I think VPW's claim was along the lines of how he put it all together. The big thing that he forgot was: putting it together includes living it. Because the whole point is to live as God wants us to. Not to become knowledge experts, but to become living-it experts.
. . .
Be ye doers and not hearers only. Or something. Any SOP (standard operating procedure) looks good on paper.
I was wondering how the illiterate could do the Word, but I guess they could hear it.
The Word is written in the stars (according to TWI). It interprets itself. Just look up. What's not to get?
Amplified can be very good, because it tries to include words that nuance the meaning of the bare English word, which is probably an inexact translation. Yes, probably that's where he pinched most of his "expanded literals according to usage." I'd noticed that before.
Just like I'd noticed how often Bullinger's Companion Bible had found the same things that VPW had. Strange that - since VPW was being taught the word as it hadn't been known since the 1st century - and yet, here was Bullinger, a century before VPW, finding exactly the same thing... hmmm.
I think VPW's claim was along the lines of how he put it all together. The big thing that he forgot was: putting it together includes living it. Because the whole point is to live as God wants us to. Not to become knowledge experts, but to become living-it experts.
It would be nice to think that those teaching this new class were "living it" but I strongly doubt it. The only one I got a sense of reality from was the man OldSkool names as Lynd0n $uml!n. The others look like puppets. Which they are.
TWI really should get a class together on motivational speaking for their presenters. There's loads of stuff available on YouTube, TedTalks, etc (all free!!! that should be appealing!), not to mention paid-for specialists who could give individual tuition.
I really, really don't like paraphrase Bibles. If used on an individual verse you're actually working on, that might be one thing. Otherwise, you're trusting that whoever put it together understood fully what they were putting together- and in the example of Philippians 4:13, I don't think that's correct. So, examining only 1 verse in, and I have no confidence. I don't expect it to improve on a deeper search. At BEST, I expect as much accuracy as a concept-for-concept like the NIV (I'm ok with that version, but I don't use it for myself.) If you're taking the words seriously, a word-for-word is what you need. Of course, if you don't care either way, a paraphrase is usually more colorful and modern. So, for the person who almost never opens their Bible, sure, that might be at least as good as any.
The problem with claims vpw compiled the material and that was original, was that he claimed it so seldom. The quoted usage was ONE mention, casually buried, in "The Way- Living in Love", over 100 pages into the book. That's it. Rarely did he mention it in SNTs or anywhere else, and certainly not in "the class." (People who dig and dig can probably find another mention buried SOMEWHERE, but that's after extensive digging, and not something any sane person should be expected to do with vpw's "work."
How do deaf people speak in tongues? Asking for a friend.
Personally, I no longer believe that what we were TOLD was speaking in tongues was anything of the kind, and it bears no resemblance to the 1st century church experience, the New Testament experience.
However, when I did believe it was, I wondered about that one as well. Did they produce sign language that didn't represent any actual signs from the language? My conclusions at the time- which were just my thinking and not endorsed by anyone- were that the physical evidence, the physical speaking, wasn't going to happen. However, it could still be done silently and entirely "in the spirit". (Remember, we were taught the audible part was not the main thing, that was the speaking "in the spirit" which can be done silently. The audible part was simply evidence.)
So, there's 2 answers for the price of one.
A) Since we don't really speak in tongues, they're not missing anything. They don't do it any LESS than we do.
B) They can do it silently, and hear it in their head, and the spiritual part still operates the same as for anyone else.
(For the curious, I say I'm agnostic to the idea of modern speaking in tongues. I'm confident I've neither seen it nor done it, but I don't dismiss the idea that someone, somewhere, is actually doing the Acts 2 thing- I dismiss the idea I've seen it so far and that it would look anything like we were taught.)
What does the phase "literal according to usage" mean? VP's text reads like a free translation - nothing literal or according to usage about it.
I was usually condemned as spiritually immature for asking such questions or else provided a bull$hit word salad for an answer.
It seems to me literal and according to usage are mutually exclusive terms in the work of a translator.
From what I understand the literal according to usage verses were forced on the research department back when there was a legit research department in the 70s/80s. I will email penworks. She was there and can offer a little more insight and correct my recollection if it turns out to be incorrect.
In other words Wierwille came up with them and mashed them into the mix after they failed to stand scripturally. Same with the athletes of the spirit concept.
What does the phase "literal according to usage" mean? VP's text reads like a free translation - nothing literal or according to usage about it.
