I've been asked to clarify the point of this thread. I contend that the only reason I need to is to address the deliberate attempts to derail it from the very first page. But I will back up to add context to the statement made in the opening post.
Let me start by saying that for the purpose of this thread, it really doesn't matter what "theopneustos" means. It only matters that it means something to you. If it means nothing to you, then this thread offers you no challenge. That's why I didn't just say "I believe nothing is God-breathed." That's not a statement that challenges people to address how they think about the topic. Yes, it's accurate. May 13, 1986 fell on a Tuesday. That's also accurate, and just as relevant (which is to say, not at all).
So, regardless of what I think God-breathed means, and regardless of what you think God-breathed means, let's agree that the word "theopneustos" is, in fact, a word in the Bible that VPW and TWI did not make up, and that it means, literally, "God-breathed," which VPW and TWI did not make up, and that many (most? all?) Christians agree with the statement that the Bible is God-breathed according to scripture. This is not a statement that is peculiar to GSC, TWI, CES, STFI, CFF, or any ministry that can trace itself to a farm in Ohio. If you bother to Google "God-breathed Word," you will find MANY references within the Christian world, only a fraction of which seem to have the remotest thing to do with TWI.
All of this is a preface.
Most Christians believe the Bible is God-breathed, whatever that means to them (or to you).
Along comes Mike. Mike wants us to think PFAL is God-breathed. Nonsense! we say. If PFAL were God-breathed, it would have the characteristics PFAL outlines for the God-breathed Word. It doesn't. It has actual errors and contradictions! Ok, fine, but so does the Bible. Oooooops.
Observation: If we use PFAL's defining characteristics of the God-breathed Word to rule itself out as God-breathed, we cannot escape that the Bible does not live up to the same criteria.
With me so far? Because so far I have not seen anyone disagree with this.
For two decades, Mike has managed to exploit, deliberately or not, the fact that you can't disqualify PFAL from being God-breathed without laying the foundation for the Bible to be disqualified on the same grounds. Wierwille was a womanizer (David, Solomon). He tells fake stories about things that didn't happen (Genesis, Exodus). He claimed God talked to him audibly (Moses).No one can confirm his absurd story of snow on the gas pumps (Jonah).
So, to those who believe the Bible is God-breathed, however you define it, how can you argue PFAL is not? My answer is easy: I don't believe EITHER work is God-breathed. Problem solved. But that's not YOUR answer. So what is?
My original post anticipates explanations that rule out PFAL as God-breathed and makes a prediction: You cannot rule out PFAL as God-breathed without ruling out the Bible on the same grounds.
Much respect for those whose answers implicitly admitted "I'm going on faith and I'm not willing to engage." No problem. Don't. You'll notice I did not argue with you.
Maybe go easy on Mike, unless you can tell us all how his leap of faith is so different from yours?
I've been asked to clarify the point of this thread. I contend that the only reason I need to is to address the deliberate attempts to derail it from the very first page. But I will back up to add context to the statement made in the opening post.
Let me start by saying that for the purpose of this thread, it really doesn't matter what "theopneustos" means. It only matters that it means something to you. If it means nothing to you, then this thread offers you no challenge. That's why I didn't just say "I believe nothing is God-breathed." That's not a statement that challenges people to address how they think about the topic. Yes, it's accurate. May 13, 1986 fell on a Tuesday. That's also accurate, and just as relevant (which is to say, not at all).
So, regardless of what I think God-breathed means, and regardless of what you think God-breathed means, let's agree that the word "theopneustos" is, in fact, a word in the Bible that VPW and TWI did not make up, and that it means, literally, "God-breathed," which VPW and TWI did not make up, and that many (most? all?) Christians agree with the statement that the Bible is God-breathed according to scripture. This is not a statement that is peculiar to GSC, TWI, CES, STFI, CFF, or any ministry that can trace itself to a farm in Ohio. If you bother to Google "God-breathed Word," you will find MANY references within the Christian world, only a fraction of which seem to have the remotest thing to do with TWI.
All of this is a preface.
Most Christians believe the Bible is God-breathed, whatever that means to them (or to you).
Along comes Mike. Mike wants us to think PFAL is God-breathed. Nonsense! we say. If PFAL were God-breathed, it would have the characteristics PFAL outlines for the God-breathed Word. It doesn't. It has actual errors and contradictions! Ok, fine, but so does the Bible. Oooooops.
Observation: If we use PFAL's defining characteristics of the God-breathed Word to rule itself out as God-breathed, we cannot escape that the Bible does not live up to the same criteria.
With me so far? Because so far I have not seen anyone disagree with this.
For two decades, Mike has managed to exploit, deliberately or not, the fact that you can't disqualify PFAL from being God-breathed without laying the foundation for the Bible to be disqualified on the same grounds. Wierwille was a womanizer (David, Solomon). He tells fake stories about things that didn't happen (Genesis, Exodus). He claimed God talked to him audibly (Moses).No one can confirm his absurd story of snow on the gas pumps (Jonah).
So, to those who believe the Bible is God-breathed, however you define it, how can you argue PFAL is not? My answer is easy: I don't believe EITHER work is God-breathed. Problem solved. But that's not YOUR answer. So what is?
