In what I got from VPW, to know that I know that I know... simply means I have the maximum allowable "amount" of surety. I use the word "surety" a lot. It is a fundamental concept in science.
How does one know what the maximum allowable amount of surety is? We’re talking about epistemology NOT hard science!
wierwille presented himself as a know-it-all and encouraged his followers to think the same way.
I don’t claim to know it all. I know very little! But I know enough Scripture and how we got the Bible to know bull-$hit when I read it. Your stuff makes no sense and has no scriptural basis.
Well thanks for the summary.
I would have assumed that the special knowledge they had in mind was Jesus raised from the dead. If it was something else, and to the exclusion of the resurrection, then they sound like hooky pook, and not worth my time.
No - I’ve already touched on a couple of main tenets of Gnosticism - and too complicated to expand on what some Gnostic groups thought of even earthly Jesus besides his resurrected body. And another thorny subject in Christianity tinged with Gnosticism is how to get around Jesus’ new body coming into the fleshly realm of matter.
Some of your speculations sounds like rehashed Gnosticism only you don’t realize it but I do - because I did a lot of reading up on scholarly works about Gnosticism and found where wierwille got some of his ideas - or maybe not so much ‘where’ but HOW. In a sense Gnosticism is exalting one’s ego - wierwille’s reference point was not the Bible but his twisted delusions.
Limitations implies restrictions based on rules , specific set points, some standard. You claim you see these limitations in Scripture but you don’t cite specific verses.
Did you read my answers to the others, per chance?
I said the scriptures on limitations in amount of intervention are yet to be posted. I am working on that list.
The list of scriptures that I did post had to do with limitations in time. I said it better to So_crates. I think it was him.
*/*/*/*
In the book of Job, God portrays Himself as a judge presiding over a court. The court enforces the rules that God set up prior to everything. God constructed the court and it's rules. This is all implied by the scenery in Job.
The judge (God) had previously set a limit (hedge) on the devil, that had been protecting Job and his family.
But the devil mocks that, and politely demands (rightfully) that the hedge be lifted, according to the rules of the court.
At this point I see God is limited and merely observes that the devil now owned Job to mess with him. "Behold! All that he has is in your power."
But then the Judge sees that protecting Job's life is still available to Him, and He says so in His ruling.
That whole courtroom scene depicts God being limited in ways we don't understand, because it is in the spiritual realm, and a bit beyond our immediate grasp.
So to teach us a tiny bit on how this complicated (to us) spiritual world works He uses a courtroom analogy to help us understand what we need to know.
(did you see me explaining my analogies to the others?)
*/*/*/*
The whole reason I think this crazy hunch of mine COULD BE worthwhile is because it teaches us to be persistent in prayer, and never give up.
Jesus teaches this very thing with the widow that persistently petitioned the judge for relief.
Just because the prayer with believing didn't work one time, it's still worth persisting. God's limitations are always temporary. In the near future the limitations will be gone.
I think persistence in believing is like having persistence in forgiving.
How many times should we ask God AGAIN with believing and trust that He knows what He is doing?
Should we do it seven times?
No, verily verily, I say unto thee: seventy times seven times!
I tried to say that with a Jesus accent.
How'd I do?
*/*/*
It is an odd coincidence to me that my whole theory on minFW is that persistence pays off.
Right! So who needs wierwille and his pontificating PFAL up to the Advanced Class? Totally unnecessary bull-$hit to generate “ministry income”, and build a hierarchy of knowledge / status in The Way International cult.
Well, if it is any consolation to you, at the end of his life he told us to master the foundational and intermediate classes, and he did it twice in the same teaching.
Conspicuously missing twice is the Advanced Class in those final instructions. I think he knew some of what he gave us was gold, and some was still in the learning stages? maybe? What I am posting here is still in my learning stages. I got the impressions over the years I need not pay the highest attention to his Advanced Class and his many teachings to the Corps, now very available in grad circles. He needed room to try out things, to practice things. He need the room to be wrong. I do the same. I may be wrong about this, or I may have some right and some wrong.
