Yeah, well the same thing to you too buddy! What makes you think your "experiential knowledge" of God is more perfect than anybody elses??? The fact your own "experiential knowledge" of PFAL is weak (whatever the heck that would be) would also indicate any other source for your knowledge to know God "experientially" would be equally as weak - or weaker. I am more convinced of the later.
Your use of the scriptures to cut someone down is beyond pathetic. We are to believe you know God experientially by this pathetic and weak application of the scripture by you? All you have proven is your inability to know the true God experientially more than anything. If you want to prove your "experiential knowledge" of God, here's a bit of advice. Keep your two big ears open and your one big mouth shut until you have something edifying to say. That's included in the "prove all things - hold fast to that which is good" in the exact very same scripture you just used to cut someone down. Or would that be some strange doctrine or form of heresy for you?
quote: I might add here that an occasional reach for our KJVs for review, or context, or to follow up on a suggested reference in the Book of Mormon is certainly in order.
Did I quote that right? --> :D--> -->
Of course I did NOT quote that right, and deliberately so ----
Mike - I know you have heard it before, but your *arrogance* concerning the "collateral's" (sp?) IMMEDIATELY reminded me of the very high regard that the Mormon's hold for their *Book of Mormon*, over anything, and all things, that the bible might have to say.
If you hold vpw's *works* above the bible, I can and will go along with that -- but rest assured -- I will *lump* his works right along with those of Joseph Smith.
Pipe dreams from heavan -- if you will. Lots of smoke, little substance.
... so that we may have access to his advanced abilities and approval...
This part is pretty much the only conclusion that I could draw since, when it comes to the dreaded Table of Challenge Mike is the sole arbitor. And if Mike is the sole arbitor of anything placed upon the aforementioned Table of Challenge then one would have to assume that he is using his advanced abilities... and for the life of me I can't think of a reason why anyone would bring something to the celebrated Table of Challenge for the express purpose of dis-approval... the statement seems to stand up to logical scrutiny...
...therefore...
Mike has offered a 'Table of Challenge' (which he claims exposes things which some would prefer to keep hidden away) so that we may have access to his advanced abilities and approval.
...shall remain... unless maybe I want to italicize some of the words in it...
oh... and I'll be sure to use a capital "W" next time...
Why don't you try to better understand what that Table is all about?
I recently did a shorter version of it, I think to Abigail, and then with someone else. It's not that complicated.
I'm only trying to show that people don't have as solid a footing to stand on as they think. When their footing is thought through a little deeper with my table storyline, they see it gets pretty flimsy. Saying that the Bible is our only rule for faith and practice gets tested when we alter our Bibles so freely with our notes and better translations.
Scientists do this all the time when they are trying to get things more solid. They re-examine their fundamental assumptions, and what exactly it is they feel sure of, and try to identify what they are leaning on.
You wrote to WTH: "How do you explain "Mike's" imperviousness to reason and the evidence of our senses (what's actually written in PFAL)?"
Please, allow me to explain my own "imperviousness" to reason and evidence.
As far as reason goes:
(1)I see that it is limited (BTMS p.23) compared to revelation.
(2) I see that in life situations strict reason is very limited in how far it can go. In simple Geometry it's wonderful and very powerful. In simple Physics situations, like the hydrogen atom reason can produce beauty and power to predict. But as the physical systems get more complex, reason and logic can only be applied in short spurts, with giant leaps in between. When we get to human life and beliefs, hardly anything can be really proved. People who demand proofs and strict logical reason to counter arguments of others, overlook the sad fact that they can't really prove much of anything themselves if they want to attain to their own standards.
(3) When reasoning, the fundamental assumptions that the reasoner starts out with, the unprovable postulates the reason is based on become crucial. I chose to place as one of my fundamental postulates the written form of PFAL. When I use that postulate, everything lines up to my satisfaction. People's demands that I drop that as a postulate and prove it to them are refused by me as a matter of policy. When people like you "proove" some contradiction in PFAL, I look at your reasoning and see my postulate missing at the beginning and back off. I have already chosen to not approach ACs and AEs with your set of tools. We get differing conclusions in our reasoning because we start out with fundamentally different approaches.
Maybe WTH was objecting to the way you berate me for not adopting your approach with your postulates of choice, and your implying I'm playing with devil spirits if I don't conform to your methods. That ds scare club was held over my head one too many times for me to take it seriously. Maybe WTH thinks that old Craig club stinks and has had enough of it.
