“The Word” means a lot of things. There’s probably a thread for that.
Is there any doubt what victor and TWI mean when they say The Word? Do they not mean the Bible, specifically, the Wierwille Revised Version (WRV)?
Bibliolatry, indeed. Because the mantra is decidedly NOT “The Light, the light, the light, and nothing but the light…The Love, the love, the love, and nothing but the love…”
I thought I'd add what the moderators posted about this forum.
"The Greasespot rules apply here just as they do on any other forum. They apply to everyone, regardless of forum "status" or authority. They apply FOR everyone, regardless of faith or lack thereof.
This forum on Questioning Faith was started in order to isolate discussions on atheism from other discussions on doctrine. It was started specifically in response to complaints in the Actual Errors in Genesis thread. There was an ERRONEOUS belief that the doctrinal section is for believers only, and that people who are not believers are "wasting their time" posting in doctrinal. Let it be clear: anyone of any faith (or lack thereof) is free to post on any thread in doctrinal. Efforts to make posters feel unwelcome in the doctrinal section because of their beliefs will not be tolerated,
Several days ago you were not even aware the Atheism, nontheism, skepticism: Questioning Faith thread even existed, and now you are telling us what it means. No one has ever been made to feel isolated for posting in the thread, that I am aware of. Please point out when this has happened. Where have you heard a believer was told “they were wasting their time” posting in doctrinal?
I post in the Atheism thread when my subject is a questioning of faith nature. I don’t believe in god, so why would I want to post that god is a creation of man, in the doctrinal thread.
If a posterer is exclaiming there are actually three Gods in one God, it would be posted in the doctrinal thread because it would not fit in the atheism thread.
The same goes for Questioning Faith. ANYONE can post here, no matter what you believe.
But whether it's an atheist in the doctrinal section or a believer in Questioning Faith, it is expected that your contribution to the discussion will be On Topic."
If two people are discussing who is the best active player in Major League Baseball, you can't decide this is the right place to talk about whether the Red Sox blundered trading Babe Ruth to the Yankees. You don't get to declare the thread to be about baseball in general just because baseball is an element of the conversation.
If you are not interested in a conversation, you do not get to unilaterally change it. If you would like to start a related discussion, feel free to do so. That will keep the thread on topic while still allowing you to explore ideas inspired by but not directly related to the topic at hand.
Calling someone deceitful will not be tolerated.
Calling someone demonic will not be tolerated.
If you're going to call a statement untrue, be prepared to back it up. The issue is the statement, NOT the person making it.
Believers are more than welcome to challenge atheist ideas in Questioning Faith. Believers are welcome to start threads and initiate discussions. They are more than allowed to participate in discussions -- they are invited to do so.
The point is to have a discussion, not a monologue or an echo chamber.
Challenging someone's beliefs = fair game.
Mocking them or demonizing them for holding a belief = NOT fair game.
Several days ago you were not even aware the Atheism, nontheism, skepticism: Questioning Faith thread even existed, and now you are telling us what it means. (I said I was aware of the first word of the thread (Atheism) and that probably was because from what I was seeing in that forum, the new threads were about not believing in God. I may be wrong about that assumption because I am only going from memory. You've probably heard of "selective hearing," well I have "selective seeing" at times which means I don't read what comes after the word(s) that sticks out to me. I know )
No one has ever been made to feel isolated for posting in the thread, that I am aware of. Please point out when this has happened. Where have you heard a believer was told “they were wasting their time” posting in doctrinal? (I did not say anything in my original post about the doctrinal forum. My comments were about a post in the "About the Way" forum only. I mentioned the "Atheism, nontheism, skepticism: Questioning Faith" forum as an alternative for the topic of that particular post.)
I post in the Atheism thread when my subject is a questioning of faith nature. I don’t believe in god, so why would I want to post that god is a creation of man, in the doctrinal thread.
If a posterer is exclaiming there are actually three Gods in one God, it would be posted in the doctrinal thread because it would not fit in the atheism thread."
The following guidelines were written by modcat5 in the first thread on the "Atheism..." forum. It is called "About this Forum"
Let it be clear: anyone of any faith (or lack thereof) is free to post on any thread in doctrinal. Efforts to make posters feel unwelcome in the doctrinal section because of their beliefs will not be tolerated.
The same goes for Questioning Faith. ANYONE can post here, no matter what you believe.
