it's readily apparent (from more than two decades of your engagement w/GSC) that you have genuine blinders keeping you from expanding that search into religion/theology or any other way to characterize "the things of God."
You are mistaking my carefully and slowly positioned LOCKS for unconscious and numb blinders.
Unlike most of you, I did not "fall in love" with VPW. I went back and forth for many years on how much and where I wanted to trust him. I was a very careful in thinking through my position; unlike most posters here IMO. Most here snapped when their vpw-idol failed them.
For sure, my careful and slow embracing of VPW and the collaterals, was unlike and even opposite of how Penworks made her early TWI decisions.
When I reached my 50th birthday, about 28 years after first taking PFAL, I was FINALLY ready to commit my life to the treasure I found by being occasionally meek to the collaterals.
J Juedes made up his mind to loath VPW in session one, from what I've seen.
Rocky, my expanded "search into religion/theology or any other way to characterize 'the things of God'" started in the late 1960s and was ENDING in the early 1970s years that I was in the Word. I gave it a run, and it sucks what others say about God out there. You folks just love to eat up that junk out of your love to hate PFAL and VPW. You can't fool me.
Mike, you had a Bible. You found it hard to read. There are many versions, including Janet & John type versions for very early learners and those for whom English is not their first language.
You had a Bible. Yet you never thought to read Acts, or the epistles? Sounds like you didn't bother with the gospels, either. Just what, if anything, did you read?
And now you're stuck in Janet & John book 1, the simplest reading book, aka the blue book.
Where are you going to find God's written Word, outside the collaterals, where if is understandable?
An early comprehensive Roman Catholic missal? When I say that to protestant believers they may laugh and not believe it but the Word is written there. But don't believe me, go ahead and please buy one and read it for yourself. It's not good to believe everything bad you hear about the RC church... don't get gypt.
Mike, you had a Bible. You found it hard to read. There are many versions, including Janet & John type versions for very early learners and those for whom English is not their first language.
You had a Bible. Yet you never thought to read Acts, or the epistles? Sounds like you didn't bother with the gospels, either. Just what, if anything, did you read?
And now you're stuck in Janet & John book 1, the simplest reading book, aka the blue book.
(sigh)
I started with the Gospel of John, and had a notebook to record all the possible interpretations I could think of for each verse. I never finished chapter 1. I already knew the story, and was totally bogged down in minutia. Most of my study sessions were quickly converted to nap time.
Rocky, my expanded "search into religion/theology or any other way to characterize 'the things of God'" started in the late 1960s and was ENDING in the early 1970s years that I was in the Word. I gave it a run, and it sucks what others say about God out there. You folks just love to eat up that junk out of your love to hate PFAL and VPW.
Didn't you claim VERY recently that you continually challenge your position?
An early comprehensive Roman Catholic missal? When I say that to protestant believers they may laugh and not believe it but the Word is written there. But don't believe me, go ahead and please buy one and read it for yourself. It's not good to believe everything bad you hear about the RC church... don't get gypt.
You are mistaking my carefully and slowly positioned LOCKSfor unconscious and numb blinders.
A poignant example of the opposite of an "I" statement. Not something the emotionally mature or emotionally intelligent person would normally do.
From a recent Orlando Sentinel op-ed "indoctrination seeks to suppress other points of view so that the preferred point of view will go unchallenged. Critical thinking encourages community inquiry and discourse while indoctrination insists on the acceptance of hierarchical proclamations and the imposition of “correct” ideas onto others."
While Mike might CHALLENGE any suggestion he seeks to suppress other points of view... regarding his bibliolatry, does he EVER engage in legitimate back and forth discussion which validates any position which contradicts his?
An early comprehensive Roman Catholic missal? When I say that to protestant believers they may laugh and not believe it but the Word is written there. But don't believe me, go ahead and please buy one and read it for yourself. It's not good to believe everything bad you hear about the RC church... don't get gypt.
My 60 year old plus memory of my "St. Joseph's Missal" is that not all of the Epistles, in their entirety, are read in the course of a year.
So I see that missal as a set of "clippings" from the Epistles, and not a set with complete coverage.
Only a short 5 minute reading per Mass from scattered clippings is all I remember. I wonder how 5 minutes times 365 comes out in minutes, compared to how long an audio Bible takes to cover all the epistles in their entirety.
Critical thinking encourages community inquiry and discourse while indoctrination insists on the acceptance of hierarchical proclamations and the imposition of “correct” ideas onto others." ... While Mike might CHALLENGE any suggestion he seeks to suppress other points of view... regarding his bibliolatry, does he EVER engage in legitimate back and forth discussion which validates any position which contradicts his?
I went through LOTS of critical thinking of VPW and the collaterals from the first day to about 1998.
