It seems to me, being unloving/cruel,murdering people, and even judging someone based upon nothing but a general idea of their religious beliefs without really knowing the person would be sin.
If God is love, wouldn't anything outside of love be sin?
The mental gymnastics we use to justify prejudice and hatred reminds me very much of the mental gymnastics we used in TWI to justify the unsound doctrine and behavior there as well.
It seems to me, being unloving/cruel,murdering people, and even judging someone based upon nothing but a general idea of their religious beliefs without really knowing the person would be sin.
If God is love, wouldn't anything outside of love be sin?
The mental gymnastics we use to justify prejudice and hatred reminds me very much of the mental gymnastics we used in TWI to justify the unsound doctrine and behavior there as well.
I don't know why Joshua was given the command to kill everything in the promised land, but he was. And Israel did not do it and they kept paying the price for it for generations.
God's ways and understanding are higher than ours, when we see things in the Bible we do not understand, we should by all means study them with all of God-given faculties, but in the end, we may not get all the answers we would like or even how we would like them.
Abi, you said: If God is love, wouldn't anything outside of love be sin?
Judgment is a sign of love. It means that God cares for his creation enough to send judgment when its inhabitants have strayed too far.
The archaelogists have found the level of debauchery, human sacrifice and other sins to be so great that some have said it was with mercy that God sent Israel as an avenging army.
Adults, children, animals —even the ground carried the diseases and pestilence of a sin-wracked world.
In a sense, Israel was liberating the land from oppression. When cultures have gone too far down the road of sin, there has to be some way of correcting or eliminating the problem.
You wrote: "God's ways and understanding are higher than ours, when we see things in the Bible we do not understand, we should by all means study them with all of God-given faculties, but in the end, we may not get all the answers we would like or even how we would like them."
This is pretty much the sum total of what I've been saying. God's ways are different from our ways. Our ways of laws and police and courts are the only ways we have to do things regarding property rights. In most cases some justice is served with our ways. But God has superceding laws and ways of meting out justice.
Oakspear, a few posts back you opined that I had brought up Israel's land grab as a distraction, but it wasn't intended to be that at all. It was another example of where our ways are different from God's. Our notions of real estate and ownership don't jive at all with what Joshua did. I remember years of difficulties accepting how things went down there. It took some time for me to see that there are occasions when the True God gives real genuine revelation to someone to take action that is beyond the acceptable in man's ways and systems of laws and courts.
Joshua's taking of land and Dr's taking of text are two examples of this.
Of course it all hinges on whether genuine revelation is given. But recognizably genuine revelation like this happens so infrequently that this superceding of man's ways with God's ways is hardly ever thought through. This is why I had years of difficulty reading Joshua.
There are always plenty of examples of people CLAIMING to have God's revelation to go against some laws of man, but in reality their claim is not true. This happens so often that, even with people who believe in God, the thought of a genuine nullification of a law of man becomes suspect.
I think What the Hay had it right in labeling all these objections to the manner of citation of sources Dr used for some of his sources as "straining at a gnat."
If it's the case that Dr did not have genuine revelation then all these charges have merit.
But if, If, IF, IF God gave Stiles, Bullinger, Kenyon and others some genuine revelations, and then God gave Dr revelation to find them and "put them together" with citations sparce, THEN, as I've constantly maintained here, all these plagiarism objections evaporate.
I think the best way to validate the PFAL revelations is to read them, study them, and master them.
It looks like you're pretty well done with your LEAD thread, so I thought I'd see if you still wanted to continue with the mini-discussion we had going in this thread.
The issue you brought up has come up before here at GreaseSpot, and in many e-mails, so I've put a lot of thought into it. However, you are the first person to report any private conversation with Dr on the spiritual status of the PFAL writings. I am interested in hearing any details you can supply, because this topic is very near and dear to my heart.
I don't want to discuss it for the sake of debating in itself, but in the interest of thoroughness I think we could get into some important details.