I was usually condemned as spiritually immature for asking such questions or else provided a bull$hit word salad for an answer.
It seems to me literal and according to usage are mutually exclusive terms in the work of a translator.
1 hour ago, waysider said:
It means private interpretation. Go figure.
Honestly, I think wierwille gave private interpretation a bad rap.
It’s a funny thing…in one respect it seems I’ve gone full circle on the idea behind “literal translation according to usage”. When I was in-residence at Rome City, they showed us an old film about Martin Luther. Memory is fuzzy – not sure of exact details but in one scene Martin Luther is confronted by his superiors for translating the New Testament into German and is asked something like “Do you realize what would happen if the Bible was in the language of the people?” To which Martin Luther replied, “There would probably be more Christians.”
I really got into the literal translation according to usage when I was going through way corps training. It actually piqued my interest in textual criticism, hermeneutics, deep methods of Bible study, and even philosophy of religion – all of which I never pursued further until a few years after I left TWI…an “old flame” was rekindled
I’m not talking about publishing a whole new Bible translation…but in personal study or even in preaching, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with making a “translation” of a Bible verse that might help a Christian fully grasp the message – and assuming in a public setting the preacher is upfront with what he or she is doing…My opinion reflects the sentiment of Martin Luther. Textual criticism and systematic theology aside anyway – the most practical passages for me have always been simple ones like II Corinthians 5:7 For we live by faith, not by sight.
In retrospect parsing TWI’s literal translation according to usage:
The good: if done honestly and in harmony with Scripture it is a boon to the Christian lifestyle.
The bad: some of TWI’s literal translation according to usage were extremely biased …wierwille-centric…a bane and a pain to the Christian lifestyle.
The ugly: the unspoken rule that ONLY the cult-leader is allowed to interpret Scripture…that's law and order in the Bizarro World “Christian” lifestyle.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
DVD bonus feature – click on the above hyperlink for II Cor. 5:7 and you’ll see other translations of that verse! How cool is that?
Edited by T-Bone a literal edition according to typos abuse
I really got into the literal translation according to usage when I was going through way corps training. ... all of which I never pursued further until a few years after I left TWI…an “old flame” was rekindled
I’m not talking about publishing a whole new Bible translation…but in personal study or even in preaching, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with making a “translation” of a Bible verse that might help a Christian fully grasp the message – and assuming in a public setting the preacher is upfront with what he or she is doing…My opinion reflects the sentiment of Martin Luther.
I have been doing the same thing, in essence. I get tired of reading my Cambridge wide margin at times, with Bic 4-color fine point pen notes all over the text and margins to supply better renderings.
What I am slowly doing, mainly for personal study and easy flow reading is making the MVB, or Mike Version of the Bible. It's just a VERSION, and nothing God-breathed, but some of it is!
Here is my handling of 1 Cor. 3 and it's house building imagery, remembering that Jesus was a house building type of carpenter, and used a lot of house building imagery in his teaching.
And I, brethren,
could not speak unto you as unto spiritual,
but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
I have fed you with milk, and not with meat:
for hitherto ye were not able to bear it,
neither yet now are ye able.
For ye are yet carnal!
For whereas there is among you
envying, and strife, and divisions,
are you not carnal, and walk as men?
For while one says, “I am of Paul” and another “I am of Apollos”
are you all not carnal?
Who then is Paul? …and who is Apollos?
Just servants, by whom you all believed,
even as the Lord gave to every man.
I have planted, Apollos watered,
but God gave the increase.
So then, he that plants is no big deal,
neither is he that waters;
but God makes it all grow.
In all this, he that plants and he that waters
are unified and equal in their focused goals.
HOWEVER!
Every man shall receive HIS OWN reward
according to HIS OWN labor.
For WE are construction workers together with God,
and YOU GUYS are God’s lush acreage,
YOU are God’s strong family farmhouse.
According to the grace of God
which is given unto me as a wise contractor,
I have laid the foundational class,
so each student can build on the solid concrete.
But every such homeowner needs to be sharp,
and careful how they build their cozy hangout for God.
For no one can lay any foundation
other than the one that’s already poured,
which is Jesus Christ.
Now if any of you build upon this foundation
with gold, silver, precious stones,
or with wood, hay, stubble…
it’s going to eventually be obvious who cut corners,
because The Day will bring it all out,
and into the open, and make it totally obvious.
This cleansing fire will do the job,
and the fire shall test every man’s work
of what quality it is.
