to the ground when the children's' weights are balanced.
Another mind image: parallel lines point in the SAME direction, they are harmonious, they are not at "cross purposes," they are balanced in that sense. This section of the class ALWAYS made sense to me, but then again I was 23 and already had a huge Physics, Math, Mechanical Drawing background. That whole teaching was crystal clear and flawless to me, and still is.
Has anyone thought to consult the Oxford Dictionary? I wonder what usage #8 of "parallel" is.
Needs and Wants must be parallel
Child A = Needs
Child B = Wants
See Saw Plank = Coinciding Plane
The Ground = Not part of the problem. The fulcrum does not need to rest on an absolute horizontal plane.
When Child A's weight is balanced with Child B's weight, they occupy a coinciding plane.
I'm SURE we discussed committee written books 10 years ago.
I don't know how someone can write such breathtakingly dishonest posts and still consider themselves Christian.
Honestly, how do you do it? Is your relationship with Christ so meaningless to you that you fail to say how you assassinate his character by claiming to be his disciple? I'm not even a Christian anymore and I'm embarrassed for him at the notion that someone might mistake you for one of his followers.
I don't know how someone can write such breathtakingly dishonest posts and still consider themselves Christian.
Honestly, how do you do it? Is your relationship with Christ so meaningless to you that you fail to say how you assassinate his character by claiming to be his disciple? I'm not even a Christian anymore and I'm embarrassed for himdisgusted at the notion that someone might mistake you for one of his followers.
I don't know how someone can write such breathtakingly dishonest posts...
We discussed how University professors write books via their grad students. Often the grad students get little or even zero credit. This is a long standing tradition, and I know I brought it up several times back then, and once weeks ago..
What text in particular had you in mind? Or was that a general complaint?
So, you'd disagree with that guy who told me I'd do well if I focused only on written PFAL? He knew a lot about character problems at TWI, yet he knew none of that was in written PFAL. He thought I'd be somewhat limited, but so are most people who focus only on their KJV. Hardly anyone reads it thoroughly.
I do not accept your criticism of me nor Raf's. Your ability to judge is very limited.
Right now the character issue I'm trying to figure out how to keep posting here on the topic and not on me and my character. I’m very concerned about cooling things off a bit and relaxing into conversation. It sounds like you want to fight. I’m tired of that and I donot want to stir things up. Give me ideas. Try some peace experiments of your own. Why turn to condemnation. You look a lot like TWI to me. You think they have a monopoly?It’s human frailties that are common to us all. If you think you’re immune, please think again.
I was trying to answer as many questions as possible and this derails my effort. We’re drifting right back to mudslinging instead of talking the issues in the text of PFAL.
Define the variables for me once more. It's been a long time since I sat in a Physics lecture.
Go back and re-read. I feel you are goading and not very interested in what I'm saying. Go back and see what I said was parallel. I'm going to quiz you on it.
Why did you say so little on the proof that inspired you bet your life on the traditional Canon?
That issue was a HUGE one for me for the decades before I came back to PFAL. I study the phenomenon of what makes people accept a theory... mostly in science. I was fascinated with the same issue regarding the Canon and with the contents. I think very few believers think this through. It is scary to do it the first 10 times. Most have zero practice at thinking about this, and greatly prefer to "Leave it for the theologians."
Have you ever witnessed to anyone regarding having the God-breathed nature of the standard KJV Canon proved to them?How do you deal with errors in the English Versions? In the Critical Greek Texts?
Here are some interesting side questions having nothing to do with my general study of proof.Have you ever tried to prove the KJV Canon and contents to a highly adversarial group of posters, like 5 maybe? How about 65?I think that was the number someone counted on one thread against me about 14 years ago.
I was just wondering if you were ever on the other end of a firing squad. I suspect not.
Let’s PLEASE calm things down a little?Not so much for my sake, but for your own.
Wouldn’t you like it if I was posting all my stuff to TWI?They wont let me, but we know the WAYGB is still around. They must come here. It’s gotta infiltrate a little there.
Go back and re-read. I feel you are goading and not very interested in what I'm saying. Go back and see what I said was parallel. I'm going to quiz you on it.