I see different reasons for him doing the ACs, but that's ok with me. It could have been a mixture of both.
Did you read my answers to the others, per chance?
I said the scriptures on limitations in amount of intervention are yet to be posted. I am working on that list.
The list of scriptures that I did post had to do with limitations in time. I said it better to So_crates. I think it was him.
Work on it all you want. I'll reiterate what I said - I know enough of the Bible, biblical theology and systematic theology to confidently say THERE ARE NO SCRIPTURES THAT SUPPORT YOUR THREAD THESIS!
1 hour ago, Mike said:
In the book of Job, God portrays Himself as a judge presiding over a court. The court enforces the rules that God set up prior to everything. God constructed the court and it's rules. This is all implied by the scenery in Job.
The judge (God) had previously set a limit (hedge) on the devil, that had been protecting Job and his family.
But the devil mocks that, and politely demands (rightfully) that the hedge be lifted, according to the rules of the court.
At this point I see God is limited and merely observes that the devil now owned Job to mess with him. "Behold! All that he has is in your power."
But then the Judge sees that protecting Job's life is still available to Him, and He says so in His ruling.
That whole courtroom scene depicts God being limited in ways we don't understand, because it is in the spiritual realm, and a bit beyond our immediate grasp.
So to teach us a tiny bit on how this complicated (to us) spiritual world works He uses a courtroom analogy to help us understand what we need to know.
(did you see me explaining my analogies to the others?)
the divine council depicted in Job is a culturalism - please see my posts on the idiom of permission thread where I address that - here and here ...this is recognized by scholars who HAVE ACTUALLY STUDIED the ancient cultures of the Bible - which goes way beyond the 'sanitized for Christianity' stuff taught in TWI's orientalisms. The ancient Hebrews adapted concepts of other religions and cultures - the idea of a divine council, a group of deities managing the world was common in many religions and cultures - but put YAHWEH at the top - the head God so to speak.
The whole reason I think this crazy hunch of mine COULD BE worthwhile is because it teaches us to be persistent in prayer, and never give up.
Jesus teaches this very thing with the widow that persistently petitioned the judge for relief.
Just because the prayer with believing didn't work one time, it's still worth persisting. God's limitations are always temporary. In the near future the limitations will be gone.
So, your suggestion here is to persist in hoping the law of believing will work and you re-enforce the error by assuming what you’re praying for is the right thing.
Jesus also warned us to avoid useless and arrogant repetition. And James gets into how believers can pray amiss:
And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words…Matthew 6:7 NIV
~ ~ ~ ~
1What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? 2You desire but do not have, so you kill. You covet but you cannot get what you want, so you quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask God. 3When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.
4You adulterous people, a don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. 5Or do you think Scripture says without reason that he jealously longs for the spirit he has caused to dwell in us b ? 6But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:
7Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. 10Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up…James 4 NIV
“God's limitations are always temporary.In the near future the limitations will be gone.” What?!?! You again refer to some imaginary restriction!
1 hour ago, Mike said:
I think persistence in believing is like having persistence in forgiving.
Your thinking is all messed up.
To persist in doing something that changes nothing is stupid.
Forgiveness is entirely different from persisting in magical thinking.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
How many times should we ask God AGAIN with believing and trust that He knows what He is doing?
well...we're human...God loves us anyway...He puts up with a lot of dumb things we do.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
Should we do it seven times?
No, verily verily, I say unto thee: seventy times seven times!
I tried to say that with a Jesus accent.
How'd I do?
*/*/*
It is an odd coincidence to me that my whole theory on minFW is that persistence pays off.
well...you lost me there...Your whole theory on minFW is another convoluted pile of bull-$hit .
In other words, you're saying, I can't answer that so I'll bull my way out of it.
What about when the apostles first spoke in tongues? What did the devil do in return?
Or does that hurt your eyes, too?