My original post anticipates explanations that rule out PFAL as God-breathed and makes a prediction: You cannot rule out PFAL as God-breathed without ruling out the Bible on the same grounds.
Much respect for those whose answers implicitly admitted "I'm going on faith and I'm not willing to engage." No problem. Don't. You'll notice I did not argue with you.
Maybe go easy on Mike, unless you can tell us all how his leap of faith is so different from yours?
Exhale.
I believe the Bible is God-breathed – I follow the limited inspiration theory. And because it is God-breathed I view it trustworthy as to metaphysical truths – to fine tune my reply here in order to say why PFAL is NOT God-breathed, I would have to argue with the disciplines of biblical theologyandsystematic theology- without getting too technical here, biblical theology is limited to a collation and restatement of biblical data, without the logical analysis and dialectical correlation between texts that systematic theology emphasizes.
PFAL runs roughshod over both those disciplines. There is some overlap – but I’ll mention a couple of key differences. Concerning his erroneousbiblical theology – one example is wierwille collecting various passages across 4 gospels to reinterpret the crucifixion scene as there being 4 crucified with Jesus Christ.
Regarding his flawed systematic theology, wierwille used logical fallacies and Scripture twisting to postulate a law of believing. For example – something I mentioned in an earlier post – wierwille cites Matthew 21:21as a proof-text; Even Companion Bible and more recently NIV Cultural Background Study Bible state Jesus' words "if you say to this mountain & etc." that it was a common proverb to say of a great teacher, who removed difficulties, that he was “a rooter up of mountains”. Some suggest that “moving mountains” was a Jewish figure of speech for doing what was considered impossible.
In a shameless plug for a thread I started in About the Way forum, my intention was to get Grease Spotters involved in discussion the erroneous biblical theology and systematic theology in PFAL > Why PFAL sucks
~ ~ ~ ~
How is my leap of faith different than Mike’s? It's not.
In terms of the act itself – there is no difference in our leaps of faith. The only difference is the object of our faith – if that is even a valid point in this discussion.
A leap of faith is an act of believing in or attempting something whose existence or outcome cannot be proved.
Both biblical theology and systematic theology rely on the collecting and restating of biblical data and logical analysis. It’s not a hard science where facts and theories can be firmly and exactly measured, tested, or proved.
If we can’t accurately measure, test, prove and compare the biblical theology and systematic theology of the Bible and PFAL, the discussion is pointless in my opinion. The Bible and PFAL both require a leap of faith. But I get it – this is in the Atheism, nontheism, skepticism: Questioning Faith forum – I forgot…I missed that…Here’s another mystery in my life. I’ve made at least two big leaps of faith. In 1974 I leapt on board wierwille’s interpretation of the Bible. When I left in 1986, I jumped ship – reexploring the Christian faith for myself. Since faith and reasonare both sources of authority upon which beliefs can rest, I am always in the exploring mode.
I do not begrudge you any of the points that you mentioned. And for what it is worth, I think Mike is off his rocker.
But are you unable to see how many Jews believe that christians have their scriptural and spiritual systematic theology completely out of whack? Do you have any idea how hard they laugh when you look at their scriptures as prophecies of Christ? "A virgin shall be with child"? "He shall be called a Nazarene"? "Out of Egypt I have called my Son"?
Jews laugh their asses off when Christians claim Hebrew scriptures are prophecies of Jesus's life. They know their scriptures. They know it's not true. They look at your theopneustos claims for Paul's letters and Matthew's plagiarized gospel the same way you look at Mike's theopneustos claims for Victor Paul's articles and plagiarized books. Biblical and systematic theology? They think yours is just as goofy as you think Mike's is.
I do not begrudge you any of the points that you mentioned. And for what it is worth, I think Mike is off his rocker.
But are you unable to see how many Jews believe that christians have their scriptural and spiritual systematic theology completely out of whack? Do you have any idea how hard they laugh when you look at their scriptures as prophecies of Christ? "A virgin shall be with child"? "He shall be called a Nazarene"? "Out of Egypt I have called my Son"?
Jews laugh their asses off when Christians claim Hebrew scriptures are prophecies of Jesus's life. They know their scriptures. They know it's not true. They look at your theopneustos claims for Paul's letters and Matthew's plagiarized gospel the same way you look at Mike's theopneustos claims for Victor Paul's articles and plagiarized books. Biblical and systematic theology? They think yours is just as goofy as you think Mike's is.
Oh I absolutely get your point Raf! And I think you know me by now when I say a lot of my beliefs are in a state of flux already.
The Jews might have it all right. YOU might have it all right - meaning there’s nothing beyond our five senses…. You know I highly respect your viewpoint …I usually pursue a vein of thinking until it appears to be a dead end…I really don’t know why I do…maybe I’m just wanting something more out of life.
probably to some folks my posts look just as goofy as Mike’s. It doesn’t matter to me - there’s a method to MY madness bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
I do not begrudge you any of the points that you mentioned. And for what it is worth, I think Mike is off his rocker.
