Once you honestly believe in your heart that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, how can anyone honestly "undo" that belief that is in their heart?
And I trust that you realize merely thinking it in your mind doesn't "make is so" in your heart. (Which is just as true for any change of heart.)
...meanwhile back at the older post...
Responding to your recent post (not the one I've quoted here - using this as a reference point): The reason I did not answer this question is because it appears to be a logical fallacy – based on false assumptions – which are rather obvious: you assume there is at least a dichotomy within the brain - in terms of where thoughts and beliefs are concerned anyway – further assuming there is some sort of “chasm” that separates the two from functioning together in concert on certain things; and lastly, you assume once a person believes in their heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, they cannot honestly “undo” that belief...
since I do not agree with your assumptions your question did not make sense to me...it's almost like asking me "how many angels could dance on the head of a pin?" what if I don't believe that angels exist...or what if these particular angels are Baptist - don't they know dancing is forbidden?
Hence, some of my questions on defining the “mind” and “heart” were to smoke out assumptions – culminating in my last question to you: “Can you please explain why you think a person cannot change one of their own particular beliefs?”. This was not the old TWI-trick of asking a question with a question; I was merely attempting to cut you off at the pass (of false assumptions ). But if it’s not already obvious, then let me say this - I’m of the opinion that folks can change their own beliefs; so I've answered your question - I think it's possible for a person to honestly "undo" ANY belief - change their mind, have a change of heart, change a viewpoint, do a 180, whatever you want to call it…now that we’ve circled back around (that would be a 360 I guess - which reminds me of a joke I heard – if a person has a 2nd life-changing experience – do they revert back to their old lousy self? )...well anyway...perhaps you want to give it another try:
You said: “Once you honestly believe in your heart that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, how can anyone honestly "undo" that belief that is in their heart?”
I’m asking – why do you say that? Can you explain what the dilemma is?
And for extra credit :
What is so hard about honestly “undoing” a belief that is in the heart? or is your question over this one particular belief - belief in the risen Christ ?
or maybe I've missed what you were looking for; are you actually asking for legitimate do-it-yourself details to undo a belief in the risen Christ?
Edited by T-Bone clarity ...and seeing what underline does when coming to a smiley face...ahhhh - it goes behind the chin
What is so hard about honestly “undoing” a belief that is in the heart?
Do you actually understand how it got there? Given how easy you seem to think it is to "undue," surely believing whatever you want to believe never poses much of a challenge for you.
Very impressive.
(If true.)
Although, I'm curious where you learned it or how you mastered such a feat.
(I suspect it wasn't from twi's blue book. 'cause that hold a picture in your mind until you believe it thingy ain't that good.)
Personally, I think there are reasons things do (and don't) enter the heart of a man... which, if someone's never thought much about, would probably go a long ways towards explaining why they might not see any difference between merely thinking (and/or saying) that they believe something, and actually believing it. But who knows? Maybe you're right and there's no difference whatsoever between what's in the heart or the brain of a man, and his "believing" anything is probably just a figment of his imagination. Then all these "assumptions" are just a bunch of fairy tales that don't even matter.
If you’re talking in just a basic owner/operator sort of way – I guess so...I know what goes on in my heart... if there’s anything to Jesus’ words in Matthew 6: 21 - what I treasure…what I value the most will be in my heart…and I see it as more or less a two-way street – you’ve got traffic in and out; Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander…
...and there’s lots of other things to consider like genetics, the environment, evolution and I dig reading up on what folks like Howard Gardner, Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett and Alvin Plantinga have to say about how the mind works…
...but for practical purposes concerning my life – what goes on in my heart – it's really no great mystery – I tend to monitor the “traffic” going in and out of my heart – what do I think about? what do I like for entertainment? what do I like to do for stress relief? How am I treating the wife and kids? Am I planning to bump off someone? No. Am I plotting how to hit on some woman at work? no. Do I hang around with shady folks who want to rip off unsuspecting fools? No – I left TWI years ago .
