So in the OT because they did not have pneuma hagion, or more accurately did not have it upon them at the time because Isaiah did and was confronting them, we now have the power to ignore the negatives?
Sounds more like pneuma ostrich to me as opposed to pneuma hagion.
You can’t hide the body by burying the head lol.
Looks like you have not read how I corrected this error of yours.
If you have read my position of NOT ignoring the negatives and only shunting them off for private handling, and still maintain what you just posted, then it is you who have head in sand.
Maybe in the past 2 hours you did read or re-read better what I am saying to you today.
Repeat: I do not want to magnify the negatives to the top of my public posting priorities, but I do give the negatives (in private) ample time to hear, process, and search for solutions.
Interesting choice of metaphors. Your whining about my pole sized splinter, yet you ignore your planet sized beam, the evil man Saint Vic really was. As Jesus encourages us, remove your beam before you complain about my splinter.
You mean we can set others up to be duped again. After all, IN PRIVATE others are not made aware of the seething evil, are they?
It's also odd how you missed the part about learning our lessons from them, isn't it?
Translation: Let's ignore all the evil Saint Vic has done and only focus on what I want to focus on.
So your whole present schtick boils down to: other than that, did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
Like I said, you don't want to deal with what an evil man Saint Vic was, instead let's gloss over that and put faith in the word salad he spewed.
Those that don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Is this your actual goal?
You mean you prioritize things to delude you into ignoring the elephant in the room.
You claim Saint Vic got a lot of grace from God, even though Paul encouraged us not to continue in sin that grace may abound.
You'd think if God were going to roll out a bibical revision he would have chosen a better representative that someone who would use His Word to line the bottom of a bird cage.
If I wanted to ignore the negatives, I simply would not come here and hear them constantly. Think that through for a minute.
What you posted above may have applied to some mature grad back in the 70s, but certainly not to me in the 2020s.
I've mentioned here several times that TWI was like marble cake, with dynamic swirls of light and dark.
Yeah...I remember reading in the 8th church epistle that referenced the fifth gospel that christianity was good and evil dynamically swirled together like some sort of little debbie snack cake...Im sure this evil had nothing to do with fruit produced by false doctrines of devils, basic human lust and greed carried out by top leadership, adultery, intellectual theft, layers of lies, and multiple faces on those in the trustee household at the time...
Yeah...I remember reading in the 8th church epistle that referenced the fifth gospel that christianity was good and evil dynamically swirled together like some sort of little debbie snack cake...Im sure this evil had nothing to do with fruit produced by false doctrines of devils, basic human lust and greed carried out by top leadership, adultery, intellectual theft, layers of lies, and multiple faces on those in the trustee household at the time...
Actually, a lot of that did happen in the early centuries. Things moved slower then with their slow travel and communications, but you can see seeds of that in the correction and reproof epistles, especially Corinthians.
It is only logical that the devil would seek to corrupt the places and people where the most Word was.
If I wanted to ignore the negatives, I simply would not come here and hear them constantly.
I have thought it through. After all, you are whining that we should be paying attention to the positives and ignore the negatives.
You know why people tell you to be positive? Because being positive makes you a sucker. Being positive will allow you to snarf down Saint Vic's bull like pot brownies. Then by the time you realize you've been had, it's too late.
2 hours ago, Mike said:
Think that through for a minute.
Now, YOU think that through for a minute.
2 hours ago, Mike said:
What you posted above may have applied to some mature grad back in the 70s, but certainly not to me in the 2020s.
Oh really? Tell me, what do I see here?
Sometime back, I went to a local bar. As the live music played on, a Mormon chose to witness to me. I asked him several questions, which he promptly ignore and continued spouting his doctrine.
You see he wasn't interested in me as a person at all. He wanted somebody to teach, to lord over, as that's how most people see the teacher-student relationship.
Say, didn't you once say you wanted to teach people here and when I asked you if you were willing to learn you said no? You see, when I taught people about computers, I learned as much from them as they did from me. That's the correct student-teacher dynamic.
So what do I get when I communicate with you? Questions you refuse to answer, accusations that people are trying to trip you up, and somehow, you have the time to write a doctrinal piece half a page long,but you never have enough time to answer questions on a previous post. All contributing to the sense you're attempting to hide something.
Edited by So_crates SoCrates Law: if I were laid as often a Saint Vic, travelled as much as Saint Vic, and raked in as much cash as Saint Vic I'd be singing praises to God too
Actually, a lot of that did happen in the early centuries.
We're not talking about the first century...we're talking about the way international.