But are you unable to see how many Jews believe that christians have their scriptural and spiritual systematic theology completely out of whack? Do you have any idea how hard they laugh when you look at their scriptures as prophecies of Christ? "A virgin shall be with child"? "He shall be called a Nazarene"? "Out of Egypt I have called my Son"?
Jews laugh their asses off when Christians claim Hebrew scriptures are prophecies of Jesus's life. They know their scriptures. They know it's not true. They look at your theopneustos claims for Paul's letters and Matthew's plagiarized gospel the same way you look at Mike's theopneustos claims for Victor Paul's articles and plagiarized books. Biblical and systematic theology? They think yours is just as goofy as you think Mike's is.
So for what it is worth there are similar views of Muslims toward scriptures they see a little different.
And my Buddhist friends see evidence of Jesus having reached what they call enlightenment by his teachings.
I think you are stretching defining common terms. Because that forms the major premise of a syllogism. And you have a motivation to prove something.
There are 7 billion people on this earth that I am sure will not understand my personal motivation.
I believe the Bible is God-breathed – I follow the limited inspiration theory. And because it is God-breathed I view it trustworthy as to metaphysical truths – to fine tune my reply here in order to say why PFAL is NOT God-breathed, I would have to argue with the disciplines of biblical theologyandsystematic theology- without getting too technical here, biblical theology is limited to a collation and restatement of biblical data, without the logical analysis and dialectical correlation between texts that systematic theology emphasizes.
PFAL runs roughshod over both those disciplines. There is some overlap – but I’ll mention a couple of key differences. Concerning his erroneousbiblical theology – one example is wierwille collecting various passages across 4 gospels to reinterpret the crucifixion scene as there being 4 crucified with Jesus Christ.
Regarding his flawed systematic theology, wierwille used logical fallacies and Scripture twisting to postulate a law of believing. For example – something I mentioned in an earlier post – wierwille cites Matthew 21:21as a proof-text; Even Companion Bible and more recently NIV Cultural Background Study Bible state Jesus' words "if you say to this mountain & etc." that it was a common proverb to say of a great teacher, who removed difficulties, that he was “a rooter up of mountains”. Some suggest that “moving mountains” was a Jewish figure of speech for doing what was considered impossible.
In a shameless plug for a thread I started in About the Way forum, my intention was to get Grease Spotters involved in discussion the erroneous biblical theology and systematic theology in PFAL > Why PFAL sucks
~ ~ ~ ~
How is my leap of faith different than Mike’s? It's not.
In terms of the act itself – there is no difference in our leaps of faith. The only difference is the object of our faith – if that is even a valid point in this discussion.
A leap of faith is an act of believing in or attempting something whose existence or outcome cannot be proved.
Both biblical theology and systematic theology rely on the collecting and restating of biblical data and logical analysis. It’s not a hard science where facts and theories can be firmly and exactly measured, tested, or proved.
If we can’t accurately measure, test, prove and compare the biblical theology and systematic theology of the Bible and PFAL, the discussion is pointless in my opinion. The Bible and PFAL both require a leap of faith. But I get it – this is in the Atheism, nontheism, skepticism: Questioning Faith forum – I forgot…I missed that…Here’s another mystery in my life. I’ve made at least two big leaps of faith. In 1974 I leapt on board wierwille’s interpretation of the Bible. When I left in 1986, I jumped ship – reexploring the Christian faith for myself. Since faith and reasonare both sources of authority upon which beliefs can rest, I am always in the exploring mode.
I have similar feelings but a less technical description. I view faith as a source of inspiration but have departed from fundamentalist views.
This whole topic is starting to sound like a Dan Brown novel - the Da Vinci Code or Angels and Demons.
No they don’t. Try getting in a trinity discussion with someone in mainstream Christianity for instance. They have no background no depth no scriptures and just a creed to attach to.
Most Christians probably go on the new birth and community honestly.
I said "MostChristians believe the Bible is God-breathed, whatever that means tothem (or to you)."
I didn't think that statement was remotely controversial. Are you saying most Christians do not believe that?
And I am not saying a belief is untrue just because it's mocked. If that were the case, no belief would be true. And Mike's thesis falls under the same protection. It's not false because we mock it [and OH, I do].
The point I am making is simply that it's difficult [I contend impossible] to come up with a reason to reject Mike's arguments that cannot be used to justify a rejection of any flavor of Christianity.
I said "MostChristians believe the Bible is God-breathed, whatever that means tothem (or to you)."
I didn't think that statement was remotely controversial. Are you saying most Christians do not believe that?
And I am not saying a belief is untrue just because it's mocked. If that were the case, no belief would be true. And Mike's thesis falls under the same protection. It's not false because we mock it [and OH, I do].
The point I am making is simply that it's difficult [I contend impossible] to come up with a reason to reject Mike's arguments that cannot be used to justify a rejection of any flavor of Christianity.
I’m going to go more off your latest post intent than quibbling over details of the long old one. The whole paragraph that precedes the sentence you quoted to me came off a lot more fundamentalist.
I would say that most “fundamentalist” Christians would maybe be familiar with Theo pneustos. Maybe. Of all of the conversations I have had with various Christians I have yet to meet one who knew enough Greek in that scripture to argue semantics about VPs interpretation. Most just accept scripture as a kind of “God inspired”.