Do you actually understand how it got there? Given how easy you seem to think it is to "undue," surely believing whatever you want to believe never poses much of a challenge for you.
Very impressive.
(If true.)
Although, I'm curious where you learned it or how you mastered such a feat.
(I suspect it wasn't from twi's blue book. 'cause that hold a picture in your mind until you believe it thingy ain't that good.) …(SNIP)
Sorry for the delay on addressing this part pf your post…I had to let it simmer until I could boil it down to what I think might be the issue here…and not sure if that’s really it but I’ll take a stab at it anyway…please keep in mind I’m just throwing this out there - - I may be way off base…
From what you’ve said to me it appears you believe the freedom to think and choose takes some enormous effort…I don’t think so…I believe it comes naturally to folks if you don't pull any manipulative strings on them...I don’t think it’s anything to “master” – maybe more along the lines of “use it or lose it” – as one would exercise a muscle so it doesn’t atrophy…now granted - since you mentioned TWI – back in that particular mindset – I did have some mental constraints per their goofy doctrine and practice that set boundaries, dictated what to think and believe, the pressures of group-think, etc. …in that environment, the only choices I had were either TWI’s way (code name: “the Word’s way”) or "oblivion" - (which happened to be wierwille's choice of words on many occasions - see TWI is NOT a Supermassive Black Hole for example).
Things got a whole lot easier once I got out from under their tyrannical thumb. I used to have one of my favorite quotes at the bottom of my posts – but I still have it on my profile page “about me”:
Freedom of the mind requires not only, or not even specially, the absence of legal constraints but the presence of alternative thoughts. The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities..... Allan Bloom... from The Closing of the American Mind
it's been an interesting detour on this thread and I helped start it – sorry – but something to think about: can salvation be lost? What is freedom? Is freedom the power to think and choose what I want without hindrance or restraint? Do we have the freedom to choose salvation? And do we have the freedom to change our minds – to later on reject salvation?
If you’re talking in just a basic owner/operator sort of way – I guess so...I know what goes on in my heart...
If you truly know what you believe and why you believe it (which is certainly possible, I'm not saying it isn't), then I think that's far more than many (most, in my opinion) other people. Back in the day, PFAL was promoted as a "how to" class. And, it certainly did teach "how to" do some number of things, supposedly "how to believe" being among them. Needless to say, efforts to isolate or elevate "how to believe" from what can (or should) be believed can result in... other issues. However, that said, I also think there is some rationale behind why we believe what we believe that actually does help reveal how to believe.
The real difficulty here is keeping this focused on one belief in particular, and the reason for it, and not the how's or why' or wherefore's for anything and everything else.
From what you’ve said to me it appears you believe the freedom to think and choose takes some enormous effort…
I didn't say that, and may not believe that... but maybe I should. (Because I'm not convinced it comes so "naturally" to people nowadays, especially with the advent of the internet and cellphones that so many run to anytime they need to "think" about something...)
Freedom of the mind requires not only, or not even specially, the absence of legal constraints but the presence of alternative thoughts. The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities..... Allan Bloom... from The Closing of the American Mind
If that describes the closing of the American Mind, then I suspect that the instantaneous presence of too many alternative thoughts (i.e., our anytime, instant connection to answers on the Internet) might describe the death of God in the American Mind. Death, in the sense that no one allows God to speak to them in any way other than "through the Net."
So, if one no longer accepts Jesus as Lord, why would that person continue to have salvation?
That doesn't directly address and answer the question. You're merely skating around it with a different question.
Your question: Once you honestly believe in your heart that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, how can anyone honestly "undo" that belief that is in their heart?
I believe it's possible. Plus, the entire verse is: Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
I was not skirting anything, I was emphasizing that it's a two-fold belief, and I also believe going against either of them will cause problems.