No, I wondering if that should be included in the open door at the resurrection.
Plus, think about it. The devil just hit him with his best shot, and 3 days later Jesus is up again. I can see both God keeping the door open another 50 days, and the devil simultaneously stunned enough to not act.
Well, if it is any consolation to you, at the end of his life he told us to master the foundational and intermediate classes, and he did it twice in the same teaching.
There is NOcomfort to be found in PFAL, Intermediate and Advanced Class – only frustration and disappointment!
Maybe you should review threads like Why PFAL sucksandWhy the Intermediate and Advanced Class suck . If it’s any consolation to you, a lot of folks have been fooled by wierwille’s chicanery - that’s nothing to be ashamed of - BUT - to stubbornly cling to wierwille’s nonsense the way you do, after you’ve seen his baloney exposed on Grease Spot for some 20 years - well, that’s just sad Mike.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
Conspicuously missing twice is the Advanced Class in those final instructions. I think he knew some of what he gave us was gold, and some was still in the learning stages? maybe? What I am posting here is still in my learning stages. I got the impressions over the years I need not pay the highest attention to his Advanced Class and his many teachings to the Corps, now very available in grad circles. He needed room to try out things, to practice things. He need the room to be wrong. I do the same. I may be wrong about this, or I may have some right and some wrong.
I see different reasons for him doing the ACs, but that's ok with me. It could have been a mixture of both.
wierwille probably thought everything he taught was gold. He probably thought his bull-$hit didn't stink too.
No, I wondering if that should be included in the open door at the resurrection.
Plus, think about it. The devil just hit him with his best shot, and 3 days later Jesus is up again. I can see both God keeping the door open another 50 days, and the devil simultaneously stunned enough to not act.
You really should go back and read your response: the first excuse was there would be some overlap. Oddly enough, no overlap came. No mention of format, no mention of trouble reading it. In other words you're full of bull. Congratulations, you played yourself.
So, it's your contention that God kept the door open the whole time between resurrection and Pentecost and the devil just sat there twiddling his thumbs, right? Spirit does not get stunned. You can't stun the devil anymore than you can stun any other angel.
Cain murdered Able, what did God do to open the door?
So, it's your contention that God kept the door open the whole time between resurrection and Pentecost and the devil just sat there twiddling his thumbs, right?
Cain murdered Able, what did God do to open the door?
Quit thinking I am presenting this as polished and perfected.
Some of your questions I have not thought about yet, so I am attempting my best. I may want to retract some things.
Try to picture help me by finding verses that fit the pattern. I have no idea about Cain. You can feel fee to research it, but why not wait to see if this hunchy theory fills out in time? Help me find good examples of double doors.
I see the new list as embracing scriptures that have finite measure stated, as opposed to infinite. In other words limited amounts.
Quit thinking I am presenting this as polished and perfected.
Some of your questions I have not thought about yet, so I am attempting my best. I may want to retract some things.
Try to picture help me by finding verses that fit the pattern. I have no idea about Cain. You can feel fee to research it, but why not wait to see if this hunchy theory fills out in time? Help me find good examples of double doors.
I see the new list as embracing scriptures that have finite measure stated, as opposed to infinite. In other words limited amounts.
I am still working on the next list.
And you don't see this as intellectually dishonest?
"Please only show me the things that support my theory. I don't want to pay attention to the things that prove it wrong."
Dude, do you think I came down with yesterday's rain? If you haven't started a list of contrary verses, you never will. Your help me with this and I'll do that is nothing more than a poor attempt at future faking and manipulation. If you look at my forehead you'll see where they erased "stupid".
And a few post back you got all huffy and claimed you weren't cherry picking.
And you don't see this as intellectually dishonest?
"Please only show me the things that support my theory. I don't want to pay attention to the things that prove it wrong."
Dude, do you think I came down with yesterday's rain? If you haven't started a list of contrary verses, you never will. Your help me with this and I'll do that is nothing more than a poor attempt at future faking and manipulation. If you look at my forehead you'll see where they erased "stupid".