As to the evidence of my senses, when I read PFAL with my postulate in place, it yields differing results than when you read it without my postulate. I invite you to alter your approach to see what new evidence will be presented to you. If you refuse, I will not berate you. If I refuse to do it you way, it's because I've already shopped at that store, and decided to return the goods. I invite you to shop and compare. Come back to PFAL and try the meekness postulate and see what God shows you.
quote:Why don't you try to better understand what that Table is all about?
I recently did a shorter version of it, I think to Abigail, and then with someone else. It's not that complicated.
I'm only trying to show that people don't have as solid a footing to stand on as they think. When their footing is thought through a little deeper with my table storyline, they see it gets pretty flimsy. Saying that the Bible is our only rule for faith and practice gets tested when we alter our Bibles so freely with our notes and better translations.
Scientists do this all the time when they are trying to get things more solid. They re-examine their fundamental assumptions, and what exactly it is they feel sure of, and try to identify what they are leaning on.
Thank you for solidifying my point, Mike... right neighborly of you!
(3) When reasoning, the fundamental assumptions that the reasoner starts out with, the unprovable postulates the reason is based on become crucial. I chose to place as one of my fundamental postulates the written form of PFAL. When I use that postulate, everything lines up to my satisfaction.
you wrote; "We've been thru this a few times already."
Yes, that's a fact. I mentioned this repetition either above or on the thread I had started to which this corresponds. This multiple thread deal is confusing. Then Tom rubber stamped his graffiti on the "Masters..." thread and we had three going yesterday. WHAT a circus!
Yes, we've been through it a few times already, buried deep in the "Masters..." , but not only are there new people who had seen it, I'm getting better at explaining it. Do you think I should take a tip from Tom and paste my new condensed, simplified version in posters faces a lot?
***
You wrote: "A) Goey already delivered a beatdown on this some time ago."
I only vaguely recall that. Any idea of where or any key words I can use to search it out?
***
You wrote: "B) I offered to accept your "Table of Challenge" if you'd address the ORIGINAL "Table of Challenge"-the evidence that pfal is less than God-breathed."
I explained why I refuse to do that to Steve Lortz just above on THIS thread (I checked).
I see that evidence as gathered with a set of tools I don't want to use. I recognize that with the utilized tools, that evidence is impressive, but I discount it and don't want to waste time there. I have spent some years, off and on, operating with with that set of tools and seeing similar evidence.
The reason I discount it is because it pales when compared with the evidence I can gather using MY set of tools.
I invite you too, to shop "think-space" a little more and AT LEAST try taking my test silently for yourself. It may stimulate new thoughts you've never had. It's not like I'm asking you to take up MY tool set and spend a lot of time with it (although THAT too would be an adventure for you).
I'm just asking you to closely examine YOU OWN tool set by looking at my Table of Challenge.
***
Here's the latest update of it:
Do you use an unalterable standard, with which you line other things up against to decide whether to accept them or reject them? By unalterable, I mean something bigger than you, and that you don't dare change once you have established it as your only rule of faith and practice.
Sometimes a person's life undergoes a revolution, and an old standard is discarded, replacing it with a new one. But I mean in the stable now, not during a revolution.
Do you have an unalterable standard like that, or do you wing it? Winging it is like changing your standard to fit the feel of the moment, in which the word "standard" wouldn't fit.
If you have a stable standard, is it something tangible or abstract, as in having weight if you put it on a bathroom scale? Is it a book that can be seen, or a set of books? Or is it a set of books that disappeared from sight many centuries ago?
So, Tom, how do YOU answer the questions I just posed?
I'll understand if you don't want to post you answers, but I think you might want to try on your own privately. Don't you OWE it to yorself to at least think the questions through?
quote: You can forget about the table. It was just a prop.
Now --- This I can agree with!:D-->
The *table* is only as good as the "eats" placed upon it. So far -- the menu from you, hasn't been that appetizing. The tablecloth, has been pulled out from under the plates you have set on the table, and there was a really big mess on the floor. Why pick it up, and try to make it look *edible* again?? Doesn't work.
When one places the works of a self-proclaimed Man-of-God above that of scripture, you are denying the Wisdom of the Creator, and are succumbing to the accusation of Romans 1:25 --
Romans 1:25 -- "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, Who is blessed forever. Amen.
quote: Do you use an unalterable standard, with which you line other things up against to decide whether to accept them or reject them? By unalterable, I mean something bigger than you, and that you don't dare change once you have established it as your only rule of faith and practice.
Though addressed to Tom, I'll take a shot at this. There is one (and only one) unalterable standard -- and that is the bible, not any work by docvic, or any other person who thinks they *have it right*. What was revealed in the bible, is what is necessary for life and godliness, and any/all books written outside of such, are merely commentaries that give an opinion by the author of *said* commentary, and are not to be in any way confused with scripture.