Yes if you accept fundamentalist major premises you cannot avoid fundamentalist conclusions.
I remember taking a college class on the Pauline epistles. The teacher was a Catholic priest with a doctoral degree in theology. I will never forget the puzzled look on his face when I was trying to go through PFAL “how the Word interprets itself” and “remote context”. At the time I felt that showed his ignorance of scripture. Now I think he was just astounded at the logical leaps.
VP set a fundamentalist context, then set up a straw man with 4 Crucified and other similar insignificant arguments, then set a wedge with the extreme anti trinity position, then used that to set himself up as an anti Christ teaching an extreme conspiracy theorist oriented advanced class that promotes a Way tree and the structure there in place of the believers own intuition into scripture and self set up circles of faith and support.
All in all I’m not trying to justify anyone’s acceptance or rejection or either religion or the savior.
The methods of a cult stay similar regardless of the product or story.
I guess my question to you is more “are you a Fundamentalist atheist?” If so how does that work?
If not maybe you more identify with being like RD father in the other account - need to see spiritual evidence under a microscope. That’s cool.
I personally feel that Mike is trapped by his Theo pneustos vision in either sense and can wander around there forever. There is just self mental torture down that path trying to make man’s word Gods words.
The whole paragraph that precedes the sentence you quoted to me came off a lot more fundamentalist.
I just checked. Your assessment is not correct. At all.
Here's what I wrote: [the formatting got thrown off here and I can't figure out how to fix it. Sorry].
Quote
let'sagree that the word "theopneustos" is, in fact, a word inthe Bible that VPW and TWI did not make up, and that it means, literally, "God-breathed," which VPW and TWI did not makeup, and that many (most? all?) Christians agree with the statement that the Bible is God-breathed according to scripture. This is not a statement that is peculiar to GSC, TWI, CES, STFI, CFF, or any ministry that can trace itself to a farm in Ohio. If you bother to Google "God-breathed Word," you will find MANY references within the Christian world, only a fraction of which seem to have the remotest thing to do with TWI.
All of this is a preface.
Most Christians believe the Bible is God-breathed, whatever that means to them (or to you).
I do not see how any sentence preceding the last one can be described as "fundamentalist" unless you are applying a fundamentalist definition to "God-breathed." Thecwhole POINT of that paragraph was that I was NOT using a fundamentalist definition.
49 minutes ago, chockfull said:
Most just accept scripture as a kind of “God inspired”.
That. was. literally. my. point.
I think [if I may] that your question to me presumes that I have an explicit or implicit definition of theopneustos in mind. I don't. At all. I'll repeat my point: It does not matter how you define the term, whether it's God-breathed perfect down to the last preposition or "kind of God inspired," there's no way to rule out PFAL that does not rule out the Bible.
On what grounds do you reject PFAL as "kind of God inspired"? Can you see how someone else might apply the same standard to the Bible and find it wanting?
I just checked. Your assessment is not correct. At all.
Here's what I wrote: [the formatting got thrown off here and I can't figure out how to fix it. Sorry].
So on ruling out PFAL vs the Bible.
Jesus taught to look at the fruit not the logic.
The fruit of the TWI organization shows one kind.
The fruit of Christianity as a whole shows another kind.
By following Jesus instructions I feel that I am able to effectively distinguish between the two.
The fruit of the TWI org manifests similar to the fruit of the JW org and the LDS or and the Scientology org. It manifests with the abuse of the small person the least follower.
The fruit of Christianity in its genuine form shows the love, community and sound logic it was intended for. It manifests with the building up and advancing of the least follower.
So in conclusion no the Bible and PFAL are not in the same category of “God breathed”.
I think you will agree that I could find oodles of examples of the fruit of Christianity being precisely the same as PFAL: the abuse, the cover ups, the shunning, the egotism, the persecution, the estrangement of families... Catholic, Evangelical, Pentecostal. Maybe not the Lutherans. Heh heh: not anymore. But ask the Germans...
'But,' you might say, 'that's only people who abuse the Christian label, not true Scotsm... I mean not true Christianity.'
Fine. But Mike gets to make the same argument: no one who truly understands and applies the principles of PFAL will ever produce anything but the fruit of the spirit. Anyone who abuses has betrayed PFAL.
I think you will agree that I could find oodles of examples of the fruit of Christianity being precisely the same as PFAL: the abuse, the cover ups, the shunning, the egotism, the persecution, the estrangement of families... Catholic, Evangelical, Pentecostal. Maybe not the Lutherans. Heh heh: not anymore. But ask the Germans...
'But,' you might say, 'that's only people who abuse the Christian label, not true Scotsm... I mean not true Christianity.'
Fine. But Mike gets to make the same argument: no one who truly understands and applies the principles of PFAL will ever produce anything but the fruit of the spirit. Anyone who abuses has betrayed PFAL.
You didn’t read fully what I wrote. I said Christianity in its genuine form. No I do not agree.
Yes there are plenty of examples of it being in corrupted form. TWI is just one. That is not the fruit of genuine Christianity.
Mike can make any illogical argument he wants. Nobody is saying he doesn’t “get to”.