And a few post back you got all huffy and claimed you weren't cherry picking.
You didn't get the essence of my cherry picking denial.
But no matter.
No, what I am doing is NOT intellectually dishonest.
Had I started this thread and said this is the truth, and I can prove it, and then I proceed as I have been, then THAT would be intellectually dishonest.
But I did not start this thread that way. I said it was a loose and wobbly hunch, and hardly a theory, and that I am working some of it out as I go.
Did you not get that at the beginning of the thread?
Did you not see me repeat all that several times throughout the thread?
You, sir, are the one being intellectually dishonest to hold me to that standard after I repeatedly said it was not up to that standard.
Maybe you should re-read the whole thread, including my answers to all the others, and that way you wont miss so much. THAT would be honest of you. But to take pot shots... very dishonest of you.
*/*/*/*
While I was gone I drew a hot bath to relax in and ponder life. As I was getting in I noticed the water level rising. It would rise in proportion to the amount of my body was submersed in the water. Then when I would rise out of the water, the water level would sink proportionately.
I suddenly exclaimed Eureka !!!
The devil's move at the time of the Ascension, was to get Judas to commit suicide!
The devil was hedging his bets, and only went after the weakest apostle. He was still reeling, having lost the big enchilada bet a month before.
Then God closes the door for another 10 days and Pentecost blows him away that now there were 12 Christ like beings to deal with, while before there was only one. Game changer. No devil moves on Pentecost. Back to the old drawing board for a while.
If you're working out some sort of concept, and people keep posting verses that fly in the face of your concept, then you have 2 real choices.
A) Ignore the opposing verses and call people names for bringing them up and just post your pet idea
B) Look over the opposing verses. Either explain how they actually agree- SENSIBLY- with your idea and incorporate them into a more polished idea, or accept that your idea is error-ridden and drop it.
Most people here have an opinion on which you will choose.
If you're working out some sort of concept, and people keep posting verses that fly in the face of your concept, then you have 2 real choices.
A) Ignore the opposing verses and call people names for bringing them up and just post your pet idea
B) Look over the opposing verses. Either explain how they actually agree- SENSIBLY- with your idea and incorporate them into a more polished idea, or accept that your idea is error-ridden and drop it.
Most people here have an opinion on which you will choose.
I agree. I am just slow at doing all that. I thought I'd have the scriptures.
If I were cherry picking I'd be avoiding verses that somehow negate my hunchy thesis. Let's call these verses "anti-cherry" verses.
But to present a verse that simply does not contain all the info as to what is going on would not qualify as an anti-cherry. It would be a verse that simply chose to emphasize other things. These verses would simply be verses that lack cherry.
Had I started this thread and said this is the truth, and I can prove it, and then I proceed as I have been, then THAT would be intellectually dishonest.
But I did not start this thread that way. I said it was a loose and wobbly hunch, and hardly a theory, and that I am working some of it out as I go.
Did you not get that at the beginning of the thread?
Did you not see me repeat all that several times throughout the thread?
Where you're being intellectually dishonest, sir, is by wanting to look at only one side of the issue and nit accepting evidence to the contrary.
As I recall, you bragged about being a trained scientist. If that's true, then you know as a scientist you look at all the all facts then reach a conclusion. YOU DON'T only look at facts that support your theory, say you are right, then call it a day.
Where you're being intellectually dishonest, sir, is by wanting to look at only one side of the issue and nit accepting evidence to the contrary.
As I recall, you bragged about being a trained scientist. If that's true, then you know as a scientist you look at all the facts then reach a conclusion. YOU DON'T only look at facts that support your theory, say you are right, then call it a day.
EUREKA!! Cain is still beckoning.
I just explained to WordWolf the subtle difference between anti-cherry verses and verses lacking cherry.
I agree. I am just slow at doing all that. I thought I'd have the scriptures.