On 7/23/2018 at 3:08 AM, TLC said:
On 7/22/2018 at 2:07 PM, Taxidev said:
Plus, it seems you are supposing someone can't have a change of belief. I find that to be starkly untrue. When a person takes in an abundance of worldly (sorry for the TWI term, but it fits) information, culminating in a complete adoption of that into their belief system, then the truth of God and Jesus are pushed aside in PREFERENCE of the world.
I restricted a change to one specific issue. You redirected it with a supposition and are now refuting your own supposition.
I don't see how you see that, but, okay. So, which supposition is that?
yeah in PFAL – didn’t wierwille say something along the lines of if you could do that it meant you’re going to heaven and all hell can’t stop you from going...well, he lived like the devil so he certainly practiced what he preached.
T-Bone, yes he did. Personally, I wonder where he will end-up when Christ comes back.
If you truly know what you believe and why you believe it (which is certainly possible, I'm not saying it isn't), then I think that's far more than many (most, in my opinion) other people. Back in the day, PFAL was promoted as a "how to" class. And, it certainly did teach "how to" do some number of things, supposedly "how to believe" being among them. Needless to say, efforts to isolate or elevate "how to believe" from what can (or should) be believed can result in... other issues. However, that said, I also think there is some rationale behind why we believe what we believe that actually does help reveal how to believe.
The real difficulty here is keeping this focused on one belief in particular, and the reason for it, and not the how's or why' or wherefore's for anything and everything else.
I think a lot of folks - once they get some life experiences under their belt have a pretty good idea of their own core values and belief system; but maybe most folks don’t get into splitting hairs and all kinds of in-depth-thinking-Bible-nerd stuff; but in general, people are curious and like to explore things even if it’s just for fun; I’m that way…and if I’m checking out something new – I like to try and find guidelines or get some idea of the lay of the land…as you mentioned PFAL – that was like that for me…maybe a cobbled together patchwork – but it was somewhere to start for me…
6 hours ago, TLC said:
If that describes the closing of the American Mind, then I suspect that the instantaneous presence of too many alternative thoughts (i.e., our anytime, instant connection to answers on the Internet) might describe the death of God in the American Mind. Death, in the sense that no one allows God to speak to them in any way other than "through the Net."
Yeah I understand what you’re saying…the whole social media scene is like a bizarro-world to me…everyone has something to say and they have to share it with others…or the living-vicariously-machine will stop running. On NPR I heard an interview with Bo Burnham (writer & director for the movie “Eighth Grade”) – commenting on folks who thrive on that whole social media buzz he said something like “can you enjoy living your life if there was no audience?”…so yeah I hear what you’re saying about too many alternative thoughts out there…fortunately we have the freedom to pick and choose what we want to focus on…I love the Internet for the vast resource of info on so many things…I hate the Internet for the vast resource of scams, cons, pseudo-knowledge and the goofballs that are smitten with their own image on the Internet.
yeah in PFAL – didn’t wierwille say something along the lines of if you could do that it meant you’re going to heaven and all hell can’t stop you from going...well, he lived like the devil so he certainly practiced what he preached.
For everybody now convinced that the con man who conned us into thinking he knew the Bible and conned us about that all the time, and now think that he conned us about "speaking in tongues" and what he said was the Biblical thing was just another con, we're certainly not convinced that hearing anyone "SIT" is proof of any holiness or godly connection. In his case, it was a smokescreen for his evil acts. If anyone's going to heaven, I'm suspicious about where he'd end up.
T-Bone, yes he did. Personally, I wonder where he will end-up when Christ comes back.
If I were to place a bet on it (which I won't), I'd probably put my ducats on vpw ending up in "The Outer Darkness." I'm not sure of a lot of details, but it sounds like that's where people like him might end up. And if he doesn't end up there, I suspect he'd wish he DID.
If I were to place a bet on it (which I won't), I'd probably put my ducats on vpw ending up in "The Outer Darkness." I'm not sure of a lot of details, but it sounds like that's where people like him might end up. And if he doesn't end up there, I suspect he'd wish he DID.