14 minutes ago, Mike said:
I’m very concerned about cooling things off a bit and relaxing into conversation. It sounds like you want to fight. I’m tired of that and I donot want to stir things up. Give me ideas. Try some peace experiments of your own. Why turn to condemnation. You look a lot like TWI to me. You think they have a monopoly?It’s human frailties that are common to us all. If you think you’re immune, please think again.
We’re drifting right back to mudslinging instead of talking the issues in the text of PFAL.
Read the above two posts and think how they work against each other.
Smart mouths rarely cool things off. And then you wonder why there's mudslinging?
He asked a straight question, is it so hard to give a straight answer?
Yeah, you could do that. Or, ya know, you could simply define the variables again
4 minutes ago, Mike said:
So, you'd disagree with that guy who told me I'd do well if I focused only on written PFAL? He knew a lot about character problems at TWI, yet he knew none of that was in written PFAL. He thought I'd be somewhat limited, but so are most people who focus only on their KJV. Hardly anyone reads it thoroughly.
Well, you seem to have taken his advise about focusing on PFAL. How's that working out for you?
I do not accept your criticism of me nor Raf's. Your ability to judge is very limited.
Well, you are certainly free to your own opinion.
4 minutes ago, Mike said:
Right now the character issue I'm trying to figure out how to keep posting here on the topic and not on me and my character. I’m very concerned about cooling things off a bit and relaxing into conversation. It sounds like you want to fight. I’m tired of that and I donot want to stir things up. Give me ideas. Try some peace experiments of your own. Why turn to condemnation. You look a lot like TWI to me. You think they have a monopoly?It’s human frailties that are common to us all. If you think you’re immune, please think again.
Oh, I'm relaxed. No desire to fight. You need to stop projecting your reactions on other people.
4 minutes ago, Mike said:
I was trying to answer as many questions as possible and this derails my effort. We’re drifting right back to mudslinging instead of talking the issues in the text of PFAL.
You haven't answered ANYTHING yet. You just stand on your soapbox like the guy downtown and demand we accept your assertions at face value.
I have taken issue with the text of PFAL. In fact, I did exactly that only a few posts ago.You seem, after all these years, to still be unable to engage in a logical argument.
Let’s PLEASE calm things down a little?Not so much for my sake, but for your own.
Wouldn’t you like it if I was posting all my stuff to TWI?They wont let me, but we know the WAYGB is still around. They must come here. It’s gotta infiltrate a little there.
You remind me of the guy who walks up to another guy in a bar, slaps him in the face, and then calls for peace.
I'm seriously re-considering what it is I'm doing here. I think I may have broke So_crates merrygoround. I think similar things are happening with other posters. THAT is not my intention. I thought that BY NOW, after a couple of months of posting, that the shock value of my message would have worn off a little. It seems it is not.
Is there any way I can discuss these things, even answer questions, without provoking such negative emotions?
"I'm seriously re-considering what it is I'm doing here. I think I may have broke So_crates merrygoround. I think similar things are happening with other posters. THAT is not my intention. I thought that BY NOW, after a couple of months of posting, that the shock value of my message would have worn off a little. It seems it is not.
"Is there any way I can discuss these things, even answer questions, without provoking such negative emotions?"
Mike... you are widely perceived as being overtly disingenuous and toying with others here. So, NO there isn't any longer a way that you can post without provoking so much.
Mike... you are widely perceived as being overtly disingenuous and toying with others here. So, NO there isn't any longer a way that you can post without provoking so much.
Well, maybe I should just post less.
I admit I toy with language, and I make light of stern fire in my face, and I also admitted we'd drifted back into mudslinging after a slightly encouraging afternoon.
I was thinking of finishing my 22 statements, then they'd be up for discussion later.
Besides, I'm putting more time in here than in FaceBook! By that measure I'm, over the line.
I admit I toy with language, and I make light of stern fire in my face, and I also admitted we'd drifted back into mudslinging after a slightly encouraging afternoon.