But whether it's an atheist in the doctrinal section or a believer in Questioning Faith, it is expected that your contribution to the discussion will be On Topic." Believers are more than welcome to challenge atheist ideas in Questioning Faith. Believers are welcome to start threads and initiate discussions. They are more than allowed to participate in discussions -- they are invited to do so."
My point was referring to topics and posts which speak of no longer believing in God or in His Word at all. The forum below includes the topics of skepticism and questioning faith.
I wasn't refuting, rebutting, or arguing contrary to your point. And I still wouldn't. Would you have a problem with a thread in the doctrinal forum on the subject of bibliolotry?
I wasn't refuting, rebutting, or arguing contrary to your point. And I still wouldn't. Would you have a problem with a thread in the doctrinal forum on the subject of bibliolotry?
I know you weren’t Rocky. And I was okay with you still maintaining in your post that vp’s entire enterprise was based on and revolved around bibliolatry. I wrote earlier that I felt the topic of bibliolatry did belong in the About the Way forum when it was being used to refute vp and twi.
To answer your question - no I have no problem whatsoever with a thread in the doctrinal forum on the subject of bibliolatry.
How do you really love someone deeply?
What is most important thing about someone you love?
Their words; their will.
You are asking questions and then providing answers that dont fit for me. You really love someone deeply by giving and sharing one's life with them. By providing what they need and accepting what they provide in return. Youve accepted good words and fair speeches as gospel so you cannot see beyond those words.
The most important thing about someone I love? Well that depends on the person/entity, the scenario, and the nature of the relationship. The thing I love most about God is expressed in John 3:16. That God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten son. So the thing I love about God the most is that he gave of himself and that Jesus Christ was the perfect passover for the sins of man. Jesus Christ is not the Bible. The Bible is not Jesus Christ...the Bible can never take the place of Jesus Christ. Thats my final answers before you come in telling me my answers are wrond.
You are asking questions and then providing answers that don't fit for me. You really love someone deeply by giving and sharing one's life with them. By providing what they need and accepting what they provide in return. You've accepted good words and fair speeches as gospel so you cannot see beyond those words.
The most important thing about someone I love? Well that depends on the person/entity, the scenario, and the nature of the relationship. The thing I love most about God is expressed in John 3:16. That God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten son. So the thing I love about God the most is that he gave of himself and that Jesus Christ was the perfect Passover for the sins of man. Jesus Christ is not the Bible. The Bible is not Jesus Christ...the Bible can never take the place of Jesus Christ. That's my final answers before you come in telling me my answers are wrong.
Who cares whether Mike tells you your answers might be wrong.
Mike, however, with his overly simplistic and generalized proposal demonstrates a gigantic failure of imagination.
Regarding those good words and fair speeches...
For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. Romans 16:18 (KJV)
Mike seems to indict both Victor Wierwille and himself in doing so. And pretty much ALL of us who fell under his influence, had our hearts deceived for a time.
And pretty much ALL of us who fell under his influence, had our hearts deceived for a time.
And I submit this knowing of the truth of this deception is a seeing of the truth.
Whether one sees it within the first few minutes of PFAL, or one catches a glimpse in the mirror years later, or one endeavors to test every piece of bullshonta over a lifetime, for each it is the same.
It is an instantaneous, bell-ringing clarity of vision.
Let it go and Hold on! In the way of so many great philosophies, those apparent opposites prove to be two sides of the same coin. To hold securely to the well-formed purposes of your own will, you must let go of the vain idea that you can control people or events or the tides of fate. You can’t change what was, nor entirely control what will be. But you can choose who you are and what you stand for and what you will try to accomplish. I’ve been learning and losing and relearning this lesson for some sixty years.
I'm not an academic. But I will cop to being somewhat of an amateur journalist. David Von Drehle IS a trained journalist. As you might surmise, I'm currently reading The Book of Charlie.
Obtained it this afternoon from my local public library and quickly realized I had to have my own copy.
I post this excerpt from page 15 because it's just one more gem of wisdom I hope Mike picks up on.
Mike, are you trying now to find a new rationalization for bibliolatry?
Are you reluctant to challenge your beliefs?
I am very reluctant to waste time, writing a long essay for someone who is trying to find targets to shoot at, and not understand my essay.
If you search the past 6 months of my posts you will find a timeline in there, giving a rough outline of my back and forth considerations over a 18 year time span. During those years I wrestled not only with VPW being the man of God, but also with the Bible's inerrancy, AND even the existence of a conscious God who was able to speak, read, and write in human languages.
That rough timeline should give you an idea how large an essay you were demanding of me when you thought you had pinned me down on something.