You also can leave out words and change concepts to make “Christianity” mean the corrupt people and practices of the religion who are not true or genuine. You also “get to”.
But no it is not a logical argument without twisting words or concepts.
It is ridiculous to hold PFAL and the Bible as equal when the fruit of both of those when taught and applied is different kinds of fruit.
But you “get to” be ridiculous.
Probably because you are mad and have ptsd from two of those groups. But you “get to” be mad and recover in your best way.
But that doesn’t mean I don’t “get to” view Christianity as genuine in its pure form and acknowledge that people corrupt it.
And I “get to” do that without accepting people gaslighting me by changing what I say.
How convenient! A formula that absolves Christianity of the actions of everyone who applied it and disclosed its flaws!
An application doesn't fit your prediction? Must not have been genuine Christianity! Tadaaaa!
These. Are. Excuses.
The same excuses Mike makes to absolve PFAL of the misdeeds of its adherents, the same excuses Christians make to absolve Christianity of the misdeeds of its adherents. It's. the. same. thing!
And I know you take solace in characterizing me as someone who was hurt by both groups or mad at both groups [don't recall ever saying I was hurt by either, and I am no angrier at TWI that you are], but ok, you "get to" make $#!/ up to dodge from my point by making it about ME so you don't have to confront it.
It doesn't change the fact that the tactics Mike uses to defend his holy book are identical to the tactics you use to defend yours. Mike's dismissal of those who "abuse" PFAL is identical to your dismissal of those who "abuse" Christianity or scripture. Mike's exaltation of the true value of the real PFAL is identical to your exaltation of true Christianity and Biblical understanding/appreciation. Mike's assertion that it takes a certain in-depth spiritual perception and awareness to see PFAL for the Godsend that it is is identical to your/Paul's assertion that the natural man can't understand the things of God because you need the magic decoder ring... I mean, because they are spiritually discerned [which is a first century admission that when you look at it dispasdionately, it just makes no flipping sense].
Go ahead and make it about me. But it's not. I dropped my stake in this argument a decade ago.
This is about the fact that the only difference between Mike and traditional Christians is the age of the scriptures they defend.
Breathe deep the gathering gloom Watch lights fade from every room Bedsitter people look back and lament Another day's useless energy is spent Impassioned lovers wrestle as one Lonely man cries for love and has none New mother picks up and suckles her son Senior citizens wish they were young
Cold-hearted orb that rules the night Removes the colors from our sight Red is grey and yellow-white But we decide which is right And which is an illusion
How convenient! A formula that absolves Christianity of the actions of everyone who applied it and disclosed its flaws!
An application doesn't fit your prediction? Must not have been genuine Christianity! Tadaaaa!
These. Are. Excuses.
The same excuses Mike makes to absolve PFAL of the misdeeds of its adherents, the same excuses Christians make to absolve Christianity of the misdeeds of its adherents. It's. the. same. thing!
And I know you take solace in characterizing me as someone who was hurt by both groups or mad at both groups [don't recall ever saying I was hurt by either, and I am no angrier at TWI that you are], but ok, you "get to" make $#!/ up to dodge from my point by making it about ME so you don't have to confront it.
It doesn't change the fact that the tactics Mike uses to defend his holy book are identical to the tactics you use to defend yours. Mike's dismissal of those who "abuse" PFAL is identical to your dismissal of those who "abuse" Christianity or scripture. Mike's exaltation of the true value of the real PFAL is identical to your exaltation of true Christianity and Biblical understanding/appreciation. Mike's assertion that it takes a certain in-depth spiritual perception and awareness to see PFAL for the Godsend that it is is identical to your/Paul's assertion that the natural man can't understand the things of God because you need the magic decoder ring... I mean, because they are spiritually discerned [which is a first century admission that when you look at it dispasdionately, it just makes no flipping sense].
Go ahead and make it about me. But it's not. I dropped my stake in this argument a decade ago.
This is about the fact that the only difference between Mike and traditional Christians is the age of the scriptures they defend.
The things you call “facts” and “identical” are both made up in your mind.
I don’t take solace in anything. I do see your arguments as influenced by anger in that they are less logical. Pointing it out seems to increase that.
I didn’t say the genuine form of Christianity absolves anyone of anything but don’t understand what you are getting at regarding misdeeds and excuses. The Catholics and holy wars murdered more people in the name of Christianity than all the public shootings out together. They don’t represent Jesus Christ in that any more than VP does in PFAL.
Nobody mentioned magic decoder rings. I was responding to your illogical statement about God “not hiding himself” and how as spirit He doesn’t have to to go undetected.
No Mikes exaltation of PFAL is not the same as my exaltation of my Lord Jesus Christ.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
80
37
25
33
Popular Days
Feb 17
51
Feb 16
36
Feb 27
26
Mar 10
24
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 80 posts
Bolshevik 37 posts
chockfull 25 posts
OldSkool 33 posts
Popular Days
Feb 17 2023
51 posts
Feb 16 2023
36 posts
Feb 27 2023
26 posts
Mar 10 2023
24 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
I can certainly see and appreciate the parallells. The way you sound to me...the way Mike sounds to me...you guys both sound like me. Ive stumbled at wierwille's doctrines and was blinded from scriptu
waysider
The Bible declares itself to be God breathed. Therefore, it must be because the Bible says so and it's God Breathed... That's about as circular as you can get. There is no outside evidence to suggest
sirguessalot
Indeed. Seems Adam-ness alone was incapable of generating much more than feral children. Re: the original topic of reasonable bases for rejecting written things as God-breathed… Most of us m
Raf
I've been asked to clarify the point of this thread. I contend that the only reason I need to is to address the deliberate attempts to derail it from the very first page. But I will back up to add context to the statement made in the opening post.
