Wow...I must have been neglecting my primary job of spewing hate while sitting in front of a computer monitor
Actually I was getting in some 'quality time" with my new stepdaughter, washing my car, grocery shopping, buying some new software, clothes shopping with my new wife, cooking lunch and dinner, and walking hand-in-hand with previously mentioned bride in the cool of the evening to keep up with concentrating on my usual tearing down of the the revelations of the late Vic Wierwille. :ph34r:
My main beef is with the clowns who claim to have that inside track, and use their supposed knowledge to put down others, call them stupid or evil, and condemn them to some form of hell or condemnation.
I have no doubt that there are those who experience God or Goddess, receive "revelation" from said divinity, and subsequently have their lives enriched thereby. What I do doubt is that this experience can be applied to anyone else, let alone the whole world.
...Gimme a break. Paul wrote the church epistles based on his personal EXPERIENCES (which Wierwille told us not to trust)...In fact, the bible is a collection of people's experiences...(some people call Paul's experiences "receiving revelation")...if that's true, isn't "receiving revelation an experience? So what's my point?...
...My point is that Christianity is about having personal experiences yourself...not dissecting the written testamony of OTHER people's experiences.
Eureka! :lol:
Put that way, how can anyone have the balls to attack another's beliefs?
Your experience is more valid than Joe Heretic's? :blink:
I have no doubt that there are those who experience God or Goddess, receive "revelation" from said divinity, and subsequently have their lives enriched thereby. What I do doubt is that this experience can be applied to anyone else, let alone the whole world.
Tell that to Yeshua. He might have a slightly different opinion. :)
It was I who penned "can have" and I deliberqately made it different from Oakspear's " who claim to have" to ask him the question I did. I also used the space to deal with it IF the answer were "A."
So Oak answered me. (Thanks, Oakspear.) It turns out his answer was not "A" but "B."
I still don't get at what you were talking about, but it doesn't matter anymore. I get dizzy when we talk about what were were talking about what we were talking about. It just doesn't matter at a certain point and I think we passed that. I was an idiot for trying to pursue it.
BACK TO THE ACTUAL DISCUSSION:
Oakspear, that was an intelligent answer, but I learned to not accept that line of thinking long ago for this reason. IF Jesus Christ actually got up from the dead in a biological sense, then that is the absolute reality. God hates death for all people, regardless how they happen to relate to that termination of the biological process. In general, I see that God makes the same things available for everyone regardless of their personal persuasions. It's like dmiller put it, when we ask God we can get HIS answer, and we should line up with it for maximum efficiency, and dump our own theology.
... Yeah! And He just might send you to that really firey place because of that difference of Opinion too.
Makes ya feel all warm and cozey inside for that, huh?
:huh: :wacko: :blink:
(sarcasm mode off)
I'm not feeling *warm and cozy* for saying what I said. All I said was "Tell that to Yeshua. He might have a slightly different opinion." And in case you missed it -- I said that in response to what Oak said (doubtfully) about one person's experience being good enough for the whole world.
I personally think that that one person's experience was enough for the whole world. And suffice it to say, He isn't posting on this site, or sending folks to a fiery place because of a difference of opinion! :D
(again --- just an IMO -- but I do think that all *accusations* of personal experience, should go all the way up to the top, and not just be relegated to those of us here on GreaseSpot. What do you say, eh?)
My understanding is that WE normal people should not base doctrine on our experiences.
God had to search far and wide for very special and rare people to which He could reveal His will to and trust them to DO His will with the message. These special people, prophets, are rare and had to be ready for the devil's high priority assaults on them to thwart the message. For these special (and hounded) people, who could tell the difference between senses and spirit and between the True God and satan, their spiritual experiences with the True God, recorded in writing, form the basis for our right doctrine.
Tell that to Yeshua. He might have a slightly different opinion. :)
Yeshua = Jesus?
Maybe he would have a different opinion...maybe not. That's kinda my point. And David, despite the wide chasm between our beliefs, we manage to get by without insulting each or consigning each other to hell. (Maybe because I don't believe in hell B)
My understanding is that WE normal people should not base doctrine on our experiences.
