My first objection, though, [to Undertow, Charlene's MEMOIR] is how she objected to the idea that "the Bible interprets itself." I find that objection very dim witted, even when pumped up with detail like with the posters that attacked it 15 years ago here.
Mike, you have NO right to "object" to someone else's story. It's not a concordance, or an exegesis or anything with which you would have a right to make an argument against. It's her STORY. It's HER life and experience that's in the book. Nothing more, nothing less.
IF you find something in it to take issue with, you STILL have to keep in mind that it is someone else's story, not yours. As such, you just don't get to have ANY say about what's she says was her experience.
I also notice how Mike can see it that way- but when another thread has actual discussions that address how Charlene was correct and that the Bible does NOT interpret itself, that's when Mike "gets busy" again, and never DIRECTLY addresses anything that refutes his position. He responds with emotion and ad hominem attacks ("dim-witted"), but the actual discussion he ducks. This reminds me of an old saying. "If you have the law on your side, hammer the law. If you have the facts on your side, hammer the facts. If you have neither on your side, hammer the table." We're getting noise but a skipping of substance- and that tells us a great deal.
Out of curiosity, where you skimming for something you didn't agree with, found it, and shut your mind down because her book challenges the validity of your cult leader and his cult?
Vicster would have accepted your Grandma's dentures if they had gold in em.
I'm sure he would, but he would also accept my pennies into his gloveless hands, and the power I would have would be in the knowledge of where those pennies had been.
I'm sure he would, but he would also accept my pennies into his gloveless hands, and the power I would have would be in the knowledge of where those pennies had been.
Mike, you have NO right to "object" to someone else's story. It's not a concordance, or an exegesis or anything with which you would have a right to make an argument against. It's her STORY. It's HER life and experience that's in the book. Nothing more, nothing less.
IF you find something in it to take issue with, you STILL have to keep in mind that it is someone else's story, not yours. As such, you just don't get to have ANY say about what's she says was her experience.
The difference here is that every poster on this thread so far - EXCEPT YOU - have stated valid reasons, anecdotal testimony and hard evidence (like statements right out of PFAL) as to why PFAL sucks.
The problem with YOUR story that claims PFAL does not suck comes off like a make believe alternate reality tale.
You offer NO proof - NO valid reasons for believing YOUR story other than claiming how much PFAL has “blessed “ you and tall tales of the 2nd wave of returning to PFAL has started.
I took up the issue, from penworks' post, and asserted that the Bible interpreting itself is a good and useful teaching in the PFAL class.
How is that diversionary?
...other than disagreeing with the initial post of this thread....
Does all disagreement strike you as diversionary?
Are we supposed to me in march-step here like the Nazi Corps?
You’re being diversionary by attempting to distract others with your nonsense.
You can disagree with the starter post and any other post you want to . It would be nice if you would contribute something that makes sense.
Disagreement is great in the Socratic method because it gets down to the essentials. Diversions suck because it’s a chaotic method which attempts to confuse others on what the essential issues are.
Ha ! To characterize the intent of Grease Spot like being in lockstep in the way corps is a hilarious distortion. Even funnier because it’s coming from YOU who was never in the corps! Ha ha ha ha!
There is no forced agreement on Grease Spot . There is freedom to think and choose a response.
Your comic routine reminds of someone who is an election-denier but has no evidence for their assertion.
78. victor made up his own definitions of words to advance his agenda. He changed the meaning of words in English, Greek, Latin, Hebrew. Sometimes he would change them because he simply didn't understand. Sometimes he would change the definition of a word to support an impossibly stupid asserted claim.
For example: he changed the meaning of the word interpret to fit his private agenda. He distorted the meaning to MAKE it fit....like a hand in a...
Mike, you have NO right to "object" to someone else's story. It's not a concordance, or an exegesis or anything with which you would have a right to make an argument against. It's her STORY. It's HER life and experience that's in the book. Nothing more, nothing less.
IF you find something in it to take issue with, you STILL have to keep in mind that it is someone else's story, not yours. As such, you just don't get to have ANY say about what's she says was her experience.
We may have mis-comunicated on one thing. It's the word "story."
What I was objecting to is her handling (in that one post of hers) of the one tiny issue of "the Bible interpreting itself" or not.
*/*/*/*
There was no objecting to the "story" in her book in my post.
I haven't even read 5% of it yet, not even to the point where she took the class, and am in no big hurry to finish.
For unrelated reasons, I've been recently looking at the John Scheonheit 1986 paper on adultery. It occurred to me there could be overlap between the two, so I already had "Undertow" and started reading it slowly.
I have been thinking of writing a TWI history, where the totally white-washing style of official TWI publications can be avoided. Also to be avoided are the styles prevalent here, which I.M.H.O. are too extreme in the opposite direction. The Scheonheit paper played a prominent role in the ministry meltdown of 1986, so it must be included in an honest history of TWI.
I haven't even read 5% of it yet, not even to the point where she took the class, and am in no big hurry to finish.
It's 474 pages. Even at a slow pace of 125 pages a week you could be done in a month. I read it within a week and it was a good read. Basiclly, you are saying you aren't qualified to comment on her book because you won't read it. Why is that Mike? Hit too close to home? Can't keep st vic canonized if you were to read it...huh...If scripture intreprets itself and the Bible canonizes itself did st vic canonize himself?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
120
259
157
205
Popular Days
Nov 2
154
Oct 30
111
Nov 3
106
Nov 4
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 120 posts
T-Bone 259 posts
OldSkool 157 posts
Nathan_Jr 205 posts
Popular Days
Nov 2 2022
154 posts
Oct 30 2022
111 posts
Nov 3 2022
106 posts
Nov 4 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
penworks
VPW's statement that the Bible interprets itself is nonsense. The act of interpretation of any text is done by the reader of the text. People interpret what they read. They are the ones who give it me
waysider
And in doing so, he was violating his own "To Whom it is Written" rule.