As a preparation for our discussion, could I ask you to think through the setting in which Dr's comments occurred?
I'm not only interested in the EXACT words he said that you paraphrased, but also anything he said just prior and just following your reported words. I also want to know exactly what you said in that conversation.
I even would find it helpful to know a few of the other topics that were discussed that day, as well as any similar topics that came up in previous days.
In other words, I'm seeking exact wording he used AND the EXTREMELY exact context in which the whole conversation occurred.
I'm mentioning this up-front to give you time to think it through now, instead of surprising you with such a challenge deep into a debate.
You mentioned that you had a photographic memory, and I am hoping that the auditory components of your memory may be of similar sharpness. I know that this may possibly not be the case, since the human brain has far more space devoted to visual information than to auditory, but whatever you can remember an then bring to the table would be extremely helpful in a thorough discussion.
As a preparation for our discussion, could I ask you to think through the setting in which Dr's comments occurred?
I'm not only interested in the EXACT words he said that you paraphrased, but also anything he said just prior and just following your reported words. I also want to know exactly what you said in that conversation.
I even would find it helpful to know a few of the other topics that were discussed that day, as well as any similar topics that came up in previous days.
In other words, I'm seeking exact wording he used AND the EXTREMELY exact context in which the whole conversation occurred.
Translation: I haven't been able to find any way to twist the material you've given me, so please give me some more. Maybe I'll find something in the new material to twist.
Your faithful, humble, obedient, etc.
S. Lortz, OLG Extraordinaire of the United States by Popular Acclaim
Seriously, let's dialog. I'm not a bad guy. I'm not trying to hurt anyone or trick anyone. I've see from your posts elsewhere that you're not a bad guy either. I've seen some of your heart.
What can we talk about that would make you feel genuinely better? I'm willing to talk here in front of everyone else, or in PT, or e-mail, or by phone.
You simply refuse to adopt my fundamental perspective? Integrity? Honesty? Truthfulness. You refuse to adopt these things?~~~quote]
And may I add
Square Level Plumb
~~~Main Entry: [1]pyr·a·mid
Pronunciation: 'pir-&-"mid
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin pyramid-, pyramis, from Greek
Date: 1549
1 a : an ancient massive structure found especially in Egypt having typically a square ground plan, outside walls in the form of four triangles that meet in a point at the top, and inner sepulchral chambers b : a structure or object of similar form
2 : a polyhedron having for its base a polygon and for faces triangles with a common vertex — see VOLUME table
3 : a crystalline form each face of which intersects the vertical axis and either two lateral axes or in the tetragonal system one lateral axis
4 : an anatomical structure resembling a pyramid: as a : any of the conical masses that project from the renal medulla into the kidney pelvis b : either of two large bundles of motor fibers from the cerebral cortex that reach the medulla oblongata and are continuous with the pyramidal tracts of the spinal cord
5 : an immaterial structure built on a broad supporting base and narrowing gradually to an apex <the socioeconomic pyramid>
What can we talk about that would make you feel genuinely better? I'm willing to talk here in front of everyone else, or in PT, or e-mail, or by phone.
Okay~~~
Mike, what's you favorite body of water and describe it in three adjectives~~~ that's my unalterable table of challenge to you!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
29
23
17
106
Popular Days
Jan 20
29
Feb 23
26
Jan 21
25
Jan 22
23
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 29 posts
def59 23 posts
Oakspear 17 posts
Mike 106 posts
Popular Days
Jan 20 2005
29 posts
Feb 23 2005
26 posts
Jan 21 2005
25 posts
Jan 22 2005
23 posts
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
It seems to me, being unloving/cruel,murdering people, and even judging someone based upon nothing but a general idea of their religious beliefs without really knowing the person would be sin.
If God is love, wouldn't anything outside of love be sin?
The mental gymnastics we use to justify prejudice and hatred reminds me very much of the mental gymnastics we used in TWI to justify the unsound doctrine and behavior there as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
I don't know why Joshua was given the command to kill everything in the promised land, but he was. And Israel did not do it and they kept paying the price for it for generations.