Your question: Once you honestly believe in your heart that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, how can anyone honestly "undo" that belief that is in their heart?
I believe it's possible.
Why do you believe that he was raised from the dead when it contradicts everything else that is known and experienced in the world around us?
Do you know, or is this not anything that you have ever asked yourself?
On 7/23/2018 at 12:08 AM, TLC said:
I restricted a change to one specific issue. You redirected it with a supposition and are now refuting your own supposition.
17 hours ago, Taxidev said:
I don't see how you see that, but, okay. So, which supposition is that?
If I were to place a bet on it (which I won't), I'd probably put my ducats on vpw ending up in "The Outer Darkness." I'm not sure of a lot of details, but it sounds like that's where people like him might end up. And if he doesn't end up there, I suspect he'd wish he DID.
Perhaps a few things written in the first chapter of Philippians should be remembered here:
[15] Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: [16] The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: [17] But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. [18] What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.
No, you're wrong. It's yours, as I never said that (and have in a previous post specifically said that I've never said or thought that.)
However, I can see this discussion is repeatedly going nowhere, so I'm done with it.
TLC: There is a black crow. Why is that bird always black?
Taxidev: You're supposing all birds are black. I disagree.
TLC: I restricted that color to one specific bird. You redirected the question with a supposition and are disagreeing with your own supposition. (The real difficulty here is keeping this focused on one bird in particular, and not the how's or why' or wherefore's for anything and everything else. )
Taxidev: I don't see how you see that, but, okay. So, which supposition is that?
TLC: [Quotes Taxidev: supposing all birds are black.]
Taxidev: That supposition was yours, not mine.
TLC: No, you're wrong. It's yours, as I never said that.
Taxidev: [Qoutes TLC: Why is that bird always black?]] Yes, this is your own supposition. Not mine.
Taxidev: Seriously? You won't even acknowledge that your statement is incorrect? Wow.
Perhaps you can answer a question concerning this statement (which, I presume you agree with.)
Since the promise of salvation comes through faith, it can be rejected if one develops a "heart of unbelief," the conscious and deliberate rejection of Christ and God.
Once you honestly believe in your heart that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, how can anyone honestly "undo" that belief that is in their heart?
First, you are only paraphrasing half of the verse in Romans: Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
So, if one no longer accepts Jesus as Lord, why would that person continue to have salvation?
Plus, it seems you are supposing someone can't have a change of belief. I find that to be starkly untrue. When a person takes in an abundance of worldly (sorry for the TWI term, but it fits) information, culminating in a complete adoption of that into their belief system, then the truth of God and Jesus are pushed aside in PREFERENCE of the world. Colossians has something to say about that:
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
So, if one rejects Christ, how can they be complete?
Yes, I completely agree with the statement you reference.
"Apparently you're so convinced that you're right, you don't want to see or hear anything else." From TLC page 10.
The question you posed, highlighted in blue, bolded and underlined, is what I am referencing in my statement, highlighted in red, bolded and underlined. I am describing your supposition, not mine. You little analogy with the bird color is out in left field. I am NOT the one supposing one can't change their belief, by that question you ask it is YOU who is supposing that.
TLC: There is a black crow. Why is that bird always black?
Taxidev: You're supposing all birds are black. I disagree.
TLC: I restricted that color to one specific bird. You redirected the question with a supposition and are disagreeing with your own supposition. (The real difficulty here is keeping this focused on one bird in particular, and not the how's or why' or wherefore's for anything and everything else. )
Taxidev: I don't see how you see that, but, okay. So, which supposition is that?
TLC: [Quotes Taxidev: supposing all birds are black.]
Taxidev: That supposition was yours, not mine.
TLC: No, you're wrong. It's yours, as I never said that.
Taxidev: [Qoutes TLC: Why is that bird always black?]] Yes, this is your own supposition. Not mine.