And no place ever in scripture are we told Christianity is a dynamic swirls of good and evil. What concord does Christ have with Belial? Sin is always reproved and condemned for what it is. That was one of the main reasons for The Torah...to identify and convict sin. Your rationalizing.
A thought (or two) occurred to me reading through some of today's posts. One of those thoughts is best illustrated and hopefully illuminated by a song from a 1969 movie.
Everybody's talkin' at me. Can't hear a word they're sayin'...
I guess we can be thankful. I suppose the history of humankind, of civilization, of religion is replete with people talking AT each other without really listening.
A natural outcome of that kind of interaction through the millennia has been rampant wars. LOTS of them.
I'm confident many at GSC have tried to listen when Mike has talked AT them. I'm confident Mike believes he was genuinely trying to engage in productive dialogue.
I'm confident we'll really never, despite anyone's frustrations (including mine), ever really reach common ground to come to genuine connection with Mike.
I also reflect on MY childhood history with the RC church and subsequent exposure to the different ways the RC church has accommodated and acquiesced to various local religious traditions... to ensure the survival of said RC church.
Not that any of that would come into play here at GSC.
But it might with various of twi's actual international "missions" in Africa or South America.
Sometime back, I went to a local bar. As the live music played on, a Mormon chose to witness to me. I asked him several questions, which he promptly ignore and continued spouting his doctrine.
You see he wasn't interested in me as a person at all. He wanted somebody to teach, to lord over, as that's how most people see the teacher-student relationship.
Say, didn't you once say you wanted to teach people here and when I asked you if you were willing to learn you said no? You see, when I taught people about computers, I learned as much from them as they did from me. That's the correct student-teacher dynamic.
So what do I get when I communicate with you? Questions you refuse to answer, accusations that people are trying to trip you up, and somehow, you have the time to write a doctrinal piece half a page long, but you never have enough time to answer questions on a previous post. All contributing to the sense you're attempting to hide something.
An exquisite example, Socrates, of the opposite of Deep Canvassing.
And of people talking AT you.
And brilliantly illuminating the fundamental (bottom line) reason Mike has not, nor ever will (unless he figures out how dismissively unloving people perceive his schtick to be here).
How do people change their minds? First step, someone listens to them BEFORE (or really, instead of) telling them how wrong they are.
I sat in on a law school class session once a few years ago. The professor asked questions intended to elicit discussion.
Instead of, "no you're dead wrong," he replied to students with thoughtful, acknowledging responsive follow ups like, "what about this..." or "have you thought about this angle..."
Mike, all you're doing and have been doing for the better part of two decades here at GSC, is 1) talk AT us, 2) not recognize the humanity and value of the experiences that underlie the responses people have graciously (or at times, snarkily) given you.
Have you given these things any thought over the years/decades?
Say, didn't you once say you wanted to teach people here and when I asked you if you were willing to learn you said no? You see, when I taught people about computers, I learned as much from them as they did from me. That's the correct student-teacher dynamic.
Response: I'd like to see the context of that. I do learn SOME things here, but I don't need to learn about the massive negatives that abound here.
As stuff was happening on the field in the 70s and 80s I heard about them from friends via phone calls.
Then I attended one weekend's worth of a LIVE face-to-face version of GSD in San Diego when Ralph D visited in July 1987.
If that wasn't enough exposure to the negatives, I then attended all of John Lynn's meetings here. He visited every September from 1988-98. I had heard it all, pretty much by that early date before GSC starterd, YET i still came here to hear more in 2002.
So what do I get when I communicate with you? Questions you refuse to answer, accusations that people are trying to trip you up, and somehow, you have the time to write a doctrinal piece half a page long,but you never have enough time to answer questions on a previous post. All contributing to the sense you're attempting to hide something.
Response: Maybe if you had a group of people pounding on you from all directions, many hateful, many insincere, many only trying to play gotcha, then you'd accept my reasons for dodging some times.
Time is another factor. When I have it (like lately) then I try to answer more. I explained how I don;t like to go down rabbit holes of negativity. I know they are there, and have been down them at times, but i never see any solutions there, so I avoid them.
May I make a peace offering to you. like I did with Rocky, and answer any ONE question that nags at you that I have either dodged or not had time to get to? No guarantees, like I said to him, but I will try. Did you see that offer of mine to him?
Mike, all you're doing and have been doing for the better part of two decades here at GSC, is 1) talk AT us, 2) not recognize the humanity and value of the experiences that underlie the responses people have graciously (or at times, snarkily) given you.
Have you given these things any thought over the years/decades?
I'm confident many at GSC have tried to listen when Mike has talked AT them. I'm confident Mike believes he was genuinely trying to engage in productive dialogue.