If I were cherry picking I'd be avoiding verses that somehow negate my hunchy thesis.
Which you are doing. Just look at the Cain situation.
11 minutes ago, Mike said:
Let's call these verses "anti-cherry" verses.
But to present a verse that simply does not contain all the info as to what is going on would not qualify as an anti-cherry. It would be a verse that simply chose to emphasize other things.
This is a subtle point.
So subtle its no point at all. One would think if your hunchy thesis were a principle, God would have pointed it out in evry instance, not just some. And you wouldn't have to do mental gymnastics to find it.
If you're working out some sort of concept, and people keep posting verses that fly in the face of your concept, then you have 2 real choices.
A) Ignore the opposing verses and call people names for bringing them up and just post your pet idea
B) Look over the opposing verses. Either explain how they actually agree- SENSIBLY- with your idea and incorporate them into a more polished idea, or accept that your idea is error-ridden and drop it.
Most people here have an opinion on which you will choose.
6 minutes ago, Mike said:
I agree. I am just slow at doing all that. I thought I'd have the scriptures.
If I were cherry picking I'd be avoiding verses that somehow negate my hunchy thesis. Let's call these verses "anti-cherry" verses.
But to present a verse that simply does not contain all the info as to what is going on would not qualify as an anti-cherry. It would be a verse that simply chose to emphasize other things. These verses would simply be verses that lack cherry.
This is a subtle point.
5 minutes ago, Mike said:
I just explained to WordWolf the subtle difference between anti-cherry verses and verses lacking cherry.
No surprise - Mike chose A.
A) Ignore the opposing verses and call people names for bringing them up and just post your pet idea
So subtle its no point at all. One would think if your hunchy thesis were a principle, God would have pointed it out in evry instance, not just some.
Show me now Cain is anti-cherry, or negates my hunch. That's proof #1 I want to see from you.
God does seem to point out the equal access He and the devil had in the Garden. That is always a question people have. God answers it in Genesis there, and also in the Book of Job with the devil having an equal say in the courtroom analogy.
But to say that God has to point it out in EVERY instance of an major assertion. Got any proof or scriptures to back that up? If that were true there would be a lot of "principle clutter" clogging up the intervention passages.
Show me now Cain is anti-cherry, or negates my hunch. That's proof #1 I want to see from you.
God does seem to point out the equal access He and the devil had in the Garden. That is always a question people have. God answers it in Genesis there, and also in the Book of Job with the devil having an equal say in the courtroom analogy.
But to say that God has to point it out in EVERY instance of an major assertion. Got any proof or scriptures to back that up? If that were true there would be a lot of "principle clutter" clogging up the intervention passages.
Really?!
Then I can take one verse or part of a verse and say its truth, right? "There is no God." And all those verses you have claiming there is one are "anti-cherry."
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
358
229
215
220
Popular Days
Mar 4
144
May 2
83
Apr 29
77
Mar 5
70
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 358 posts
So_crates 229 posts
OldSkool 215 posts
Nathan_Jr 220 posts
Popular Days
Mar 4 2023
144 posts
May 2 2023
83 posts
Apr 29 2023
77 posts
Mar 5 2023
70 posts
Popular Posts
chockfull
I believe that the real deal is possible and the path toward it is to address and correct all the doctrinal and practical error introduced by VPs box top doctorate research. isolation from other
chockfull
The Corps is a necessary cult element providing free labor at the expense of volunteers lives. Any imagery like the Marines promotes extremist behavior. No other Christian seminary or school use
Nathan_Jr
"Teaching" Romans to the Corps, Q&A: LCM: How much does your behavior that people do not see influence your example to them? VPW: It doesn't, unless you believe it will. LCM: You u
Posted Images
T-Bone
Limitations specify restrictions - whether in time, power or some other variable. Where are the passages that support your theory?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
How does one know what the maximum allowable amount of surety is? We’re talking about epistemology NOT hard science!
wierwille presented himself as a know-it-all and encouraged his followers to think the same way.