What was so encouraging? The only thing I got out of the whole afternoon was the usual: "Parallel isn't an error because I say it isn't an error." That's not encouraging to me.
Quote
I was thinking of finishing my 22 statements, then they'd be up for discussion later.
You don't think they haven't been up for discussion since you've posted them. Again, the only thing WE'RE getting out of them is the usual: "They prove PLAF is God-breathe because I say they prove PLAF is God-breathe."
What was so encouraging? The only thing I got out of the whole afternoon was the usual: "Parallel isn't an error because I say it isn't an error." That's not encouraging to me.
You don't think they haven't been up for discussion since you've posted them. Again, the only thing WE'RE getting out of them is the usual: "They prove PLAF is God-breathe because I say they prove PLAF is God-breathe."
Are you starting to see a pattern here?
Mike, feel free to post, but I think it's what you post, that irritates me. It seems to me, that you keeping posting the same old garbage, in different ways. When others point this out, you get upset, and try to defend your views. Mike, any farmer will tell you, S&it, is still S&it, no matter what you put it on.
Thanks to all for elaborating on the error in PFAL concerning to receive anything from God / having your needs and wants parallel; besides that – there’s another one on that to-receive-anything-from-God-list-of-requirements that I think is similar to it – – to receive anything from God you must know what is available…according to the scriptures God is omnipotent and therefore is not bound by our limitations of knowledge or abilities:
Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us… Eph. 3:20 NIV
Ya know wierwille’s spiel makes me think of the line in America’s song “Tin Man”…Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man that he didn’t already have…
I think a lot of PFAL is just a bunch of hooky-pook rigmarole to put folks under wierwille’s thumb…screw that ! if you’re a Christian declare your allegiance to Jesus Christ, assert your independence from wierwille’s cult and enjoy the freedom and peace our Lord provides…I’m talking to anyone still stuck in wierwille’s doctrine.
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
"Aren't we full of ourselves?" ... Both churchlady talk and churchlady grammar. Nice.
If you're not interested in discussing it any more, and I'm not interested in discussing it any more, then I guess we wont discuss it any more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The see saw is parallel to the ground when the children's' weights are balanced.
Another mind image: parallel lines point in the SAME direction, they are harmonious, they are not at "cross purposes," they are balanced in that sense. This section of the class ALWAYS made sense to me, but then again I was 23 and already had a huge Physics, Math, Mechanical Drawing background. That whole teaching was crystal clear and flawless to me, and still is.
Has anyone thought to consult the Oxford Dictionary? I wonder what usage #8 of "parallel" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Isn't it strange that everytime someone reminds you that its your ego working, not PLAF, not the holy ghost, you resort to calling it churchlady stuff. Remind me again what you said about attacking the messenger, what's up message to strong for you?
As you would say: context
In this case the context is if you didn't get your way you'd lose interest.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Needs and Wants must be parallel
Child A = Needs
Child B = Wants
See Saw Plank = Coinciding Plane
The Ground = Not part of the problem. The fulcrum does not need to rest on an absolute horizontal plane.
When Child A's weight is balanced with Child B's weight, they occupy a coinciding plane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Has anyone thought to consult the Oxford Dictionary? I wonder what usage #8 of "parallel" is."
Please enlighten us. I'm curious to know why usage #8 is more relevant than usages #1-#7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't know how someone can write such breathtakingly dishonest posts and still consider themselves Christian.
Honestly, how do you do it? Is your relationship with Christ so meaningless to you that you fail to say how you assassinate his character by claiming to be his disciple? I'm not even a Christian anymore and I'm embarrassed for him at the notion that someone might mistake you for one of his followers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
FTFY (Fixed That For You)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
We discussed how University professors write books via their grad students. Often the grad students get little or even zero credit. This is a long standing tradition, and I know I brought it up several times back then, and once weeks ago..
What text in particular had you in mind? Or was that a general complaint?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Nope. Not at all what I said. I'll just let it stand what I did write, and maybe upon re-reading you'll see what I meant. Maybe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Define the variables for me once more. It's been a long time since I sat in a Physics lecture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
So, you'd disagree with that guy who told me I'd do well if I focused only on written PFAL? He knew a lot about character problems at TWI, yet he knew none of that was in written PFAL. He thought I'd be somewhat limited, but so are most people who focus only on their KJV. Hardly anyone reads it thoroughly.