So many authors, over so many years, so many opinions, so many disagreements, so many factions/denominatons, and the two things they all have in common is:
A) They all claim to be right; and
B) They take all their "postulations" from the bible.
I admire you for taking a very *positive* stand on what you believe, but really -- it is time to take off the *rose-colored glasses*, and see the world as it is --- black and white.
Ps -- PFAL might be a nice acronym, but BIBLE is a better one:
Do you actually use an UNALTERABLE Bible version as your standard?
Don't you reserve the right to alter your Bible version if you find an error by the translators, or if the translators used a section that is not in the earliest manuscripts?
I know of a sect that uses the KJV as an unaterable God-breathed text. They are pretty kooky, in my opinion.
You don't strike me as being that kooky. :)--> I'll bet you DO alter your Bible version, if not with white-out and ink or in the margins, at least in your mind.
quote:Do you actualy use an unalterable Bible version as your standard?
...do you use an unalterable version of PFAL?
quote:Don't you reserve the right to alter your Bible version if you find an error by the translators, or if the translators used a section that is nt in the earliest manuscripts?
...like you have with PFAL?
quote:I know of a sect that uses the KJV as an unlaterable text. They are pretty kooky, in my opinion.
...I know of a guy in SoCal that uses PFAL as an unalterable text. I think he's pretty kooky.
I may be kooky :D-->, but I don't alter my PFAL texts.
I take notes in the margins, but I no longer challenge Dr in any way, on any issue, and in that way PFAL is my unalterable standard.
Ok, I admit, that there are a VERY small number of errors from the printers and proofreaders, but they are VERY few compared to KJV corrections, AND they are VERY trivial compared to KJV errors.
The entire content of PFAL in my operations is truely unalterable.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
22
23
55
Popular Days
Jan 22
41
Jan 24
17
Feb 1
16
Jan 31
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 22 posts
def59 22 posts
WordWolf 23 posts
Mike 55 posts
Popular Days
Jan 22 2005
41 posts
Jan 24 2005
17 posts
Feb 1 2005
16 posts
Jan 31 2005
14 posts
What The Hay
Your use of the scriptures to cut someone down is beyond pathetic. We are to believe you know God experientially by this pathetic and weak application of the scripture by you? All you have proven is your inability to know the true God experientially more than anything. If you want to prove your "experiential knowledge" of God, here's a bit of advice. Keep your two big ears open and your one big mouth shut until you have something edifying to say. That's included in the "prove all things - hold fast to that which is good" in the exact very same scripture you just used to cut someone down. Or would that be some strange doctrine or form of heresy for you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
This bit of obfuscation brought to you by our sponsor, waddafreakinhay...we now return to our scheduled program.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Hi Socks:
Your post above dated January 23, 2005 16:24 is a good one. Thanks for taking the time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Did I quote that right?
--> 
:D--> 
-->
Of course I did NOT quote that right, and deliberately so ----
Mike - I know you have heard it before, but your *arrogance* concerning the "collateral's" (sp?) IMMEDIATELY reminded me of the very high regard that the Mormon's hold for their *Book of Mormon*, over anything, and all things, that the bible might have to say.
If you hold vpw's *works* above the bible, I can and will go along with that -- but rest assured -- I will *lump* his works right along with those of Joseph Smith.
Pipe dreams from heavan -- if you will. Lots of smoke, little substance.
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
What The Hay - Was your recent outburst (01/24/05, 12:37) directed at me?
If so, what kind of burr got under your tail?
How do you explain "Mike's" imperviousness to reason and the evidence of our senses (what's actually written in PFAL)?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
... so that we may have access to his advanced abilities and approval...
This part is pretty much the only conclusion that I could draw since, when it comes to the dreaded Table of Challenge Mike is the sole arbitor. And if Mike is the sole arbitor of anything placed upon the aforementioned Table of Challenge then one would have to assume that he is using his advanced abilities... and for the life of me I can't think of a reason why anyone would bring something to the celebrated Table of Challenge for the express purpose of dis-approval... the statement seems to stand up to logical scrutiny...
...therefore...
Mike has offered a 'Table of Challenge' (which he claims exposes things which some would prefer to keep hidden away) so that we may have access to his advanced abilities and approval.
...shall remain... unless maybe I want to italicize some of the words in it...
oh... and I'll be sure to use a capital "W" next time...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Why don't you try to better understand what that Table is all about?
I recently did a shorter version of it, I think to Abigail, and then with someone else. It's not that complicated.
I'm only trying to show that people don't have as solid a footing to stand on as they think. When their footing is thought through a little deeper with my table storyline, they see it gets pretty flimsy. Saying that the Bible is our only rule for faith and practice gets tested when we alter our Bibles so freely with our notes and better translations.