I don’t claim to know it all. I know very little! But I know enough Scripture and how we got the Bible to know bull-$hit when I read it. Your stuff makes no sense and has no scriptural basis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
No - I’ve already touched on a couple of main tenets of Gnosticism - and too complicated to expand on what some Gnostic groups thought of even earthly Jesus besides his resurrected body. And another thorny subject in Christianity tinged with Gnosticism is how to get around Jesus’ new body coming into the fleshly realm of matter.
Some of your speculations sounds like rehashed Gnosticism only you don’t realize it but I do - because I did a lot of reading up on scholarly works about Gnosticism and found where wierwille got some of his ideas - or maybe not so much ‘where’ but HOW. In a sense Gnosticism is exalting one’s ego - wierwille’s reference point was not the Bible but his twisted delusions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Did you read my answers to the others, per chance?
I said the scriptures on limitations in amount of intervention are yet to be posted. I am working on that list.
The list of scriptures that I did post had to do with limitations in time. I said it better to So_crates. I think it was him.
*/*/*/*
In the book of Job, God portrays Himself as a judge presiding over a court. The court enforces the rules that God set up prior to everything. God constructed the court and it's rules. This is all implied by the scenery in Job.
The judge (God) had previously set a limit (hedge) on the devil, that had been protecting Job and his family.
But the devil mocks that, and politely demands (rightfully) that the hedge be lifted, according to the rules of the court.
At this point I see God is limited and merely observes that the devil now owned Job to mess with him. "Behold! All that he has is in your power."
But then the Judge sees that protecting Job's life is still available to Him, and He says so in His ruling.
That whole courtroom scene depicts God being limited in ways we don't understand, because it is in the spiritual realm, and a bit beyond our immediate grasp.
So to teach us a tiny bit on how this complicated (to us) spiritual world works He uses a courtroom analogy to help us understand what we need to know.
(did you see me explaining my analogies to the others?)
*/*/*/*
The whole reason I think this crazy hunch of mine COULD BE worthwhile is because it teaches us to be persistent in prayer, and never give up.
Jesus teaches this very thing with the widow that persistently petitioned the judge for relief.
Just because the prayer with believing didn't work one time, it's still worth persisting. God's limitations are always temporary. In the near future the limitations will be gone.
I think persistence in believing is like having persistence in forgiving.
How many times should we ask God AGAIN with believing and trust that He knows what He is doing?
Should we do it seven times?
No, verily verily, I say unto thee: seventy times seven times!
I tried to say that with a Jesus accent.
How'd I do?
*/*/*
It is an odd coincidence to me that my whole theory on minFW is that persistence pays off.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
In other words, you're saying, I can't answer that so I'll bull my way out of it.
What about when the apostles first spoke in tongues? What did the devil do in return?
Or does that hurt your eyes, too?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Well, if it is any consolation to you, at the end of his life he told us to master the foundational and intermediate classes, and he did it twice in the same teaching.
Conspicuously missing twice is the Advanced Class in those final instructions. I think he knew some of what he gave us was gold, and some was still in the learning stages? maybe? What I am posting here is still in my learning stages. I got the impressions over the years I need not pay the highest attention to his Advanced Class and his many teachings to the Corps, now very available in grad circles. He needed room to try out things, to practice things. He need the room to be wrong. I do the same. I may be wrong about this, or I may have some right and some wrong.
I see different reasons for him doing the ACs, but that's ok with me. It could have been a mixture of both.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Work on it all you want. I'll reiterate what I said - I know enough of the Bible, biblical theology and systematic theology to confidently say THERE ARE NO SCRIPTURES THAT SUPPORT YOUR THREAD THESIS!
the divine council depicted in Job is a culturalism - please see my posts on the idiom of permission thread where I address that - here and here ...this is recognized by scholars who HAVE ACTUALLY STUDIED the ancient cultures of the Bible - which goes way beyond the 'sanitized for Christianity' stuff taught in TWI's orientalisms. The ancient Hebrews adapted concepts of other religions and cultures - the idea of a divine council, a group of deities managing the world was common in many religions and cultures - but put YAHWEH at the top - the head God so to speak.