Let me start by saying that for the purpose of this thread, it really doesn't matter what "theopneustos" means. It only matters that it means something to you. If it means nothing to you, then this thread offers you no challenge. That's why I didn't just say "I believe nothing is God-breathed." That's not a statement that challenges people to address how they think about the topic. Yes, it's accurate. May 13, 1986 fell on a Tuesday. That's also accurate, and just as relevant (which is to say, not at all).
So, regardless of what I think God-breathed means, and regardless of what you think God-breathed means, let's agree that the word "theopneustos" is, in fact, a word in the Bible that VPW and TWI did not make up, and that it means, literally, "God-breathed," which VPW and TWI did not make up, and that many (most? all?) Christians agree with the statement that the Bible is God-breathed according to scripture. This is not a statement that is peculiar to GSC, TWI, CES, STFI, CFF, or any ministry that can trace itself to a farm in Ohio. If you bother to Google "God-breathed Word," you will find MANY references within the Christian world, only a fraction of which seem to have the remotest thing to do with TWI.
All of this is a preface.
Most Christians believe the Bible is God-breathed, whatever that means to them (or to you).
Along comes Mike. Mike wants us to think PFAL is God-breathed. Nonsense! we say. If PFAL were God-breathed, it would have the characteristics PFAL outlines for the God-breathed Word. It doesn't. It has actual errors and contradictions! Ok, fine, but so does the Bible. Oooooops.
Observation: If we use PFAL's defining characteristics of the God-breathed Word to rule itself out as God-breathed, we cannot escape that the Bible does not live up to the same criteria.
With me so far? Because so far I have not seen anyone disagree with this.
For two decades, Mike has managed to exploit, deliberately or not, the fact that you can't disqualify PFAL from being God-breathed without laying the foundation for the Bible to be disqualified on the same grounds. Wierwille was a womanizer (David, Solomon). He tells fake stories about things that didn't happen (Genesis, Exodus). He claimed God talked to him audibly (Moses).No one can confirm his absurd story of snow on the gas pumps (Jonah).
So, to those who believe the Bible is God-breathed, however you define it, how can you argue PFAL is not? My answer is easy: I don't believe EITHER work is God-breathed. Problem solved. But that's not YOUR answer. So what is?
My original post anticipates explanations that rule out PFAL as God-breathed and makes a prediction: You cannot rule out PFAL as God-breathed without ruling out the Bible on the same grounds.
Much respect for those whose answers implicitly admitted "I'm going on faith and I'm not willing to engage." No problem. Don't. You'll notice I did not argue with you.
Maybe go easy on Mike, unless you can tell us all how his leap of faith is so different from yours?
Exhale.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I believe the Bible is God-breathed – I follow the limited inspiration theory. And because it is God-breathed I view it trustworthy as to metaphysical truths – to fine tune my reply here in order to say why PFAL is NOT God-breathed, I would have to argue with the disciplines of biblical theology and systematic theology - without getting too technical here, biblical theology is limited to a collation and restatement of biblical data, without the logical analysis and dialectical correlation between texts that systematic theology emphasizes.
PFAL runs roughshod over both those disciplines. There is some overlap – but I’ll mention a couple of key differences. Concerning his erroneous biblical theology – one example is wierwille collecting various passages across 4 gospels to reinterpret the crucifixion scene as there being 4 crucified with Jesus Christ.
Regarding his flawed systematic theology, wierwille used logical fallacies and Scripture twisting to postulate a law of believing. For example – something I mentioned in an earlier post – wierwille cites Matthew 21:21 as a proof-text; Even Companion Bible and more recently NIV Cultural Background Study Bible state Jesus' words "if you say to this mountain & etc." that it was a common proverb to say of a great teacher, who removed difficulties, that he was “a rooter up of mountains”. Some suggest that “moving mountains” was a Jewish figure of speech for doing what was considered impossible.
In a shameless plug for a thread I started in About the Way forum, my intention was to get Grease Spotters involved in discussion the erroneous biblical theology and systematic theology in PFAL > Why PFAL sucks
~ ~ ~ ~
How is my leap of faith different than Mike’s? It's not.
In terms of the act itself – there is no difference in our leaps of faith. The only difference is the object of our faith – if that is even a valid point in this discussion.
A leap of faith is an act of believing in or attempting something whose existence or outcome cannot be proved.
Both biblical theology and systematic theology rely on the collecting and restating of biblical data and logical analysis. It’s not a hard science where facts and theories can be firmly and exactly measured, tested, or proved.