You then act surprised that I muscle my way out of your invitation to a de-programming party! ??? LoL
I think in your playing too much to the people at home, you lost track of how ridiculous a demand that was.
I also find it hilarious that you are trying to use the Biblical definition of "idolatry" to condemn those who love Biblical definitions. Do I hear a Godel Bell ringing?
*/*/*
Are you reluctant to respond to my answer, that loving a human strongly implies loving their words, SO THAT you can come to know and love their will?
I saw some of the others dodging this below, because it seems they never got as far in my answer as the word "will."
I know how nervous they must have got as they read some very familiar ideas and words in my answer.
It probably blocked their understanding the ending with the word "will," as bad as the imagery of men-in-tights ruined the AOS music for them. (referring to an concurrent thread there.)
I just re-read all the dodging responses to loving people's words and wills.
The bottom line of love for a human means to love their words and ultimately their will.
That people can't see and agree to this tells me they never understood the first twelve minutes of the class, on the greatest sin being not loving God first.
This should be a no brainer to a PFAL grad.
We love God by loving His Word and His will.
That this is not obvious is very telling.
*/*/*/*
Now as far as nice smelling leather bindings, and gold edges, and fancy leather carved artwork, and an English version inside.... I can see people slipping into idolatry there....
I just re-read all the dodging responses to loving people's words and wills.
The bottom line of love for a human means to love their words and ultimately their will.
That people can't see and agree to this tells me they never understood the first twelve minutes of the class, on the greatest sin being not loving God first.
This should be a no brainer to a PFAL grad.
We love God by loving His Word and His will.
That this is not obvious is very telling.
*/*/*/*
Now as far as nice smelling leather bindings, and gold edges, and fancy leather carved artwork, and an English version inside.... I can see people slipping into idolatry there....
None of this explains your infatuation with the collaterals.
I just re-read all the dodging responses to loving people's words and wills.
So, the artful dodger wants to critique others on dodging. Are you saying dodging is wrong? Does this mean you'll stop dodging and get down to brass tacks?
48 minutes ago, Mike said:
The bottom line of love for a human means to love their words and ultimately their will.
So, you claim to agape us. Does that mean you love our words and our will?
Did anyone do any deeper reading in Session One on the greatest sin and the greatest commandment?
HOW are we to obey the greatest commandment, and love God first?
It's simple: we don't steal others works and claim them as our own and we keep our paws off of the ministry women, reserving our passions for our wife.
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
Nathan_Jr
“The Word” means a lot of things. There’s probably a thread for that.
Is there any doubt what victor and TWI mean when they say The Word? Do they not mean the Bible, specifically, the Wierwille Revised Version (WRV)?
Bibliolatry, indeed. Because the mantra is decidedly NOT “The Light, the light, the light, and nothing but the light…The Love, the love, the love, and nothing but the love…”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Edited by CharityLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I wasn't refuting, rebutting, or arguing contrary to your point. And I still wouldn't. Would you have a problem with a thread in the doctrinal forum on the subject of bibliolotry?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I know you weren’t Rocky. And I was okay with you still maintaining in your post that vp’s entire enterprise was based on and revolved around bibliolatry. I wrote earlier that I felt the topic of bibliolatry did belong in the About the Way forum when it was being used to refute vp and twi.
To answer your question - no I have no problem whatsoever with a thread in the doctrinal forum on the subject of bibliolatry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
How do you really love someone deeply?
What is most important thing about someone you love?
Their words; their will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Mike, are you trying now to find a new rationalization for bibliolatry?
Are you reluctant to challenge your beliefs?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Another point where Saint Vic excelled.
I'm sure he really cared about Mrs. Weirwille's words and her will for her family.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Is this the answer to your how (H-O-W) question?
Or is it the answer to your what question?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
You are asking questions and then providing answers that dont fit for me. You really love someone deeply by giving and sharing one's life with them. By providing what they need and accepting what they provide in return. Youve accepted good words and fair speeches as gospel so you cannot see beyond those words.
The most important thing about someone I love? Well that depends on the person/entity, the scenario, and the nature of the relationship. The thing I love most about God is expressed in John 3:16. That God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten son. So the thing I love about God the most is that he gave of himself and that Jesus Christ was the perfect passover for the sins of man. Jesus Christ is not the Bible. The Bible is not Jesus Christ...the Bible can never take the place of Jesus Christ. Thats my final answers before you come in telling me my answers are wrond.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Never mind, Mike. I think I figured it out.