God's ways and understanding are higher than ours, when we see things in the Bible we do not understand, we should by all means study them with all of God-given faculties, but in the end, we may not get all the answers we would like or even how we would like them.
Abi, you said: If God is love, wouldn't anything outside of love be sin?
Judgment is a sign of love. It means that God cares for his creation enough to send judgment when its inhabitants have strayed too far.
The archaelogists have found the level of debauchery, human sacrifice and other sins to be so great that some have said it was with mercy that God sent Israel as an avenging army.
Adults, children, animals —even the ground carried the diseases and pestilence of a sin-wracked world.
In a sense, Israel was liberating the land from oppression. When cultures have gone too far down the road of sin, there has to be some way of correcting or eliminating the problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Wow!
I've been away from my computer a few days, real busy with work.
I've only scan read the above two pages or so, but I did see a see a lot of tangential topics to comment on.
I'm not trying to ignore anyone's posts, even yours, Song.
;)-->
They say rain is in the works for Thursday, so that may give me some time to respond.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
def59,
You wrote: "God's ways and understanding are higher than ours, when we see things in the Bible we do not understand, we should by all means study them with all of God-given faculties, but in the end, we may not get all the answers we would like or even how we would like them."
This is pretty much the sum total of what I've been saying. God's ways are different from our ways. Our ways of laws and police and courts are the only ways we have to do things regarding property rights. In most cases some justice is served with our ways. But God has superceding laws and ways of meting out justice.
Oakspear, a few posts back you opined that I had brought up Israel's land grab as a distraction, but it wasn't intended to be that at all. It was another example of where our ways are different from God's. Our notions of real estate and ownership don't jive at all with what Joshua did. I remember years of difficulties accepting how things went down there. It took some time for me to see that there are occasions when the True God gives real genuine revelation to someone to take action that is beyond the acceptable in man's ways and systems of laws and courts.
Joshua's taking of land and Dr's taking of text are two examples of this.
Of course it all hinges on whether genuine revelation is given. But recognizably genuine revelation like this happens so infrequently that this superceding of man's ways with God's ways is hardly ever thought through. This is why I had years of difficulty reading Joshua.
There are always plenty of examples of people CLAIMING to have God's revelation to go against some laws of man, but in reality their claim is not true. This happens so often that, even with people who believe in God, the thought of a genuine nullification of a law of man becomes suspect.
I think What the Hay had it right in labeling all these objections to the manner of citation of sources Dr used for some of his sources as "straining at a gnat."
If it's the case that Dr did not have genuine revelation then all these charges have merit.
But if, If, IF, IF God gave Stiles, Bullinger, Kenyon and others some genuine revelations, and then God gave Dr revelation to find them and "put them together" with citations sparce, THEN, as I've constantly maintained here, all these plagiarism objections evaporate.
I think the best way to validate the PFAL revelations is to read them, study them, and master them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Mike
I haven't heard from you a in fortnight and you respond to a post I have forgotten about. I am honored and I hope all is well.
Def
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The honor is mine.
:)-->
I was merely busy with work, and too tired to write when I got home.
This happens with me frequently, and I TRY to keep track of unresponded to posts of others. Many still slip between the cracks.
One of my pie-in-the sky projects is to find all of those lost posts and finally respond to them.
Someday...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
...and speaking of unresponded to posts...
.
.
.
.
Hi HCW,
It looks like you're pretty well done with your LEAD thread, so I thought I'd see if you still wanted to continue with the mini-discussion we had going in this thread.
The issue you brought up has come up before here at GreaseSpot, and in many e-mails, so I've put a lot of thought into it. However, you are the first person to report any private conversation with Dr on the spiritual status of the PFAL writings. I am interested in hearing any details you can supply, because this topic is very near and dear to my heart.
I don't want to discuss it for the sake of debating in itself, but in the interest of thoroughness I think we could get into some important details.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
HCW,
As a preparation for our discussion, could I ask you to think through the setting in which Dr's comments occurred?