If any man’s work survives where he has built,
he will feel richly rewarded.
If any man’s work shall be burned up,
he shall suffer serious losses!
HOWEVER!
He himself shall be rescued!
He will be cleaned up by this cleansing fire.
Don’t forget that you are the temple of God,
and that pneuma hagion from God dwells inside you!
If any man cheats in building the temple of God,
this cheating shall God’s fire destroy,
for the temple of God is holy,
which temple you ARE!
Let no man deceive himself.
If any man among you seems to be wise in this world,
let him become a fool, that he may REALLY be wise,
for the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.
For it is written, “He tricks the wise in their own craftiness.”
And again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.”
Therefore, let no man glory in men.
For all things are yours!
Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Peter,
or the world, or life, or death, or things present,
or things to come;
all are yours!
In other words Wierwille came up with them and mashed them into the mix after they failed to stand scripturally. Same with the athletes of the spirit concept.
IOW, (put more simply) it means "this is what I've decided it means."
From what I understand the literal according to usage verses were forced on the research department back when there was a legit research department in the 70s/80s. I will email penworks. She was there and can offer a little more insight and correct my recollection if it turns out to be incorrect.
In other words Wierwille came up with them and mashed them into the mix after they failed to stand scripturally. Same with the athletes of the spirit concept.
.
That was one thing they wouldn't let you check out of the library Literal according to usage. You could look at it. I was always perplexed how it could exist and not be distributed.
But. . .
. . . Does literal according to usage interpret itself? . . .
Thanks. There are so many published and private Bible translations. I wouldn't ever say one is better than another. They are different. We have preferences. We study. There are methods for study, methods for translation, hermeneutics. All rooted in ancient and contemporary schools of thought and theory on textual translation and interpretation.
Horace and Cicero may have been the first to codify a binary translation theory: Word for Word and Sense for Sense. Today the field is more nuanced, complex. So, is it literal OR is it according to usage?
I remember reading and hearing vp's literal according to usage and they sounded like paraphrase, freer and more expansive and carnally opinionated than any amplified Bible - neither word for word nor sense for sense, according to the original. (I do wish vic could have read it in the original... bless his heart.)
I'm fine with anyone's private interpretation (private inspiration is essential), but the phrase literal according to usage sounds contrived, manipulative. Is it designed to impress? To obscure? As a dilettante would? The phrase sounds so technical, but the actual translation is free form paraphrase full of the very religion vp disparaged. And it was "taught" to me as the most accurate translation ever written.
Maybe I've been reading too much Harry Frankfurt lately. Im calling bull$hit.
According to the grace of God
which is given unto me as a wise contractor,
I have laid the foundational class, so each student can build on the solid concrete.
That's just our lingo for what went on then and there.
If you could train your focus on the good you got, then you'd be at peace with what I wrote.
Do you even realize that to be a violation of Jesus' admonition to "Judge not...?" Who the F are you to tell whether or under what conditions anyone else might be at peace (or agree to any degree) with what you wrote?
I didn't have a problem focusing on the good until I "took the class." So much pretense. So many presumptions. So much negativity and evil was preached. I had never heard such effort to divide the Body of Christ, to separate friendships and families. I had never heard of a so-called MOG spend so much energy religiously arguing against other shades of diverse religious doctrine - the truth needs no defense, but, boy, was vic always on the defensive. Yet, he was the one on the attack! I remember wondering: With whom are you arguing?!?!
Someone, maybe Babe Ruth, said: Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Well, if the baby is a deceased corpse, it's going out with the bath water, and the entire tub will be filled with bleach to disinfect.
I'm eternally grateful for excellent teachers throughout my life. So grateful. I know what it looks like. Vic ain't it. He's one of the worst teachers and PFAL is one of the worst "classes" I've ever encountered. I know not all are as blessed as I, and for some victor seems impressive. This astonishes and saddens me. But I'm not on any mission to convert followers to sycophants.
I work every day to forgive him, even though he doesn't deserve it. That's grace. I hope one day he can thank me for enduring the dozens of hours I spent in "the class." And I hope one day he can read it in the original. Bless his little heart.
If you could train your focus on the good you got, then you'd be at peace with what I wrote.
I think, Mike, that you'll find many of us focus on the good we got FROM THE BIBLE, not from PFAL in any of its forms. That's where we get our peace. We're at peace with what GOD wrote.