If we can’t accurately measure, test, prove and compare the biblical theology and systematic theology of the Bible and PFAL, the discussion is pointless in my opinion. The Bible and PFAL both require a leap of faith. But I get it – this is in the Atheism, nontheism, skepticism: Questioning Faith forum – I forgot…I missed that…Here’s another mystery in my life. I’ve made at least two big leaps of faith. In 1974 I leapt on board wierwille’s interpretation of the Bible. When I left in 1986, I jumped ship – reexploring the Christian faith for myself. Since faith and reason are both sources of authority upon which beliefs can rest, I am always in the exploring mode.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I do not begrudge you any of the points that you mentioned. And for what it is worth, I think Mike is off his rocker.
But are you unable to see how many Jews believe that christians have their scriptural and spiritual systematic theology completely out of whack? Do you have any idea how hard they laugh when you look at their scriptures as prophecies of Christ? "A virgin shall be with child"? "He shall be called a Nazarene"? "Out of Egypt I have called my Son"?
Jews laugh their asses off when Christians claim Hebrew scriptures are prophecies of Jesus's life. They know their scriptures. They know it's not true. They look at your theopneustos claims for Paul's letters and Matthew's plagiarized gospel the same way you look at Mike's theopneustos claims for Victor Paul's articles and plagiarized books. Biblical and systematic theology? They think yours is just as goofy as you think Mike's is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Oh I absolutely get your point Raf! And I think you know me by now when I say a lot of my beliefs are in a state of flux already.
The Jews might have it all right. YOU might have it all right - meaning there’s nothing beyond our five senses…. You know I highly respect your viewpoint …I usually pursue a vein of thinking until it appears to be a dead end…I really don’t know why I do…maybe I’m just wanting something more out of life.
probably to some folks my posts look just as goofy as Mike’s. It doesn’t matter to me - there’s a method to MY madness bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Gracious reply. Thank you for understanding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So for what it is worth there are similar views of Muslims toward scriptures they see a little different.
And my Buddhist friends see evidence of Jesus having reached what they call enlightenment by his teachings.
I think you are stretching defining common terms. Because that forms the major premise of a syllogism. And you have a motivation to prove something.
There are 7 billion people on this earth that I am sure will not understand my personal motivation.
Don’t be a muse killer lol.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
please elaborate
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I have similar feelings but a less technical description. I view faith as a source of inspiration but have departed from fundamentalist views.
This whole topic is starting to sound like a Dan Brown novel - the Da Vinci Code or Angels and Demons.
Faith vs Science
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
They mock your muse so your muse can’t be true?
Most Christians believe “god breathed” means x.
No they don’t. Try getting in a trinity discussion with someone in mainstream Christianity for instance. They have no background no depth no scriptures and just a creed to attach to.
Most Christians probably go on the new birth and community honestly.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
For the record, that's not what I said.
I said "Most Christians believe the Bible is God-breathed, whatever that means to them (or to you)."
I didn't think that statement was remotely controversial. Are you saying most Christians do not believe that?
And I am not saying a belief is untrue just because it's mocked. If that were the case, no belief would be true. And Mike's thesis falls under the same protection. It's not false because we mock it [and OH, I do].
The point I am making is simply that it's difficult [I contend impossible] to come up with a reason to reject Mike's arguments that cannot be used to justify a rejection of any flavor of Christianity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I’m going to go more off your latest post intent than quibbling over details of the long old one. The whole paragraph that precedes the sentence you quoted to me came off a lot more fundamentalist.
I would say that most “fundamentalist” Christians would maybe be familiar with Theo pneustos. Maybe. Of all of the conversations I have had with various Christians I have yet to meet one who knew enough Greek in that scripture to argue semantics about VPs interpretation. Most just accept scripture as a kind of “God inspired”.
Yes if you accept fundamentalist major premises you cannot avoid fundamentalist conclusions.
I remember taking a college class on the Pauline epistles. The teacher was a Catholic priest with a doctoral degree in theology. I will never forget the puzzled look on his face when I was trying to go through PFAL “how the Word interprets itself” and “remote context”. At the time I felt that showed his ignorance of scripture. Now I think he was just astounded at the logical leaps.
VP set a fundamentalist context, then set up a straw man with 4 Crucified and other similar insignificant arguments, then set a wedge with the extreme anti trinity position, then used that to set himself up as an anti Christ teaching an extreme conspiracy theorist oriented advanced class that promotes a Way tree and the structure there in place of the believers own intuition into scripture and self set up circles of faith and support.
All in all I’m not trying to justify anyone’s acceptance or rejection or either religion or the savior.
The methods of a cult stay similar regardless of the product or story.
I guess my question to you is more “are you a Fundamentalist atheist?” If so how does that work?
If not maybe you more identify with being like RD father in the other account - need to see spiritual evidence under a microscope. That’s cool.
I personally feel that Mike is trapped by his Theo pneustos vision in either sense and can wander around there forever. There is just self mental torture down that path trying to make man’s word Gods words.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I just checked. Your assessment is not correct. At all.
Here's what I wrote: [the formatting got thrown off here and I can't figure out how to fix it. Sorry].
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
No most Christians don’t agree with the statement the Bible is “God breathed”. They don’t know the term.
You skipped over that part of my post and only addressed the part about you whether or not you have a fundamentalist bias.