I do not accept your criticism of me nor Raf's. Your ability to judge is very limited.
Right now the character issue I'm trying to figure out how to keep posting here on the topic and not on me and my character. I’m very concerned about cooling things off a bit and relaxing into conversation. It sounds like you want to fight. I’m tired of that and I do not want to stir things up. Give me ideas. Try some peace experiments of your own. Why turn to condemnation. You look a lot like TWI to me. You think they have a monopoly? It’s human frailties that are common to us all. If you think you’re immune, please think again.
I was trying to answer as many questions as possible and this derails my effort. We’re drifting right back to mudslinging instead of talking the issues in the text of PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Go back and re-read. I feel you are goading and not very interested in what I'm saying. Go back and see what I said was parallel. I'm going to quiz you on it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Why did you say so little on the proof that inspired you bet your life on the traditional Canon?
That issue was a HUGE one for me for the decades before I came back to PFAL. I study the phenomenon of what makes people accept a theory... mostly in science. I was fascinated with the same issue regarding the Canon and with the contents. I think very few believers think this through. It is scary to do it the first 10 times. Most have zero practice at thinking about this, and greatly prefer to "Leave it for the theologians."
Have you ever witnessed to anyone regarding having the God-breathed nature of the standard KJV Canon proved to them? How do you deal with errors in the English Versions? In the Critical Greek Texts?
Here are some interesting side questions having nothing to do with my general study of proof. Have you ever tried to prove the KJV Canon and contents to a highly adversarial group of posters, like 5 maybe? How about 65? I think that was the number someone counted on one thread against me about 14 years ago.
I was just wondering if you were ever on the other end of a firing squad. I suspect not.
Let’s PLEASE calm things down a little? Not so much for my sake, but for your own.
Wouldn’t you like it if I was posting all my stuff to TWI? They wont let me, but we know the WAYGB is still around. They must come here. It’s gotta infiltrate a little there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Read the above two posts and think how they work against each other.
Smart mouths rarely cool things off. And then you wonder why there's mudslinging?
He asked a straight question, is it so hard to give a straight answer?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yeah, you could do that. Or, ya know, you could simply define the variables again
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
You remind me of the guy who walks up to another guy in a bar, slaps him in the face, and then calls for peace.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
We can HOPE!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
No.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
He'll never give up. He has to ...STAND! ...'cuz VPW said so. (session #5? Help me out here, Mike.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
"I'm seriously re-considering what it is I'm doing here. I think I may have broke So_crates merrygoround. I think similar things are happening with other posters. THAT is not my intention. I thought that BY NOW, after a couple of months of posting, that the shock value of my message would have worn off a little. It seems it is not.
"Is there any way I can discuss these things, even answer questions, without provoking such negative emotions?"
Mike... you are widely perceived as being overtly disingenuous and toying with others here. So, NO there isn't any longer a way that you can post without provoking so much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Well, maybe I should just post less.
I admit I toy with language, and I make light of stern fire in my face, and I also admitted we'd drifted back into mudslinging after a slightly encouraging afternoon.
I was thinking of finishing my 22 statements, then they'd be up for discussion later.
Besides, I'm putting more time in here than in FaceBook! By that measure I'm, over the line.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
What was so encouraging? The only thing I got out of the whole afternoon was the usual: "Parallel isn't an error because I say it isn't an error." That's not encouraging to me.
You don't think they haven't been up for discussion since you've posted them. Again, the only thing WE'RE getting out of them is the usual: "They prove PLAF is God-breathe because I say they prove PLAF is God-breathe."
Are you starting to see a pattern here?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Mike, feel free to post, but I think it's what you post, that irritates me. It seems to me, that you keeping posting the same old garbage, in different ways. When others point this out, you get upset, and try to defend your views. Mike, any farmer will tell you, S&it, is still S&it, no matter what you put it on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JayDee
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
T-Bone, we have a winner!!
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.