All the things you think are lacking in my mode of thinking were done up right, and long ago 1971-98.
The only reason for an academic to NEVER think of hanging up his big gun critical skills...
...is because that academic does not think it is possible to ever FIND the objective hard-core Truth.
Okay. Perhaps. I guess I didn't see his self-justification in that context.
3 hours ago, Mike said:
You are mistaking my carefully and slowly positioned LOCKS for unconscious and numb blinders.
Unlike most of you, I did not "fall in love" with VPW. I went back and forth for many years on how much and where I wanted to trust him. I was a very careful in thinking through my position; unlike most posters here IMO. Most here snapped when their vpw-idol failed them.
For sure, my careful and slow embracing of VPW and the collaterals, was unlike and even opposite of how Penworks made her early TWI decisions.
When I reached my 50th birthday, about 28 years after first taking PFAL, I was FINALLY ready to commit my life to the treasure I found by being occasionally meek to the collaterals.
J Juedes made up his mind to loath VPW in session one, from what I've seen.
Rocky, my expanded "search into religion/theology or any other way to characterize 'the things of God'" started in the late 1960s and was ENDING in the early 1970s years that I was in the Word. I gave it a run, and it sucks what others say about God out there. You folks just love to eat up that junk out of your love to hate PFAL and VPW.
Maybe I should give Mike some credit for trying. Yet, telling me I was mistaken; saying he didn't "fall in love" with VPW; claiming he knew Penworks' thinking process; saying John Juedes made up his mind in session one (even though he, MIKE took 28 years to arrive at his position); declaring "You folks just love to eat up that junk" as a result of (his characterization of our different position as loving to) hate PFAL and Victor Wierwille... I didn't see each of those things as Mike engaging in discourse. I saw/see them as him condemning those who disagree with his view/position.
Didn't you claim VERY recently that you continually challenge your position?
MANY times here I have posted VPW's last magazine article where he calls for a "spiritual makeover" where he challenged us to ASK ourselves about everything we believe: WHY do I believe it. Who taught it to me?
THAT I do often, and not just in spiritual matters.
But what I do NOT do is trash my current beliefs, and pick up garbage to take their place, simply because it is different from my current beliefs.
Really? How is that anything like describing your decision and commitment process?
It isn't anything like that.
It was describing why you are so perplexed that I don't tear up my beliefs with critical thinking skills. You, like all acdemics, hate the idea that I would be FINISHED with that process, because I FOUND the truth. Academics don't like it when some says this. It is anathema to the Academics Creed - We will seek forever.
THAT I do often, and not just in spiritual matters.
But what I do NOT do is trash my current beliefs, and pick up garbage to take their place, simply because it is different from my current beliefs.
Please enlighten us as to how you carry out such a challenge. Many times change is incremental. Such a process does not typically involve, for anyone, "trashing one's current beliefs and picking up garbage to take their place."
Doesn't that characterization actually belie the fact that you (as many of us have repeatedly observed) completely dismiss any and every one who disagrees with you? In which case, if you do (as we generally interpret your comments to mean) so dismiss others, how could you reasonably claim to engage in civil discourse?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
52
50
37
Popular Days
Jul 31
87
Jul 27
47
Aug 4
36
Aug 5
34
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 61 posts
Mike 52 posts
OldSkool 50 posts
Nathan_Jr 37 posts
Popular Days
Jul 31 2023
87 posts
Jul 27 2023
47 posts
Aug 4 2023
36 posts
Aug 5 2023
34 posts
Popular Posts
penworks
Or, for something completely different along these lines, there's a very compelling argument for doing away with bible study altogether in a "shocking" book called The End of Biblical Studies (gasp!)
waysider
The sound of irony is deafening.
OldSkool
I dont see jeering and chatter I saw you completely shut down because you were confronted with uncomfortable truths that you are smart enough to recognize but deluded enough to rationalize them away.
Posted Images
waysider
Did he, though? Much of what he expounded had been passed down through oral tradition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Careful, your contradicting wierwille the great with actual, verfiable history...so wierwille mustve been right..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
“God's Word is as much God as God is God.“
Literal translation according to usage:
YourWalk+TheBible+ChristInYou+YourBelieving = God
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I thought God is love, spirit and light so now hes print on a page? Not!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You are mistaking my carefully and slowly positioned LOCKS for unconscious and numb blinders.
Unlike most of you, I did not "fall in love" with VPW. I went back and forth for many years on how much and where I wanted to trust him. I was a very careful in thinking through my position; unlike most posters here IMO. Most here snapped when their vpw-idol failed them.
For sure, my careful and slow embracing of VPW and the collaterals, was unlike and even opposite of how Penworks made her early TWI decisions.
When I reached my 50th birthday, about 28 years after first taking PFAL, I was FINALLY ready to commit my life to the treasure I found by being occasionally meek to the collaterals.