Scientists do this all the time when they are trying to get things more solid. They re-examine their fundamental assumptions, and what exactly it is they feel sure of, and try to identify what they are leaning on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Steve Lortz,
You wrote to WTH: "How do you explain "Mike's" imperviousness to reason and the evidence of our senses (what's actually written in PFAL)?"
Please, allow me to explain my own "imperviousness" to reason and evidence.
As far as reason goes:
(1)I see that it is limited (BTMS p.23) compared to revelation.
(2) I see that in life situations strict reason is very limited in how far it can go. In simple Geometry it's wonderful and very powerful. In simple Physics situations, like the hydrogen atom reason can produce beauty and power to predict. But as the physical systems get more complex, reason and logic can only be applied in short spurts, with giant leaps in between. When we get to human life and beliefs, hardly anything can be really proved. People who demand proofs and strict logical reason to counter arguments of others, overlook the sad fact that they can't really prove much of anything themselves if they want to attain to their own standards.
(3) When reasoning, the fundamental assumptions that the reasoner starts out with, the unprovable postulates the reason is based on become crucial. I chose to place as one of my fundamental postulates the written form of PFAL. When I use that postulate, everything lines up to my satisfaction. People's demands that I drop that as a postulate and prove it to them are refused by me as a matter of policy. When people like you "proove" some contradiction in PFAL, I look at your reasoning and see my postulate missing at the beginning and back off. I have already chosen to not approach ACs and AEs with your set of tools. We get differing conclusions in our reasoning because we start out with fundamentally different approaches.
Maybe WTH was objecting to the way you berate me for not adopting your approach with your postulates of choice, and your implying I'm playing with devil spirits if I don't conform to your methods. That ds scare club was held over my head one too many times for me to take it seriously. Maybe WTH thinks that old Craig club stinks and has had enough of it.
As to the evidence of my senses, when I read PFAL with my postulate in place, it yields differing results than when you read it without my postulate. I invite you to alter your approach to see what new evidence will be presented to you. If you refuse, I will not berate you. If I refuse to do it you way, it's because I've already shopped at that store, and decided to return the goods. I invite you to shop and compare. Come back to PFAL and try the meekness postulate and see what God shows you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom Strange,
What do you use as your unalterable standard, with which you line other things up against to decide whether to accept them or reject them?
Do yo HAVE an unalterable standard like that, or do you wing it?
If you have one, is it something tangible or abstract, as in having weight if I put a bathroom scale on the table under it?
Is it a book that can be seen, or a set of books? Or is it a set of books that disappeared from sight many centuries ago?
Remember the rule here is unalterable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Mike you said:
(3) When reasoning, the fundamental assumptions that the reasoner starts out with, the unprovable postulates the reason is based on become crucial. I chose to place as one of my fundamental postulates the written form of PFAL. When I use that postulate, everything lines up to my satisfaction.
I have heard this before when it books like
Book of Mormon
Watchtower
Mein Kampf
Quran
are used. Why is yours any better?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
So far, or at least here, I didn't say mine was better, just that I liked it better, and invited others to try it.
What is YOUR unalterable standard?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oh, maybe I DID imply it was better. I'm confused by all this thread hopping.
I'm going out for dinner, too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mike,
A) Goey already delivered a beatdown on this some time ago.
B) I offered to accept your "Table of Challenge" if you'd address the
ORIGINAL "Table of Challenge"-the evidence that pfal is less than
God-breathed.
With you ignoring both of those answers so completely,
do you really think that your usual tactic of
announcing a week later
"they refused to play my game-so I win by default!"
will actually cut any ice with anyone except your drone?
We've been thru this a few times already.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
you wrote; "We've been thru this a few times already."
Yes, that's a fact. I mentioned this repetition either above or on the thread I had started to which this corresponds. This multiple thread deal is confusing. Then Tom rubber stamped his graffiti on the "Masters..." thread and we had three going yesterday. WHAT a circus!
Yes, we've been through it a few times already, buried deep in the "Masters..." , but not only are there new people who had seen it, I'm getting better at explaining it. Do you think I should take a tip from Tom and paste my new condensed, simplified version in posters faces a lot?
***
You wrote: "A) Goey already delivered a beatdown on this some time ago."
I only vaguely recall that. Any idea of where or any key words I can use to search it out?
***
You wrote: "B) I offered to accept your "Table of Challenge" if you'd address the ORIGINAL "Table of Challenge"-the evidence that pfal is less than God-breathed."
I explained why I refuse to do that to Steve Lortz just above on THIS thread (I checked).