I'm not only interested in the EXACT words he said that you paraphrased, but also anything he said just prior and just following your reported words. I also want to know exactly what you said in that conversation.
I even would find it helpful to know a few of the other topics that were discussed that day, as well as any similar topics that came up in previous days.
In other words, I'm seeking exact wording he used AND the EXTREMELY exact context in which the whole conversation occurred.
I'm mentioning this up-front to give you time to think it through now, instead of surprising you with such a challenge deep into a debate.
You mentioned that you had a photographic memory, and I am hoping that the auditory components of your memory may be of similar sharpness. I know that this may possibly not be the case, since the human brain has far more space devoted to visual information than to auditory, but whatever you can remember an then bring to the table would be extremely helpful in a thorough discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Please keep in mind, HCW,
that Mike is not only disinterested in anything that supports the overwhelming
evidence that vpw wrought pfal by his own will and in the interests of making
a class with KEYS for Genesis to Revelation.
Mike's looking specifically for anything he can isolate from its context,
and use to claim that pfal REPLACES Genesis to Revelation.
(Which contradicts what the books say.)
Please keep in mind that the contents of the books-which he claims to be
directly from God in the sense the Bible is-
have done nothing to change this point of view-even when the contents
directly contradict it.
Mike also takes the liberty of mentally rewriting anything HE says, anything
YOU say, or anyone ELSE says. For example, he's depicted himself as having
been wildly successful in outdebating us and in presenting evidence supporting
his position.
Mike has also said he's seen that Jesus, when he returns, will have a copy of
the orange book in his hand and be teaching from it.
When asked if he was joking, he said he'd seen him this way several times.
So, HCW,
you may respond to Mike however you wish, or NOT respond to Mike however you
wish.
I thought you'd like a quick word of warning first, however.
Let me know if you need some links for some of this stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Translation: I haven't been able to find any way to twist the material you've given me, so please give me some more. Maybe I'll find something in the new material to twist.
Your faithful, humble, obedient, etc.
S. Lortz, OLG Extraordinaire of the United States by Popular Acclaim
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
HCW,
Aren't you thankful for such considerate posters protecting you from my evil clutches?
;)-->
Why if it weren't for them and their insightful warnings I might be able to wrap you around my little finger.
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
I have a finger or two for you Mike
no laugh machine intended
just
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Song,
I don't know what that means.
I'm willing to listen to an explanation though.
Seriously, let's dialog. I'm not a bad guy. I'm not trying to hurt anyone or trick anyone. I've see from your posts elsewhere that you're not a bad guy either. I've seen some of your heart.
What can we talk about that would make you feel genuinely better? I'm willing to talk here in front of everyone else, or in PT, or e-mail, or by phone.
I come here to help, not to bother people.
It bothers me that I bother you.
How can we communicate better?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
see we are changed #2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Forgive me~~~ just the touch of a Master Interior Carpenter
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
quote:
What can we talk about that would make you feel genuinely better? I'm willing to talk here in front of everyone else, or in PT, or e-mail, or by phone.
Okay~~~
Mike, what's you favorite body of water and describe it in three adjectives~~~ that's my unalterable table of challenge to you!
song
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The human body.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
What do I win?
:D-->
A new CAR!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"What's your favorite body of water and describe it in 3 adjectives..."
"the human body.
"What do I win?"
----
Maybe your reply was entirely a joke,
but otherwise your answer missed the question,
possibly demonstrating a lack of reading what's written.
(Unless it was in jest.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
It was a little bit of them all.
A little bit of silliness, and a little bit of seriosity, and a little bit of not understanding the question.
That is my favorite body of water; consisting of some over 90% water.
It was the best answer I could find before the three minute buzzer went off.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
where's the three adjectives, knucklehead?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No one's perfect. I did the best I could.
The buzzer was about to go off, so I hoped that Song really meant three WORDS.
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.