I'm confident we'll really never, despite anyone's frustrations (including mine), ever really reach common ground to come to genuine connection with Mike.
There have been SOME that can hear me, and I dialog with them best I can. Most are mockers and not listening to me. They talk at me. At least that was my experience 20 years ago, and in many of the years in between. In recent years I have tried again a few times, and because lots of the most rabid haters of me are gone, I feel some progress has been made.
The common ground we share is what went right for us as we learned the Word. I can usually connect with people if they can connect with their past's positivity around the Word.
I have shared these days lots of my angst over what went wrong, and my chosen path to deal with those things. Shining as much light on dark places is what I insist on doing. Those who see this as a better solution than constantly moaning about what happened 40 years ago are the ones with whom I can have more common ground in the future. Constantly and exclusively moaning and groaning and mocking is not a solution and I wont look for common ground there.
Response: Maybe if you had a group of people pounding on you from all directions, many hateful, many insincere, many only trying to play gotcha, then you'd accept my reasons for dodging some times
Play the victim...then become the agressor....then play the victim...rinse...repeat.
The COLD WAR ended when Mikhail Gorbachev decided to implement glasnost. It's clear from the history books (and much is available on line) Russia and Gorbachev viewed themselves as victims of western imperialism. That was a legit point of view even though Europe and the US had a much different POV that was no less legitimate.
I submit that the GSC cold war between Mike and the rest of us will end when Mike decides to implement glasnost.
IF you're honest with yourself and with US, Mike, you'll have to recognize the corrosive impact of the rhetoric you employ. I cited a couple of examples in posts a little while ago.
IF you genuinely want people here to take you seriously, you will have to engage with a different, perhaps more loving, tone.
IF you're honest with yourself and with US, Mike, you'll have to recognize the corrosive impact of the rhetoric you employ. I cited a couple of examples in posts a little while ago.
IF you genuinely want people here to take you seriously, you will have to engage with a different, perhaps more loving, tone.
That love option is a two way street.
I am thankful for your efforts to communicate with me lately.
The common ground we share is what went right for us as we learned the Word. I can usually connect with people if they can connect with their past's positivity around the Word.
Where did you find that common ground, other than in your head? I believe you believe you have found said common ground. But that's not reflected in any of your posts.
We're not talking about the first century...we're talking about the way international.
And no place ever in scripture are we told Christianity is a dynamic swirls of good and evil. What concord does Christ have with Belial? Sin is always reproved and condemned for what it is. That was one of the main reasons for The Torah...to identify and convict sin. Your rationalizing.
That love option is a two way street.
I am thankful for your efforts to communicate with me lately.
Mike, the way it happened between Gorbachev and Reagan was Gorby didn't keep insisting it was a two way street.
He had to, in the words of the late M Scott Peck, empty himself of such an attitude and clearly, emphatically, indicate he was OPEN and willing to give first.
Are you capable of doing the same?
Quote
'The overall purpose of human communication is - or should be - reconciliation. It should ultimately serve to lower or remove the walls of misunderstanding which unduly separate us human beings, one from another...' Although we have developed the technology to make communication more efficient and to bring people closer together, we have failed to use it to build a true global community.
I see dynamic swirls of scandal at Corinth. Paul handled it quickly. The Galatians lost it on grace. Peter talks about people destroying themselves for not getting Paul's Epistles correct. Most of the Church Epistles were reproof and correction. Paul had nostalgic fits that almost destroyed his ministry. Peter was to be blamed for being two faced with the Gentiles. Where ever there are humans enjoying the Word you get dynamic swirls of the adversary's attacks. Give that first century church another few decades and all is lost.
Mike, the way it happened between Gorbachev and Reagan was Gorby didn't keep insisting it was a two way street.
He had to, in the words of the late M Scott Peck, empty himself of such an attitude and clearly, emphatically, indicate he was OPEN and willing to give first.
Are you capable of doing the same?
I'm not going to budge on the Word, but I am always trying to better communicate. I am learning there.
Are YOU capable of change, and admitting that the "absent Christ" is a good thing, and that we were taught rightly there?
It's all in this thread. I won't budge on the doctrine I posted here, but I can modify how I express it. Find me a post that should be re-written here in this thread and we can discuss it.
But the doctrine of the absent Christ is sound as we were taught it. Yes, some got it wrong. At least we can correct their error here and move on. Even Raf had to admit this "absent christ crisis" is phoney. It is hyped up negativity, and incorrect. Can you relax long enough to admit that?
Dude, I've been working on changing ever since I left twi. It's a journey.