No, but we should base our relationships, including the one with our deity, on experience. After all, what is written, as it's been ably stated by another poster, boils down to someone else's experience.
Edited by Oakspear
Tell that to Yeshua. He might have a slightly different opinion. :)
Yeshua = Jesus?
Maybe he would have a different opinion...maybe not. That's kinda my point. And David, despite the wide chasm between our beliefs, we manage to get by without insulting each or consigning each other to hell. (Maybe because I don't believe in hell B)
Yup. Yeshua = Jesus. And I am certain He would have an entirely different point of view from either the one you espouse, or the one I espouse. 'nother words -- I don't know if either of us is right, but I suspect that there will be a day when we find out. I've got my fingers crossed for all of us! :D
And I will say this (for the benefit of the folks that think they are absolutely right) --- there is only ONE who is right. Sure -- everyone here seems to know the *truth* (in all it's various forms), but as Oak just said, he and I are worlds apart (doctrinally speaking), yet both of us are willing to acknowledge the fact that there is an intangible entity that cannot be grasped (physically), and we do our best to understand it as best we can.
Civility may not be mandatory here, but it sure would be a nice addition. :D :D
My understanding is that WE normal people should not base doctrine on our experiences.
God had to search far and wide for very special and rare people to which He could reveal His will to and trust them to DO His will with the message. These special people, prophets, are rare and had to be ready for the devil's high priority assaults on them to thwart the message. For these special (and hounded) people, who could tell the difference between senses and spirit and between the True God and satan, their spiritual experiences with the True God, recorded in writing, form the basis for our right doctrine.
WE normal people?...and who decides who the normal people are?...You?
God had to search far and wide for very special and rare people...says who?...You?
You assert that the "spiritual experiences" of other "special and rare" people form the "basis" for our right doctrine...What makes a person "special and rare"?...Getting drunk and raping women?
Am I to assume that YOU have decided that I am a "normal" person and not a "special and rare" person?...If so, how did you conclude this?
I noticed that you included yourself in the category of being a "normal" person when you used the word "We"...Seeing that you have concluded that you, yourself, are not a "special and rare" person, why do you believe that your spiritual insights are more valid than anyone else's here at the GreaseSpot?...especially when you define the "special and rare" people as those "who could tell the difference between senses and spirit and between the true God and satan"?
By you're own words...You are not a "special and rare"person, therefore you cannot tell the difference between senses and spirit, nor can you tell the difference between the true God and satan.
Of course, the message you convey is contrary to what the book of Ephesians says about every Christian having the abilities that you attribute to only "special and rare" people. In fact, your words cause division within the body of Christ because you falsely manufacture 2 categories of people within the body of Christ...those who are "special and rare" and those who are "normal"...or as I like to say, the "haves" and the "have nots"...this is totally contrary to what the bible teaches. Is it any wonder that people think you are a buffoon?
My understanding is that WE normal people should not base doctrine on our experiences.
God had to search far and wide for very special and rare people to which He could reveal His will to and trust them to DO His will with the message. These special people, prophets, are rare and had to be ready for the devil's high priority assaults on them to thwart the message. For these special (and hounded) people, who could tell the difference between senses and spirit and between the True God and satan, their spiritual experiences with the True God, recorded in writing, form the basis for our right doctrine.
Funny, my Bible says:
1Cr 1:27
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
Amos was an herdsman and lest we forget, Joseph & Mary, Mary Magdalene, Noah, Jonah, the disciples weren't considered "special" people by society in any way shape or form....
You're contradicting the scriptures, Mike. God has always used "normal" people to get his message across. If someone is too caught up in labels, appearances and status then they're going to miss the message. You have to be humble in heart and able to recognize the spark of divinity in people to learn. In fact, as Groucho so eloquently stated, we're all of one body and WE ALL contribute in one way or another to that ONE BODY, like it or not.
Rare and special is NOT a catagory I would place a man who was a thief ..... a cold hearted destroyer of those innocent souls placed in his care .... a man who raped those who naievely placed their trust in him...believing that as a man of God he had their best interests at heart.
There is an entirely different catagory for a man who manifested those qualities....there are instructions given for dealing with those who manifest the fruit in vp`s life.