J Juedes made up his mind to loath VPW in session one, from what I've seen.
Rocky, my expanded "search into religion/theology or any other way to characterize 'the things of God'" started in the late 1960s and was ENDING in the early 1970s years that I was in the Word. I gave it a run, and it sucks what others say about God out there. You folks just love to eat up that junk out of your love to hate PFAL and VPW. You can't fool me.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
God is all those things, but they are invisible to the senses.
God puts His heart into print for those stuck in the senses realm.
...which is all of us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
(sigh)
Mike, you had a Bible. You found it hard to read. There are many versions, including Janet & John type versions for very early learners and those for whom English is not their first language.
You had a Bible. Yet you never thought to read Acts, or the epistles? Sounds like you didn't bother with the gospels, either. Just what, if anything, did you read?
And now you're stuck in Janet & John book 1, the simplest reading book, aka the blue book.
(sigh)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Janet & John book 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
An early comprehensive Roman Catholic missal? When I say that to protestant believers they may laugh and not believe it but the Word is written there. But don't believe me, go ahead and please buy one and read it for yourself. It's not good to believe everything bad you hear about the RC church... don't get gypt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I started with the Gospel of John, and had a notebook to record all the possible interpretations I could think of for each verse. I never finished chapter 1. I already knew the story, and was totally bogged down in minutia. Most of my study sessions were quickly converted to nap time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
But you ARE in love with the collaterals, which is bibliolotry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
How would you know if you haven't read her book?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Didn't know I couldn't see light or feel love...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Of course.
Didn't you claim VERY recently that you continually challenge your position?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Got a link?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
A poignant example of the opposite of an "I" statement. Not something the emotionally mature or emotionally intelligent person would normally do.
From a recent Orlando Sentinel op-ed "indoctrination seeks to suppress other points of view so that the preferred point of view will go unchallenged. Critical thinking encourages community inquiry and discourse while indoctrination insists on the acceptance of hierarchical proclamations and the imposition of “correct” ideas onto others."
While Mike might CHALLENGE any suggestion he seeks to suppress other points of view... regarding his bibliolatry, does he EVER engage in legitimate back and forth discussion which validates any position which contradicts his?
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You mean like this one?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
My 60 year old plus memory of my "St. Joseph's Missal" is that not all of the Epistles, in their entirety, are read in the course of a year.
So I see that missal as a set of "clippings" from the Epistles, and not a set with complete coverage.
Only a short 5 minute reading per Mass from scattered clippings is all I remember. I wonder how 5 minutes times 365 comes out in minutes, compared to how long an audio Bible takes to cover all the epistles in their entirety.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I went through LOTS of critical thinking of VPW and the collaterals from the first day to about 1998.
All the things you think are lacking in my mode of thinking were done up right, and long ago 1971-98.
The only reason for an academic to NEVER think of hanging up his big gun critical skills...
...is because that academic does not think it is possible to ever FIND the objective hard-core Truth.
Academics hate seekers who find.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Okay. Perhaps. I guess I didn't see his self-justification in that context.
Maybe I should give Mike some credit for trying. Yet, telling me I was mistaken; saying he didn't "fall in love" with VPW; claiming he knew Penworks' thinking process; saying John Juedes made up his mind in session one (even though he, MIKE took 28 years to arrive at his position); declaring "You folks just love to eat up that junk" as a result of (his characterization of our different position as loving to) hate PFAL and Victor Wierwille... I didn't see each of those things as Mike engaging in discourse. I saw/see them as him condemning those who disagree with his view/position.
Sorry Waysider. Sorry Mike.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
MANY times here I have posted VPW's last magazine article where he calls for a "spiritual makeover" where he challenged us to ASK ourselves about everything we believe: WHY do I believe it. Who taught it to me?
THAT I do often, and not just in spiritual matters.
But what I do NOT do is trash my current beliefs, and pick up garbage to take their place, simply because it is different from my current beliefs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Really? How is that anything like describing your decision and commitment process?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
It isn't anything like that.
It was describing why you are so perplexed that I don't tear up my beliefs with critical thinking skills. You, like all acdemics, hate the idea that I would be FINISHED with that process, because I FOUND the truth. Academics don't like it when some says this. It is anathema to the Academics Creed - We will seek forever.
I was a blessed seeker who found.
You say that's impossible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Please enlighten us as to how you carry out such a challenge. Many times change is incremental. Such a process does not typically involve, for anyone, "trashing one's current beliefs and picking up garbage to take their place."
Doesn't that characterization actually belie the fact that you (as many of us have repeatedly observed) completely dismiss any and every one who disagrees with you? In which case, if you do (as we generally interpret your comments to mean) so dismiss others, how could you reasonably claim to engage in civil discourse?
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.