Am I willing to acknowledge your position on biblical matters of any kind? I might be, if that was the focus of my journey these days. But it isn't. Too many other, more pertinent, things to learn and to do before it's all said and done and I take my last breath.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
427
271
423
257
Popular Days
Feb 14
142
Oct 13
105
Jan 18
101
Oct 8
88
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 427 posts
T-Bone 271 posts
OldSkool 423 posts
Nathan_Jr 257 posts
Popular Days
Feb 14 2023
142 posts
Oct 13 2022
105 posts
Jan 18 2023
101 posts
Oct 8 2022
88 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
First off, Biblically speaking, Christ has never been absent...that doctrine does not come close to occuring anywhere in the Bible. Yet the way international teaches the word of God takes the place of
Bolshevik
Mike's apparent anger toward Christ and emphasis on obedience . . . that's Wayworld . . . that's the annihilation of the individual
waysider
Soooo...He used ONE verse from the Amplified Bible, HALF a chapter from the New English Bible and required PFAL '77 students to get some version from the 1800's that has a name so unremarkable you can
Posted Images
Mike
Looks like you have not read how I corrected this error of yours.
If you have read my position of NOT ignoring the negatives and only shunting them off for private handling, and still maintain what you just posted, then it is you who have head in sand.
Maybe in the past 2 hours you did read or re-read better what I am saying to you today.
Repeat: I do not want to magnify the negatives to the top of my public posting priorities, but I do give the negatives (in private) ample time to hear, process, and search for solutions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
If I wanted to ignore the negatives, I simply would not come here and hear them constantly. Think that through for a minute.
Edited by MikeWhat you posted above may have applied to some mature grad back in the 70s, but certainly not to me in the 2020s.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Yeah...I remember reading in the 8th church epistle that referenced the fifth gospel that christianity was good and evil dynamically swirled together like some sort of little debbie snack cake...Im sure this evil had nothing to do with fruit produced by false doctrines of devils, basic human lust and greed carried out by top leadership, adultery, intellectual theft, layers of lies, and multiple faces on those in the trustee household at the time...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Actually, a lot of that did happen in the early centuries. Things moved slower then with their slow travel and communications, but you can see seeds of that in the correction and reproof epistles, especially Corinthians.
It is only logical that the devil would seek to corrupt the places and people where the most Word was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I have thought it through. After all, you are whining that we should be paying attention to the positives and ignore the negatives.
You know why people tell you to be positive? Because being positive makes you a sucker. Being positive will allow you to snarf down Saint Vic's bull like pot brownies. Then by the time you realize you've been had, it's too late.
Now, YOU think that through for a minute.
Oh really? Tell me, what do I see here?
Sometime back, I went to a local bar. As the live music played on, a Mormon chose to witness to me. I asked him several questions, which he promptly ignore and continued spouting his doctrine.
You see he wasn't interested in me as a person at all. He wanted somebody to teach, to lord over, as that's how most people see the teacher-student relationship.
Say, didn't you once say you wanted to teach people here and when I asked you if you were willing to learn you said no? You see, when I taught people about computers, I learned as much from them as they did from me. That's the correct student-teacher dynamic.
So what do I get when I communicate with you? Questions you refuse to answer, accusations that people are trying to trip you up, and somehow, you have the time to write a doctrinal piece half a page long,but you never have enough time to answer questions on a previous post. All contributing to the sense you're attempting to hide something.
Edited by So_cratesSoCrates Law: if I were laid as often a Saint Vic, travelled as much as Saint Vic, and raked in as much cash as Saint Vic I'd be singing praises to God too
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
We're not talking about the first century...we're talking about the way international.
And no place ever in scripture are we told Christianity is a dynamic swirls of good and evil. What concord does Christ have with Belial? Sin is always reproved and condemned for what it is. That was one of the main reasons for The Torah...to identify and convict sin. Your rationalizing.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Oh really?
A thought (or two) occurred to me reading through some of today's posts. One of those thoughts is best illustrated and hopefully illuminated by a song from a 1969 movie.
Everybody's talkin' at me. Can't hear a word they're sayin'...
Edited by RockyI guess we can be thankful. I suppose the history of humankind, of civilization, of religion is replete with people talking AT each other without really listening.
A natural outcome of that kind of interaction through the millennia has been rampant wars. LOTS of them.
I'm confident many at GSC have tried to listen when Mike has talked AT them. I'm confident Mike believes he was genuinely trying to engage in productive dialogue.
I'm confident we'll really never, despite anyone's frustrations (including mine), ever really reach common ground to come to genuine connection with Mike.
I also reflect on MY childhood history with the RC church and subsequent exposure to the different ways the RC church has accommodated and acquiesced to various local religious traditions... to ensure the survival of said RC church.
Not that any of that would come into play here at GSC.