I doubt you'll find anyone here who has a driving need to "be at peace" with what you wrote.
I think, Mike, that you'll find many of us focus on the good we got FROM THE BIBLE, not from PFAL in any of its forms. That's where we get our peace. We're at peace with what GOD wrote.
I doubt you'll find anyone here who has a driving need to "be at peace" with what you wrote.
Yep!! I couldn't be anymore at peace than I am.
Mike showed everyone his lack of respect for scripture by changing a section and blaming it on lingo. I fully understand that many people on GSC don't repect the Bible...and I am fine with that because they are honest about it. I completely respect other people's free will choice to believe what they want. That's a God given choice - free will. So perhaps Mike should just be honest, that he is following the example of VPW and changing what he wants to suit his purposes and support his world view where it's God, VPW, and Jesus Christ down at the bottom as a name sake.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
65
72
161
71
Popular Days
May 28
50
Apr 30
49
May 2
41
May 10
37
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 65 posts
waysider 72 posts
Bolshevik 161 posts
Nathan_Jr 71 posts
Popular Days
May 28 2022
50 posts
Apr 30 2022
49 posts
May 2 2022
41 posts
May 10 2022
37 posts
Popular Posts
Bolshevik
Scripture, The Bible, is not *a* language. "It interprets itself", though.
T-Bone
Excerpts from the first draft for a totally revised burnt orange book “Power For Materialistic Living Today”, page 3, Introduction: The Materialistic Life …This post literally changed my life. My
Raf
It is almost impossible to overstate how much this reeks of bullcrap. I'll be gentle: If Euclidian geometry were wrong on one point, Euclidian geometry would be perfectly content to remove
Posted Images
Bolshevik
Be ye doers and not hearers only. Or something. Any SOP (standard operating procedure) looks good on paper.
I was wondering how the illiterate could do the Word, but I guess they could hear it.
The Word is written in the stars (according to TWI). It interprets itself. Just look up. What's not to get?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
How do deaf people speak in tongues? Asking for a friend.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I really, really don't like paraphrase Bibles. If used on an individual verse you're actually working on, that might be one thing. Otherwise, you're trusting that whoever put it together understood fully what they were putting together- and in the example of Philippians 4:13, I don't think that's correct. So, examining only 1 verse in, and I have no confidence. I don't expect it to improve on a deeper search. At BEST, I expect as much accuracy as a concept-for-concept like the NIV (I'm ok with that version, but I don't use it for myself.) If you're taking the words seriously, a word-for-word is what you need. Of course, if you don't care either way, a paraphrase is usually more colorful and modern. So, for the person who almost never opens their Bible, sure, that might be at least as good as any.
The problem with claims vpw compiled the material and that was original, was that he claimed it so seldom. The quoted usage was ONE mention, casually buried, in "The Way- Living in Love", over 100 pages into the book. That's it. Rarely did he mention it in SNTs or anywhere else, and certainly not in "the class." (People who dig and dig can probably find another mention buried SOMEWHERE, but that's after extensive digging, and not something any sane person should be expected to do with vpw's "work."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Personally, I no longer believe that what we were TOLD was speaking in tongues was anything of the kind, and it bears no resemblance to the 1st century church experience, the New Testament experience.
However, when I did believe it was, I wondered about that one as well. Did they produce sign language that didn't represent any actual signs from the language? My conclusions at the time- which were just my thinking and not endorsed by anyone- were that the physical evidence, the physical speaking, wasn't going to happen. However, it could still be done silently and entirely "in the spirit". (Remember, we were taught the audible part was not the main thing, that was the speaking "in the spirit" which can be done silently. The audible part was simply evidence.)
So, there's 2 answers for the price of one.
A) Since we don't really speak in tongues, they're not missing anything. They don't do it any LESS than we do.
B) They can do it silently, and hear it in their head, and the spiritual part still operates the same as for anyone else.
(For the curious, I say I'm agnostic to the idea of modern speaking in tongues. I'm confident I've neither seen it nor done it, but I don't dismiss the idea that someone, somewhere, is actually doing the Acts 2 thing- I dismiss the idea I've seen it so far and that it would look anything like we were taught.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
What does the phase "literal according to usage" mean? VP's text reads like a free translation - nothing literal or according to usage about it.
I was usually condemned as spiritually immature for asking such questions or else provided a bull$hit word salad for an answer.