There is no way "their words; their will" answers a how (H-O-W) question. That's just not how (H-O-W) language works. Meaning matters.
It could only answer the what question. For you. You think to love is to serve. If that's what love means to you, then your answer fits yourself...
... like a hand in a glove.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Who cares whether Mike tells you your answers might be wrong.
Mike, however, with his overly simplistic and generalized proposal demonstrates a gigantic failure of imagination.
Regarding those good words and fair speeches...
For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. Romans 16:18 (KJV)
Mike seems to indict both Victor Wierwille and himself in doing so. And pretty much ALL of us who fell under his influence, had our hearts deceived for a time.
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
And I submit this knowing of the truth of this deception is a seeing of the truth.
Whether one sees it within the first few minutes of PFAL, or one catches a glimpse in the mirror years later, or one endeavors to test every piece of bullshonta over a lifetime, for each it is the same.
It is an instantaneous, bell-ringing clarity of vision.
It is NOT a belief. It is not even knowledge.
Once seen, it cannot be unseen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Let it go and Hold on! In the way of so many great philosophies, those apparent opposites prove to be two sides of the same coin. To hold securely to the well-formed purposes of your own will, you must let go of the vain idea that you can control people or events or the tides of fate. You can’t change what was, nor entirely control what will be. But you can choose who you are and what you stand for and what you will try to accomplish. I’ve been learning and losing and relearning this lesson for some sixty years.
Von Drehle, David. The Book of Charlie: Wisdom from the Remarkable American Life of a 109-Year-Old Man (p. 15). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.
I'm not an academic. But I will cop to being somewhat of an amateur journalist. David Von Drehle IS a trained journalist. As you might surmise, I'm currently reading The Book of Charlie.
Obtained it this afternoon from my local public library and quickly realized I had to have my own copy.
I post this excerpt from page 15 because it's just one more gem of wisdom I hope Mike picks up on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I am very reluctant to waste time, writing a long essay for someone who is trying to find targets to shoot at, and not understand my essay.
If you search the past 6 months of my posts you will find a timeline in there, giving a rough outline of my back and forth considerations over a 18 year time span. During those years I wrestled not only with VPW being the man of God, but also with the Bible's inerrancy, AND even the existence of a conscious God who was able to speak, read, and write in human languages.
That rough timeline should give you an idea how large an essay you were demanding of me when you thought you had pinned me down on something.
You then act surprised that I muscle my way out of your invitation to a de-programming party! ??? LoL
I think in your playing too much to the people at home, you lost track of how ridiculous a demand that was.
I also find it hilarious that you are trying to use the Biblical definition of "idolatry" to condemn those who love Biblical definitions. Do I hear a Godel Bell ringing?
*/*/*
Are you reluctant to respond to my answer, that loving a human strongly implies loving their words, SO THAT you can come to know and love their will?
I saw some of the others dodging this below, because it seems they never got as far in my answer as the word "will."
I know how nervous they must have got as they read some very familiar ideas and words in my answer.
It probably blocked their understanding the ending with the word "will," as bad as the imagery of men-in-tights ruined the AOS music for them. (referring to an concurrent thread there.)
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Did anybody ask for one?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I just re-read all the dodging responses to loving people's words and wills.
The bottom line of love for a human means to love their words and ultimately their will.
That people can't see and agree to this tells me they never understood the first twelve minutes of the class, on the greatest sin being not loving God first.
This should be a no brainer to a PFAL grad.
We love God by loving His Word and His will.
That this is not obvious is very telling.
*/*/*/*
Now as far as nice smelling leather bindings, and gold edges, and fancy leather carved artwork, and an English version inside.... I can see people slipping into idolatry there....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yes, Rocky did. He didn't use the word essay, though, it was implied.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
None of this explains your infatuation with the collaterals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I am addressing the oxymoronic notion of biblio-idolatry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Harumphhhh !!! bible idolatry !!!
How ELSE can we love God first,
if it is not His Word that we are to love?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Did anyone do any deeper reading in Session One on the greatest sin and the greatest commandment?
HOW are we to obey the greatest commandment, and love God first?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
So, the artful dodger wants to critique others on dodging. Are you saying dodging is wrong? Does this mean you'll stop dodging and get down to brass tacks?
So, you claim to agape us. Does that mean you love our words and our will?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
It's simple: we don't steal others works and claim them as our own and we keep our paws off of the ministry women, reserving our passions for our wife.
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.