Taxidev: Seriously? You won't even acknowledge that your statement is incorrect? Wow.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
26
72
50
Popular Days
Jun 4
31
Jun 3
17
Jun 8
13
Jun 7
12
Top Posters In This Topic
TrustAndObey 32 posts
chockfull 26 posts
TLC 72 posts
Taxidev 50 posts
Popular Days
Jun 4 2018
31 posts
Jun 3 2018
17 posts
Jun 8 2018
13 posts
Jun 7 2018
12 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
yeah in PFAL – didn’t wierwille say something along the lines of if you could do that it meant you’re going to heaven and all hell can’t stop you from going...well, he lived like the devil so he cert
waysider
Most modern scholars believe the first gospel written was Mark and that it was written in about 70 CE. Paul's death is placed at 64 CE. Obviously, he would have written the epistles before the date of
OldSkool
Ok. My initial point here is salvation cannot be lost. If a man sows to the flesh, the old man nature, that man will reap the consequences of his actions - both now and loss of reward at the gathering
T-Bone
...meanwhile back at the older post...
Responding to your recent post (not the one I've quoted here - using this as a reference point): The reason I did not answer this question is because it appears to be a logical fallacy – based on false assumptions – which are rather obvious: you assume there is at least a dichotomy within the brain - in terms of where thoughts and beliefs are concerned anyway – further assuming there is some sort of “chasm” that separates the two from functioning together in concert on certain things; and lastly, you assume once a person believes in their heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, they cannot honestly “undo” that belief...
since I do not agree with your assumptions your question did not make sense to me...it's almost like asking me "how many angels could dance on the head of a pin?" what if I don't believe that angels exist...or what if these particular angels are Baptist - don't they know dancing is forbidden?
Hence, some of my questions on defining the “mind” and “heart” were to smoke out assumptions – culminating in my last question to you: “Can you please explain why you think a person cannot change one of their own particular beliefs?”. This was not the old TWI-trick of asking a question with a question; I was merely attempting to cut you off at the pass (of false assumptions
). But if it’s not already obvious, then let me say this - I’m of the opinion that folks can change their own beliefs; so I've answered your question - I think it's possible for a person to honestly "undo" ANY belief - change their mind, have a change of heart, change a viewpoint, do a 180, whatever you want to call it…now that we’ve circled back around (that would be a 360 I guess - which reminds me of a joke I heard – if a person has a 2nd life-changing experience – do they revert back to their old lousy self? )...well anyway...perhaps you want to give it another try:
You said: “Once you honestly believe in your heart that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, how can anyone honestly "undo" that belief that is in their heart?”
I’m asking – why do you say that? Can you explain what the dilemma is?
And for extra credit
:
What is so hard about honestly “undoing” a belief that is in the heart? or is your question over this one particular belief - belief in the risen Christ ?
or maybe I've missed what you were looking for; are you actually asking for legitimate do-it-yourself details to undo a belief in the risen Christ?
Edited by T-Boneclarity ...and seeing what underline does when coming to a smiley face...ahhhh - it goes behind the chin
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Do you actually understand how it got there? Given how easy you seem to think it is to "undue," surely believing whatever you want to believe never poses much of a challenge for you.
Very impressive.
(If true.)
Although, I'm curious where you learned it or how you mastered such a feat.
(I suspect it wasn't from twi's blue book. 'cause that hold a picture in your mind until you believe it thingy ain't that good.)