It seems to me literal and according to usage are mutually exclusive terms in the work of a translator.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
From what I understand the literal according to usage verses were forced on the research department back when there was a legit research department in the 70s/80s. I will email penworks. She was there and can offer a little more insight and correct my recollection if it turns out to be incorrect.
In other words Wierwille came up with them and mashed them into the mix after they failed to stand scripturally. Same with the athletes of the spirit concept.
.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It means private interpretation. Go figure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Honestly, I think wierwille gave private interpretation a bad rap.
It’s a funny thing…in one respect it seems I’ve gone full circle on the idea behind “literal translation according to usage”. When I was in-residence at Rome City, they showed us an old film about Martin Luther. Memory is fuzzy – not sure of exact details but in one scene Martin Luther is confronted by his superiors for translating the New Testament into German and is asked something like “Do you realize what would happen if the Bible was in the language of the people?” To which Martin Luther replied, “There would probably be more Christians.”
I really got into the literal translation according to usage when I was going through way corps training. It actually piqued my interest in textual criticism, hermeneutics, deep methods of Bible study, and even philosophy of religion – all of which I never pursued further until a few years after I left TWI…an “old flame” was rekindled
I’m not talking about publishing a whole new Bible translation…but in personal study or even in preaching, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with making a “translation” of a Bible verse that might help a Christian fully grasp the message – and assuming in a public setting the preacher is upfront with what he or she is doing…My opinion reflects the sentiment of Martin Luther. Textual criticism and systematic theology aside anyway – the most practical passages for me have always been simple ones like II Corinthians 5:7 For we live by faith, not by sight.
In retrospect parsing TWI’s literal translation according to usage:
The good: if done honestly and in harmony with Scripture it is a boon to the Christian lifestyle.
The bad: some of TWI’s literal translation according to usage were extremely biased …wierwille-centric…a bane and a pain to the Christian lifestyle.
The ugly: the unspoken rule that ONLY the cult-leader is allowed to interpret Scripture…that's law and order in the Bizarro World “Christian” lifestyle.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Edited by T-BoneDVD bonus feature – click on the above hyperlink for II Cor. 5:7 and you’ll see other translations of that verse! How cool is that?
a literal edition according to typos abuse
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I have been doing the same thing, in essence. I get tired of reading my Cambridge wide margin at times, with Bic 4-color fine point pen notes all over the text and margins to supply better renderings.
What I am slowly doing, mainly for personal study and easy flow reading is making the MVB, or Mike Version of the Bible. It's just a VERSION, and nothing God-breathed, but some of it is!
Here is my handling of 1 Cor. 3 and it's house building imagery, remembering that Jesus was a house building type of carpenter, and used a lot of house building imagery in his teaching.
And I, brethren,
could not speak unto you as unto spiritual,
but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
I have fed you with milk, and not with meat:
for hitherto ye were not able to bear it,
neither yet now are ye able.
For ye are yet carnal!
For whereas there is among you
envying, and strife, and divisions,
are you not carnal, and walk as men?
For while one says,
“I am of Paul” and another “I am of Apollos”
are you all not carnal?
Who then is Paul? …and who is Apollos?
Just servants, by whom you all believed,
even as the Lord gave to every man.
I have planted, Apollos watered,
but God gave the increase.
So then, he that plants is no big deal,
neither is he that waters;
but God makes it all grow.
In all this, he that plants and he that waters
are unified and equal in their focused goals.
HOWEVER!
Every man shall receive HIS OWN reward
according to HIS OWN labor.
For WE are construction workers together with God,
and YOU GUYS are God’s lush acreage,
YOU are God’s strong family farmhouse.
According to the grace of God
which is given unto me as a wise contractor,
I have laid the foundational class,
so each student can build on the solid concrete.
But every such homeowner needs to be sharp,
and careful how they build their cozy hangout for God.
For no one can lay any foundation
other than the one that’s already poured,
which is Jesus Christ.
Now if any of you build upon this foundation
with gold, silver, precious stones,
or with wood, hay, stubble…
it’s going to eventually be obvious who cut corners,
because The Day will bring it all out,
and into the open, and make it totally obvious.
This cleansing fire will do the job,
and the fire shall test every man’s work
of what quality it is.
If any man’s work survives where he has built,
he will feel richly rewarded.
If any man’s work shall be burned up,
he shall suffer serious losses!
HOWEVER!
He himself shall be rescued!
He will be cleaned up by this cleansing fire.
Don’t forget that you are the temple of God,
and that pneuma hagion from God dwells inside you!