I see that evidence as gathered with a set of tools I don't want to use. I recognize that with the utilized tools, that evidence is impressive, but I discount it and don't want to waste time there. I have spent some years, off and on, operating with with that set of tools and seeing similar evidence.
The reason I discount it is because it pales when compared with the evidence I can gather using MY set of tools.
I invite you too, to shop "think-space" a little more and AT LEAST try taking my test silently for yourself. It may stimulate new thoughts you've never had. It's not like I'm asking you to take up MY tool set and spend a lot of time with it (although THAT too would be an adventure for you).
I'm just asking you to closely examine YOU OWN tool set by looking at my Table of Challenge.
***
Here's the latest update of it:
Do you use an unalterable standard, with which you line other things up against to decide whether to accept them or reject them? By unalterable, I mean something bigger than you, and that you don't dare change once you have established it as your only rule of faith and practice.
Sometimes a person's life undergoes a revolution, and an old standard is discarded, replacing it with a new one. But I mean in the stable now, not during a revolution.
Do you have an unalterable standard like that, or do you wing it? Winging it is like changing your standard to fit the feel of the moment, in which the word "standard" wouldn't fit.
If you have a stable standard, is it something tangible or abstract, as in having weight if you put it on a bathroom scale? Is it a book that can be seen, or a set of books? Or is it a set of books that disappeared from sight many centuries ago?
Remember the rule here is unalterable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Thanks AGAIN Mike for proving my point. The only part of my "synopsis" that isn't a direct quote from your very lips... er... fingertips...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
So, Tom, how do YOU answer the questions I just posed?
I'll understand if you don't want to post you answers, but I think you might want to try on your own privately. Don't you OWE it to yorself to at least think the questions through?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Frankly Mike... the only table I'm interested in these days is the dinner table...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a d.....
Oops!
--> Wrong line!
How silly of me!
:D-->
But seriously, how do yo answer the QUESTIONS?
You can foget about the table. It was just a prop.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Now --- This I can agree with!
:D-->
The *table* is only as good as the "eats" placed upon it. So far -- the menu from you, hasn't been that appetizing. The tablecloth, has been pulled out from under the plates you have set on the table, and there was a really big mess on the floor. Why pick it up, and try to make it look *edible* again?? Doesn't work.
When one places the works of a self-proclaimed Man-of-God above that of scripture, you are denying the Wisdom of the Creator, and are succumbing to the accusation of Romans 1:25 --
Romans 1:25 -- "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, Who is blessed forever. Amen.
Though addressed to Tom, I'll take a shot at this. There is one (and only one) unalterable standard -- and that is the bible, not any work by docvic, or any other person who thinks they *have it right*. What was revealed in the bible, is what is necessary for life and godliness, and any/all books written outside of such, are merely commentaries that give an opinion by the author of *said* commentary, and are not to be in any way confused with scripture.
So many authors, over so many years, so many opinions, so many disagreements, so many factions/denominatons, and the two things they all have in common is:
A) They all claim to be right; and
B) They take all their "postulations" from the bible.
I admire you for taking a very *positive* stand on what you believe, but really -- it is time to take off the *rose-colored glasses*, and see the world as it is --- black and white.
Ps -- PFAL might be a nice acronym, but BIBLE is a better one:
Basic
Instruction
Before
Leaving
Earth
David
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
Do you actually use an UNALTERABLE Bible version as your standard?
Don't you reserve the right to alter your Bible version if you find an error by the translators, or if the translators used a section that is not in the earliest manuscripts?
I know of a sect that uses the KJV as an unaterable God-breathed text. They are pretty kooky, in my opinion.
You don't strike me as being that kooky.
:)--> I'll bet you DO alter your Bible version, if not with white-out and ink or in the margins, at least in your mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
dmiller, allow me please...
Mike,
...do you use an unalterable version of PFAL? ...like you have with PFAL? ...I know of a guy in SoCal that uses PFAL as an unalterable text. I think he's pretty kooky.Sorry, couldn't resist!
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom,
I may be kooky
:D-->, but I don't alter my PFAL texts.
I take notes in the margins, but I no longer challenge Dr in any way, on any issue, and in that way PFAL is my unalterable standard.
Ok, I admit, that there are a VERY small number of errors from the printers and proofreaders, but they are VERY few compared to KJV corrections, AND they are VERY trivial compared to KJV errors.
The entire content of PFAL in my operations is truely unalterable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
wait a minute!
first you say they're unalterable...
then you say "well... mostly..."
then you say they're unalterable...
...doesn't sound like a very sturdy table... sounds like...
whatever meets your approval, based upon your advanced abilities...
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.