Personally, I think there are reasons things do (and don't) enter the heart of a man... which, if someone's never thought much about, would probably go a long ways towards explaining why they might not see any difference between merely thinking (and/or saying) that they believe something, and actually believing it. But who knows? Maybe you're right and there's no difference whatsoever between what's in the heart or the brain of a man, and his "believing" anything is probably just a figment of his imagination. Then all these "assumptions" are just a bunch of fairy tales that don't even matter.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
If you’re talking in just a basic owner/operator sort of way – I guess so...I know what goes on in my heart... if there’s anything to Jesus’ words in Matthew 6: 21 - what I treasure…what I value the most will be in my heart…and I see it as more or less a two-way street – you’ve got traffic in and out; Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander…
...and there’s lots of other things to consider like genetics, the environment, evolution and I dig reading up on what folks like Howard Gardner, Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett and Alvin Plantinga have to say about how the mind works…
...but for practical purposes concerning my life – what goes on in my heart – it's really no great mystery – I tend to monitor the “traffic” going in and out of my heart – what do I think about? what do I like for entertainment? what do I like to do for stress relief? How am I treating the wife and kids? Am I planning to bump off someone? No. Am I plotting how to hit on some woman at work? no. Do I hang around with shady folks who want to rip off unsuspecting fools? No – I left TWI years ago
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Sorry for the delay on addressing this part pf your post…I had to let it simmer until I could boil it down to what I think might be the issue here…and not sure if that’s really it but I’ll take a stab at it anyway…please keep in mind I’m just throwing this out there - - I may be way off base…
From what you’ve said to me it appears you believe the freedom to think and choose takes some enormous effort…I don’t think so…I believe it comes naturally to folks if you don't pull any manipulative strings on them...I don’t think it’s anything to “master” – maybe more along the lines of “use it or lose it” – as one would exercise a muscle so it doesn’t atrophy…now granted - since you mentioned TWI – back in that particular mindset – I did have some mental constraints per their goofy doctrine and practice that set boundaries, dictated what to think and believe, the pressures of group-think, etc. …in that environment, the only choices I had were either TWI’s way (code name: “the Word’s way”) or "oblivion" - (which happened to be wierwille's choice of words on many occasions - see TWI is NOT a Supermassive Black Hole for example).
Things got a whole lot easier once I got out from under their tyrannical thumb. I used to have one of my favorite quotes at the bottom of my posts – but I still have it on my profile page “about me”:
Freedom of the mind requires not only, or not even specially, the absence of legal constraints but the presence of alternative thoughts. The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities..... Allan Bloom... from The Closing of the American Mind
it's been an interesting detour on this thread and I helped start it – sorry – but something to think about: can salvation be lost? What is freedom? Is freedom the power to think and choose what I want without hindrance or restraint? Do we have the freedom to choose salvation? And do we have the freedom to change our minds – to later on reject salvation?
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
If you truly know what you believe and why you believe it (which is certainly possible, I'm not saying it isn't), then I think that's far more than many (most, in my opinion) other people. Back in the day, PFAL was promoted as a "how to" class. And, it certainly did teach "how to" do some number of things, supposedly "how to believe" being among them. Needless to say, efforts to isolate or elevate "how to believe" from what can (or should) be believed can result in... other issues. However, that said, I also think there is some rationale behind why we believe what we believe that actually does help reveal how to believe.
The real difficulty here is keeping this focused on one belief in particular, and the reason for it, and not the how's or why' or wherefore's for anything and everything else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I didn't say that, and may not believe that... but maybe I should. (Because I'm not convinced it comes so "naturally" to people nowadays, especially with the advent of the internet and cellphones that so many run to anytime they need to "think" about something...)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
If that describes the closing of the American Mind, then I suspect that the instantaneous presence of too many alternative thoughts (i.e., our anytime, instant connection to answers on the Internet) might describe the death of God in the American Mind. Death, in the sense that no one allows God to speak to them in any way other than "through the Net."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Your question: Once you honestly believe in your heart that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, how can anyone honestly "undo" that belief that is in their heart?
I believe it's possible. Plus, the entire verse is: Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
I was not skirting anything, I was emphasizing that it's a two-fold belief, and I also believe going against either of them will cause problems.