I am currently re-reading Demons: What the Bible Really Says About the Powers of Darkness by Michael Heiser , so besides the references in my posts on the idiom of permission thread – you might find Heiser’s Demons rewarding – since he is an expert in the biblical languages and cultures.
So, your suggestion here is to persist in hoping the law of believing will work and you re-enforce the error by assuming what you’re praying for is the right thing.
Jesus also warned us to avoid useless and arrogant repetition. And James gets into how believers can pray amiss:
And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words… Matthew 6:7 NIV
~ ~ ~ ~
1What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? 2You desire but do not have, so you kill. You covet but you cannot get what you want, so you quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask God. 3When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.
4You adulterous people, a don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. 5Or do you think Scripture says without reason that he jealously longs for the spirit he has caused to dwell in us b ? 6But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:
“God opposes the proud
but shows favor to the humble.” c
7Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. 10Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up… James 4 NIV
“God's limitations are always temporary. In the near future the limitations will be gone.” What?!?! You again refer to some imaginary restriction!
Your thinking is all messed up.
To persist in doing something that changes nothing is stupid.
Forgiveness is entirely different from persisting in magical thinking.
well...we're human...God loves us anyway...He puts up with a lot of dumb things we do.
well...you lost me there...Your whole theory on minFW is another convoluted pile of bull-$hit .
Edited by T-Bonemore to come
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No, I wondering if that should be included in the open door at the resurrection.
Plus, think about it. The devil just hit him with his best shot, and 3 days later Jesus is up again. I can see both God keeping the door open another 50 days, and the devil simultaneously stunned enough to not act.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
There is NO comfort to be found in PFAL, Intermediate and Advanced Class – only frustration and disappointment!
Maybe you should review threads like Why PFAL sucks and Why the Intermediate and Advanced Class suck . If it’s any consolation to you, a lot of folks have been fooled by wierwille’s chicanery - that’s nothing to be ashamed of - BUT - to stubbornly cling to wierwille’s nonsense the way you do, after you’ve seen his baloney exposed on Grease Spot for some 20 years - well, that’s just sad Mike.
wierwille probably thought everything he taught was gold. He probably thought his bull-$hit didn't stink too.
Doctrine-wise wierwille’s ‘mixture’ had at least 4 dubious components: signature intuition, fundamentalism, spiritualism and Gnosticism. Shared a little about that on your 2nd wave of PFAL thread - here > My post on 4 major elements of wierwille's doctrine Jan. 27th 2022 1:33 PM
Edited by T-Bonenew additions !!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
You really should go back and read your response: the first excuse was there would be some overlap. Oddly enough, no overlap came. No mention of format, no mention of trouble reading it. In other words you're full of bull. Congratulations, you played yourself.
So, it's your contention that God kept the door open the whole time between resurrection and Pentecost and the devil just sat there twiddling his thumbs, right? Spirit does not get stunned. You can't stun the devil anymore than you can stun any other angel.
Cain murdered Able, what did God do to open the door?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Quit thinking I am presenting this as polished and perfected.
Some of your questions I have not thought about yet, so I am attempting my best. I may want to retract some things.
Try to picture help me by finding verses that fit the pattern. I have no idea about Cain. You can feel fee to research it, but why not wait to see if this hunchy theory fills out in time? Help me find good examples of double doors.
I see the new list as embracing scriptures that have finite measure stated, as opposed to infinite. In other words limited amounts.
I am still working on the next list.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
And you don't see this as intellectually dishonest?
"Please only show me the things that support my theory. I don't want to pay attention to the things that prove it wrong."
Dude, do you think I came down with yesterday's rain? If you haven't started a list of contrary verses, you never will. Your help me with this and I'll do that is nothing more than a poor attempt at future faking and manipulation. If you look at my forehead you'll see where they erased "stupid".