If any man cheats in building the temple of God,
this cheating shall God’s fire destroy,
for the temple of God is holy,
which temple you ARE!
Let no man deceive himself.
If any man among you seems to be wise in this world,
let him become a fool, that he may REALLY be wise,
for the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.
For it is written,
“He tricks the wise in their own craftiness.”
And again,
“The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.”
Therefore, let no man glory in men.
For all things are yours!
Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Peter,
or the world, or life, or death, or things present,
or things to come;
all are yours!
And you are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think that’s pretty cool, Mike!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thanks. I had a lot of fun with it. Sometimes I used literals, sometimes just obscure margin notes
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
IOW, (put more simply) it means "this is what I've decided it means."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
That was one thing they wouldn't let you check out of the library Literal according to usage. You could look at it. I was always perplexed how it could exist and not be distributed.
But. . .
. . . Does literal according to usage interpret itself? . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Thanks. There are so many published and private Bible translations. I wouldn't ever say one is better than another. They are different. We have preferences. We study. There are methods for study, methods for translation, hermeneutics. All rooted in ancient and contemporary schools of thought and theory on textual translation and interpretation.
Horace and Cicero may have been the first to codify a binary translation theory: Word for Word and Sense for Sense. Today the field is more nuanced, complex. So, is it literal OR is it according to usage?
I remember reading and hearing vp's literal according to usage and they sounded like paraphrase, freer and more expansive and carnally opinionated than any amplified Bible - neither word for word nor sense for sense, according to the original. (I do wish vic could have read it in the original... bless his heart.)
I'm fine with anyone's private interpretation (private inspiration is essential), but the phrase literal according to usage sounds contrived, manipulative. Is it designed to impress? To obscure? As a dilettante would? The phrase sounds so technical, but the actual translation is free form paraphrase full of the very religion vp disparaged. And it was "taught" to me as the most accurate translation ever written.
Maybe I've been reading too much Harry Frankfurt lately. Im calling bull$hit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Man, get outta here with that mess!
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
That's just our lingo for what went on then and there.
If you could train your focus on the good you got, then you'd be at peace with what I wrote.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Let him that stole steal. No more working with his hands the thing which is good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Do you even realize that to be a violation of Jesus' admonition to "Judge not...?" Who the F are you to tell whether or under what conditions anyone else might be at peace (or agree to any degree) with what you wrote?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Professor Frankfurt understood well. And I think you do pretty well too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
If my aunt had nuts she would be my uncle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Avoiding something?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I didn't have a problem focusing on the good until I "took the class." So much pretense. So many presumptions. So much negativity and evil was preached. I had never heard such effort to divide the Body of Christ, to separate friendships and families. I had never heard of a so-called MOG spend so much energy religiously arguing against other shades of diverse religious doctrine - the truth needs no defense, but, boy, was vic always on the defensive. Yet, he was the one on the attack! I remember wondering: With whom are you arguing?!?!
Someone, maybe Babe Ruth, said: Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Well, if the baby is a deceased corpse, it's going out with the bath water, and the entire tub will be filled with bleach to disinfect.
I'm eternally grateful for excellent teachers throughout my life. So grateful. I know what it looks like. Vic ain't it. He's one of the worst teachers and PFAL is one of the worst "classes" I've ever encountered. I know not all are as blessed as I, and for some victor seems impressive. This astonishes and saddens me. But I'm not on any mission to convert followers to sycophants.
I work every day to forgive him, even though he doesn't deserve it. That's grace. I hope one day he can thank me for enduring the dozens of hours I spent in "the class." And I hope one day he can read it in the original. Bless his little heart.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I think, Mike, that you'll find many of us focus on the good we got FROM THE BIBLE, not from PFAL in any of its forms. That's where we get our peace. We're at peace with what GOD wrote.
I doubt you'll find anyone here who has a driving need to "be at peace" with what you wrote.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Yep!! I couldn't be anymore at peace than I am.
Mike showed everyone his lack of respect for scripture by changing a section and blaming it on lingo. I fully understand that many people on GSC don't repect the Bible...and I am fine with that because they are honest about it. I completely respect other people's free will choice to believe what they want. That's a God given choice - free will. So perhaps Mike should just be honest, that he is following the example of VPW and changing what he wants to suit his purposes and support his world view where it's God, VPW, and Jesus Christ down at the bottom as a name sake.
Edited by OldSkoolLink 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.