I don't see how you see that, but, okay. So, which supposition is that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
T-Bone, yes he did. Personally, I wonder where he will end-up when Christ comes back.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think a lot of folks - once they get some life experiences under their belt have a pretty good idea of their own core values and belief system; but maybe most folks don’t get into splitting hairs and all kinds of in-depth-thinking-Bible-nerd stuff; but in general, people are curious and like to explore things even if it’s just for fun; I’m that way…and if I’m checking out something new – I like to try and find guidelines or get some idea of the lay of the land…as you mentioned PFAL – that was like that for me…maybe a cobbled together patchwork – but it was somewhere to start for me…
Yeah I understand what you’re saying…the whole social media scene is like a bizarro-world to me…everyone has something to say and they have to share it with others…or the living-vicariously-machine will stop running. On NPR I heard an interview with Bo Burnham (writer & director for the movie “Eighth Grade”) – commenting on folks who thrive on that whole social media buzz he said something like “can you enjoy living your life if there was no audience?”…so yeah I hear what you’re saying about too many alternative thoughts out there…fortunately we have the freedom to pick and choose what we want to focus on…I love the Internet for the vast resource of info on so many things…I hate the Internet for the vast resource of scams, cons, pseudo-knowledge and the goofballs that are smitten with their own image on the Internet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
For everybody now convinced that the con man who conned us into thinking he knew the Bible and conned us about that all the time, and now think that he conned us about "speaking in tongues" and what he said was the Biblical thing was just another con, we're certainly not convinced that hearing anyone "SIT" is proof of any holiness or godly connection. In his case, it was a smokescreen for his evil acts. If anyone's going to heaven, I'm suspicious about where he'd end up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
If I were to place a bet on it (which I won't), I'd probably put my ducats on vpw ending up in "The Outer Darkness." I'm not sure of a lot of details, but it sounds like that's where people like him might end up. And if he doesn't end up there, I suspect he'd wish he DID.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
WW,
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Why do you believe that he was raised from the dead when it contradicts everything else that is known and experienced in the world around us?
Do you know, or is this not anything that you have ever asked yourself?
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Perhaps a few things written in the first chapter of Philippians should be remembered here:
[15] Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
[16] The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
[17] But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
[18] What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Whether in pretence or in truth it’s debatable as to how much of what wierwille taught was even about Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
That was your supposition, not mine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
No, you're wrong. It's yours, as I never said that (and have in a previous post specifically said that I've never said or thought that.)
However, I can see this discussion is repeatedly going nowhere, so I'm done with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Yes, this is your own supposition. Not mine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Seriously? You won't even acknowledge that your statement is incorrect? Wow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
T-Bone, I think much of what VPW "taught," was Dung.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Apparently you're so convinced that you're right, you don't want to see or hear anything else.
_______________________________________________________________________
TLC: There is a black crow. Why is that bird always black?
Edited by TLCTaxidev: You're supposing all birds are black. I disagree.
TLC: I restricted that color to one specific bird. You redirected the question with a supposition and are disagreeing with your own supposition.
(The real difficulty here is keeping this focused on one bird in particular, and not the how's or why' or wherefore's for anything and everything else. )
Taxidev: I don't see how you see that, but, okay. So, which supposition is that?
TLC: [Quotes Taxidev: supposing all birds are black.]
Taxidev: That supposition was yours, not mine.
TLC: No, you're wrong. It's yours, as I never said that.
Taxidev: [Qoutes TLC: Why is that bird always black?]] Yes, this is your own supposition. Not mine.
Taxidev: Seriously? You won't even acknowledge that your statement is incorrect? Wow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
"Apparently you're so convinced that you're right, you don't want to see or hear anything else." From TLC page 10.
The question you posed, highlighted in blue, bolded and underlined, is what I am referencing in my statement, highlighted in red, bolded and underlined. I am describing your supposition, not mine. You little analogy with the bird color is out in left field. I am NOT the one supposing one can't change their belief, by that question you ask it is YOU who is supposing that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
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.