But it might with various of twi's actual international "missions" in Africa or South America.
But I digress.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
THIS seems like a quintessential example of talking AT us.
The opposite of dialogue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
An exquisite example, Socrates, of the opposite of Deep Canvassing.
Edited by RockyAnd of people talking AT you.
And brilliantly illuminating the fundamental (bottom line) reason Mike has not, nor ever will (unless he figures out how dismissively unloving people perceive his schtick to be here).
How do people change their minds? First step, someone listens to them BEFORE (or really, instead of) telling them how wrong they are.
I sat in on a law school class session once a few years ago. The professor asked questions intended to elicit discussion.
Instead of, "no you're dead wrong," he replied to students with thoughtful, acknowledging responsive follow ups like, "what about this..." or "have you thought about this angle..."
Mike, all you're doing and have been doing for the better part of two decades here at GSC, is 1) talk AT us, 2) not recognize the humanity and value of the experiences that underlie the responses people have graciously (or at times, snarkily) given you.
Have you given these things any thought over the years/decades?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
There have been SOME that can hear me, and I dialog with them best I can. Most are mockers and not listening to me. They talk at me. At least that was my experience 20 years ago, and in many of the years in between. In recent years I have tried again a few times, and because lots of the most rabid haters of me are gone, I feel some progress has been made.
The common ground we share is what went right for us as we learned the Word. I can usually connect with people if they can connect with their past's positivity around the Word.
I have shared these days lots of my angst over what went wrong, and my chosen path to deal with those things. Shining as much light on dark places is what I insist on doing. Those who see this as a better solution than constantly moaning about what happened 40 years ago are the ones with whom I can have more common ground in the future. Constantly and exclusively moaning and groaning and mocking is not a solution and I wont look for common ground there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Play the victim...then become the agressor....then play the victim...rinse...repeat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
The following is a reflection on world history.
The COLD WAR ended when Mikhail Gorbachev decided to implement glasnost. It's clear from the history books (and much is available on line) Russia and Gorbachev viewed themselves as victims of western imperialism. That was a legit point of view even though Europe and the US had a much different POV that was no less legitimate.
I submit that the GSC cold war between Mike and the rest of us will end when Mike decides to implement glasnost.
IF you're honest with yourself and with US, Mike, you'll have to recognize the corrosive impact of the rhetoric you employ. I cited a couple of examples in posts a little while ago.
IF you genuinely want people here to take you seriously, you will have to engage with a different, perhaps more loving, tone.
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
That love option is a two way street.
I am thankful for your efforts to communicate with me lately.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Where did you find that common ground, other than in your head? I believe you believe you have found said common ground. But that's not reflected in any of your posts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Just didnt want this to get buried there Mike.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Mike, the way it happened between Gorbachev and Reagan was Gorby didn't keep insisting it was a two way street.
He had to, in the words of the late M Scott Peck, empty himself of such an attitude and clearly, emphatically, indicate he was OPEN and willing to give first.
Are you capable of doing the same?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
A more contemporary scholar than Peck. Brene Brown. Has studied vulnerability for decades.
The rhetoric you have used on this thread, today, is the opposite of vulnerability.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I see dynamic swirls of scandal at Corinth. Paul handled it quickly. The Galatians lost it on grace. Peter talks about people destroying themselves for not getting Paul's Epistles correct. Most of the Church Epistles were reproof and correction. Paul had nostalgic fits that almost destroyed his ministry. Peter was to be blamed for being two faced with the Gentiles. Where ever there are humans enjoying the Word you get dynamic swirls of the adversary's attacks. Give that first century church another few decades and all is lost.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I'm not going to budge on the Word, but I am always trying to better communicate. I am learning there.
Are YOU capable of change, and admitting that the "absent Christ" is a good thing, and that we were taught rightly there?
It's all in this thread. I won't budge on the doctrine I posted here, but I can modify how I express it. Find me a post that should be re-written here in this thread and we can discuss it.
But the doctrine of the absent Christ is sound as we were taught it. Yes, some got it wrong. At least we can correct their error here and move on. Even Raf had to admit this "absent christ crisis" is phoney. It is hyped up negativity, and incorrect. Can you relax long enough to admit that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Dude, I've been working on changing ever since I left twi. It's a journey.
Am I willing to acknowledge your position on biblical matters of any kind? I might be, if that was the focus of my journey these days. But it isn't. Too many other, more pertinent, things to learn and to do before it's all said and done and I take my last breath.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
To succeed on that objective, it will take doing some emotional work. I hope you avail yourself of the insights I shared with video of Brene Brown.
Her insights can powerfully assist in that regard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
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.