And a few post back you got all huffy and claimed you weren't cherry picking.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You didn't get the essence of my cherry picking denial.
But no matter.
No, what I am doing is NOT intellectually dishonest.
Had I started this thread and said this is the truth, and I can prove it, and then I proceed as I have been, then THAT would be intellectually dishonest.
But I did not start this thread that way. I said it was a loose and wobbly hunch, and hardly a theory, and that I am working some of it out as I go.
Did you not get that at the beginning of the thread?
Did you not see me repeat all that several times throughout the thread?
You, sir, are the one being intellectually dishonest to hold me to that standard after I repeatedly said it was not up to that standard.
Maybe you should re-read the whole thread, including my answers to all the others, and that way you wont miss so much. THAT would be honest of you. But to take pot shots... very dishonest of you.
*/*/*/*
While I was gone I drew a hot bath to relax in and ponder life. As I was getting in I noticed the water level rising. It would rise in proportion to the amount of my body was submersed in the water. Then when I would rise out of the water, the water level would sink proportionately.
I suddenly exclaimed Eureka !!!
The devil's move at the time of the Ascension, was to get Judas to commit suicide!
The devil was hedging his bets, and only went after the weakest apostle. He was still reeling, having lost the big enchilada bet a month before.
Then God closes the door for another 10 days and Pentecost blows him away that now there were 12 Christ like beings to deal with, while before there was only one. Game changer. No devil moves on Pentecost. Back to the old drawing board for a while.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
If you're working out some sort of concept, and people keep posting verses that fly in the face of your concept, then you have 2 real choices.
A) Ignore the opposing verses and call people names for bringing them up and just post your pet idea
B) Look over the opposing verses. Either explain how they actually agree- SENSIBLY- with your idea and incorporate them into a more polished idea, or accept that your idea is error-ridden and drop it.
Most people here have an opinion on which you will choose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I agree. I am just slow at doing all that. I thought I'd have the scriptures.
If I were cherry picking I'd be avoiding verses that somehow negate my hunchy thesis. Let's call these verses "anti-cherry" verses.
But to present a verse that simply does not contain all the info as to what is going on would not qualify as an anti-cherry. It would be a verse that simply chose to emphasize other things. These verses would simply be verses that lack cherry.
This is a subtle point.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Where you're being intellectually dishonest, sir, is by wanting to look at only one side of the issue and nit accepting evidence to the contrary.
As I recall, you bragged about being a trained scientist. If that's true, then you know as a scientist you look at all the all facts then reach a conclusion. YOU DON'T only look at facts that support your theory, say you are right, then call it a day.
EUREKA!! Cain is still beckoning.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I just explained to WordWolf the subtle difference between anti-cherry verses and verses lacking cherry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Which you are doing. Just look at the Cain situation.
So subtle its no point at all. One would think if your hunchy thesis were a principle, God would have pointed it out in evry instance, not just some. And you wouldn't have to do mental gymnastics to find it.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
A bull excuse to get around something you can't explain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
No surprise - Mike chose A.
A) Ignore the opposing verses and call people names for bringing them up and just post your pet idea
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Show me now Cain is anti-cherry, or negates my hunch. That's proof #1 I want to see from you.
God does seem to point out the equal access He and the devil had in the Garden. That is always a question people have. God answers it in Genesis there, and also in the Book of Job with the devil having an equal say in the courtroom analogy.
But to say that God has to point it out in EVERY instance of an major assertion. Got any proof or scriptures to back that up? If that were true there would be a lot of "principle clutter" clogging up the intervention passages.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Show me how the verse on Cain opposes my hunch by simply lacking mention of both doors.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Really?!
Then I can take one verse or part of a verse and say its truth, right? "There is no God." And all those verses you have claiming there is one are "anti-cherry."
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Show me a verse without mental gymnastics or torturing the language that mentions two doors
Edited by So_cratesLink 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.