I don’t believe PFAL was God inspired.
Based upon the fruit in the man’s life and in the followers I view it as exactly the opposite - a cultic Stanford prison experiment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So on ruling out PFAL vs the Bible.
Jesus taught to look at the fruit not the logic.
The fruit of the TWI organization shows one kind.
The fruit of Christianity as a whole shows another kind.
By following Jesus instructions I feel that I am able to effectively distinguish between the two.
The fruit of the TWI org manifests similar to the fruit of the JW org and the LDS or and the Scientology org. It manifests with the abuse of the small person the least follower.
The fruit of Christianity in its genuine form shows the love, community and sound logic it was intended for. It manifests with the building up and advancing of the least follower.
So in conclusion no the Bible and PFAL are not in the same category of “God breathed”.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
For you.
I think you will agree that I could find oodles of examples of the fruit of Christianity being precisely the same as PFAL: the abuse, the cover ups, the shunning, the egotism, the persecution, the estrangement of families... Catholic, Evangelical, Pentecostal. Maybe not the Lutherans. Heh heh: not anymore. But ask the Germans...
'But,' you might say, 'that's only people who abuse the Christian label, not true Scotsm... I mean not true Christianity.'
Fine. But Mike gets to make the same argument: no one who truly understands and applies the principles of PFAL will ever produce anything but the fruit of the spirit. Anyone who abuses has betrayed PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Agree
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
You didn’t read fully what I wrote. I said Christianity in its genuine form. No I do not agree.
Yes there are plenty of examples of it being in corrupted form. TWI is just one. That is not the fruit of genuine Christianity.
Mike can make any illogical argument he wants. Nobody is saying he doesn’t “get to”.
You also can leave out words and change concepts to make “Christianity” mean the corrupt people and practices of the religion who are not true or genuine. You also “get to”.
But no it is not a logical argument without twisting words or concepts.
It is ridiculous to hold PFAL and the Bible as equal when the fruit of both of those when taught and applied is different kinds of fruit.
But you “get to” be ridiculous.
Probably because you are mad and have ptsd from two of those groups. But you “get to” be mad and recover in your best way.
But that doesn’t mean I don’t “get to” view Christianity as genuine in its pure form and acknowledge that people corrupt it.
And I “get to” do that without accepting people gaslighting me by changing what I say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
I would agree with this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
"I said Christianity in its genuine form."
How convenient! A formula that absolves Christianity of the actions of everyone who applied it and disclosed its flaws!
An application doesn't fit your prediction? Must not have been genuine Christianity! Tadaaaa!
These. Are. Excuses.
The same excuses Mike makes to absolve PFAL of the misdeeds of its adherents, the same excuses Christians make to absolve Christianity of the misdeeds of its adherents. It's. the. same. thing!
And I know you take solace in characterizing me as someone who was hurt by both groups or mad at both groups [don't recall ever saying I was hurt by either, and I am no angrier at TWI that you are], but ok, you "get to" make $#!/ up to dodge from my point by making it about ME so you don't have to confront it.
It doesn't change the fact that the tactics Mike uses to defend his holy book are identical to the tactics you use to defend yours. Mike's dismissal of those who "abuse" PFAL is identical to your dismissal of those who "abuse" Christianity or scripture. Mike's exaltation of the true value of the real PFAL is identical to your exaltation of true Christianity and Biblical understanding/appreciation. Mike's assertion that it takes a certain in-depth spiritual perception and awareness to see PFAL for the Godsend that it is is identical to your/Paul's assertion that the natural man can't understand the things of God because you need the magic decoder ring... I mean, because they are spiritually discerned [which is a first century admission that when you look at it dispasdionately, it just makes no flipping sense].
Go ahead and make it about me. But it's not. I dropped my stake in this argument a decade ago.
This is about the fact that the only difference between Mike and traditional Christians is the age of the scriptures they defend.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Late Lament (The Moody Blues)
Watch lights fade from every room
Bedsitter people look back and lament
Another day's useless energy is spent
Impassioned lovers wrestle as one
Lonely man cries for love and has none
New mother picks up and suckles her son
Senior citizens wish they were young
Removes the colors from our sight
Red is grey and yellow-white
But we decide which is right
And which is an illusion
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
The things you call “facts” and “identical” are both made up in your mind.
I don’t take solace in anything. I do see your arguments as influenced by anger in that they are less logical. Pointing it out seems to increase that.
I didn’t say the genuine form of Christianity absolves anyone of anything but don’t understand what you are getting at regarding misdeeds and excuses. The Catholics and holy wars murdered more people in the name of Christianity than all the public shootings out together. They don’t represent Jesus Christ in that any more than VP does in PFAL.
Nobody mentioned magic decoder rings. I was responding to your illogical statement about God “not hiding himself” and how as spirit He doesn’t have to to go undetected.
No Mikes exaltation of PFAL is not the same as my exaltation of my Lord Jesus Christ.
One is idolatry the other is Christianity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Whatever you say.
Whatever Mike says.
It's hard to tell them apart.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Whatever you say.
It’s not hard for me and most Christians to tell apart.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Which is how Jews felt about Paul.
Identical.
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.