Charity
What I see in what you wrote Chockfull is that we were meant to have a relationship with the class - you know the one that replaced our relationship with Christ. It was our lord in that it had power,
Posted Images
Nathan_Jr
74. Johnny Jumpup, Henry Boloko, Snowball Pete, and poor Maggie Muggins who had to service them all because kings, kingdoms and T7TMOG.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
75. So much bullshonta.
It's worth repeating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
76. Diagrams, charts, and "the art department."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Bullshonta is my favorite sniglet ever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
It interprets itself.
Edited by Nathan_JrRich Hall was underrated
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Right where its written
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
77. The price $$$
I didn't pay for it, at least not financially. But if I was forced to pay, I would have paid in pennies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Lies, titles and bare oh my !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Mike, you have NO right to "object" to someone else's story. It's not a concordance, or an exegesis or anything with which you would have a right to make an argument against. It's her STORY. It's HER life and experience that's in the book. Nothing more, nothing less.
IF you find something in it to take issue with, you STILL have to keep in mind that it is someone else's story, not yours. As such, you just don't get to have ANY say about what's she says was her experience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I also notice how Mike can see it that way- but when another thread has actual discussions that address how Charlene was correct and that the Bible does NOT interpret itself, that's when Mike "gets busy" again, and never DIRECTLY addresses anything that refutes his position. He responds with emotion and ad hominem attacks ("dim-witted"), but the actual discussion he ducks. This reminds me of an old saying. "If you have the law on your side, hammer the law. If you have the facts on your side, hammer the facts. If you have neither on your side, hammer the table." We're getting noise but a skipping of substance- and that tells us a great deal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Vicster would have accepted your Grandma's dentures if they had gold in em.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Has the leopard changed his spots?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I'm sure he would, but he would also accept my pennies into his gloveless hands, and the power I would have would be in the knowledge of where those pennies had been.
Lo shonta!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Would be quite satisfying...lol shonta!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Well, it is MY story that PFAL did not suck.
How are you going to respect MY story?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Great point!
it seems like he’s doing the same diversionary tactics he does on the NT canon thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I took up the issue, from penworks' post, and asserted that the Bible interpreting itself is a good and useful teaching in the PFAL class.
How is that diversionary?
...other than disagreeing with the initial post of this thread....
Does all disagreement strike you as diversionary?
Are we supposed to me in march-step here like the Nazi Corps?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
The difference here is that every poster on this thread so far - EXCEPT YOU - have stated valid reasons, anecdotal testimony and hard evidence (like statements right out of PFAL) as to why PFAL sucks.
The problem with YOUR story that claims PFAL does not suck comes off like a make believe alternate reality tale.
You offer NO proof - NO valid reasons for believing YOUR story other than claiming how much PFAL has “blessed “ you and tall tales of the 2nd wave of returning to PFAL has started.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Does the Bible read itself?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Penworks didn't come for you Mike...you called her dim witted. If you want respect then give respect.
By respect your story...if respect = agree with/validate your story...then no.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
You’re being diversionary by attempting to distract others with your nonsense.
You can disagree with the starter post and any other post you want to . It would be nice if you would contribute something that makes sense.
Disagreement is great in the Socratic method because it gets down to the essentials. Diversions suck because it’s a chaotic method which attempts to confuse others on what the essential issues are.
Ha ! To characterize the intent of Grease Spot like being in lockstep in the way corps is a hilarious distortion. Even funnier because it’s coming from YOU who was never in the corps! Ha ha ha ha!
There is no forced agreement on Grease Spot . There is freedom to think and choose a response.
Your comic routine reminds of someone who is an election-denier but has no evidence for their assertion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
78. victor made up his own definitions of words to advance his agenda. He changed the meaning of words in English, Greek, Latin, Hebrew. Sometimes he would change them because he simply didn't understand. Sometimes he would change the definition of a word to support an impossibly stupid asserted claim.
For example: he changed the meaning of the word interpret to fit his private agenda. He distorted the meaning to MAKE it fit....like a hand in a...
Edited by Nathan_Jrglove.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
We may have mis-comunicated on one thing. It's the word "story."
What I was objecting to is her handling (in that one post of hers) of the one tiny issue of "the Bible interpreting itself" or not.
*/*/*/*
There was no objecting to the "story" in her book in my post.
I haven't even read 5% of it yet, not even to the point where she took the class, and am in no big hurry to finish.
For unrelated reasons, I've been recently looking at the John Scheonheit 1986 paper on adultery. It occurred to me there could be overlap between the two, so I already had "Undertow" and started reading it slowly.
I have been thinking of writing a TWI history, where the totally white-washing style of official TWI publications can be avoided. Also to be avoided are the styles prevalent here, which I.M.H.O. are too extreme in the opposite direction. The Scheonheit paper played a prominent role in the ministry meltdown of 1986, so it must be included in an honest history of TWI.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
It's 474 pages. Even at a slow pace of 125 pages a week you could be done in a month. I read it within a week and it was a good read. Basiclly, you are saying you aren't qualified to comment on her book because you won't read it. Why is that Mike? Hit too close to home? Can't keep st vic canonized if you were to read it...huh...If scripture intreprets itself and the Bible canonizes itself did st vic canonize himself?
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.