Heres a hint.... it WASN`T to trust him as the one to bring forth God`s word....
I didn't see the activity on this thread until just this afternoon.
You asked me some of the same questions on the other thread I've been working on lately, " VPW's Source for the Law of Believing" and I gave some answers.
These two threads have some same posters and similar posting, so I will answer more over there. It's complicated enough for me to deal with a barrage of questions from many people on even one thread, but two overwealms me.
How the hell do these threads turn into "Mike" threads? :blink:
I suppose it is possible for God to say..."You morons have it all wrong, I'm issuing a new 'Word of God' called PFAL because the old one is such a mess...tattered remants, y'know"
But Wierwille's claim was that it was only the interpretation of the bible was wrong, that various translations were wrong, not that the bible itself, in it's original text, was wrong. He stated repeatedly that we, through the "keys" that he taught, get back to thoise originals.
While Wierwille did not claim that his teachings superceded the bible, he implied and suggested, if not taught explicitly, that his interpretation and application were superior to all others, and were the true "orthodox" (my term, not his) teachings of the bible.
Much of this is mere semantics. Wierwille wanted us to believe that whatever came out of his mouth, or at least the end of his pen, was THE TRUTH, whether he made a clear claim that his books were on par with Galatians or Titus or not.
Where we are at an advantage over scholars poring over canonical and extra-canonical texts is that PFAL was written in English, and many of us actually heard the author speak and expound upon his books. We heard his own interpretation of his own works. We don't have to agonize over the correct interpreation of an unfamiliar word, or any of the things that you ahve to do with an old Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek text.
So where Mike claims that Wierwille said such-and-such, we can go to PFAL and refute him. Which has been done. Wierwille's works often do not say what Mike says that they say, unless you have a gnostic-like secret knowledge that allows you to understand what it really means.
And yet, Mike's detractors refer back to "the bible", a collection of writings put together by a committee of the victors in a centuries-long battle of words and political influence.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
10
15
15
23
Popular Days
Oct 9
24
Oct 8
21
Oct 1
20
Oct 10
15
Top Posters In This Topic
Allan 10 posts
Oakspear 15 posts
templelady 15 posts
markomalley 23 posts
Popular Days
Oct 9 2005
24 posts
Oct 8 2005
21 posts
Oct 1 2005
20 posts
Oct 10 2005
15 posts
Raf
Awesome!
Mike missed your ubiquitously hidden message, AND called himself an idiot to boot! This is too much fun for one day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Wow...I must have been neglecting my primary job of spewing hate while sitting in front of a computer monitor
Actually I was getting in some 'quality time" with my new stepdaughter, washing my car, grocery shopping, buying some new software, clothes shopping with my new wife, cooking lunch and dinner, and walking hand-in-hand with previously mentioned bride in the cool of the evening to keep up with concentrating on my usual tearing down of the the revelations of the late Vic Wierwille. :ph34r:
My main beef is with the clowns who claim to have that inside track, and use their supposed knowledge to put down others, call them stupid or evil, and condemn them to some form of hell or condemnation.
I have no doubt that there are those who experience God or Goddess, receive "revelation" from said divinity, and subsequently have their lives enriched thereby. What I do doubt is that this experience can be applied to anyone else, let alone the whole world.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Put that way, how can anyone have the balls to attack another's beliefs?
Your experience is more valid than Joe Heretic's? :blink:
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Tell that to Yeshua. He might have a slightly different opinion. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
... Yeah! And He just might send you to that really firey place because of that difference of Opinion too.
Makes ya feel all warm and cozey inside for that, huh?
:huh: :wacko: :blink:
(sarcasm mode off)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WW,
It was I who penned "can have" and I deliberqately made it different from Oakspear's " who claim to have" to ask him the question I did. I also used the space to deal with it IF the answer were "A."
So Oak answered me. (Thanks, Oakspear.) It turns out his answer was not "A" but "B."
I still don't get at what you were talking about, but it doesn't matter anymore. I get dizzy when we talk about what were were talking about what we were talking about. It just doesn't matter at a certain point and I think we passed that. I was an idiot for trying to pursue it.
BACK TO THE ACTUAL DISCUSSION:
Oakspear, that was an intelligent answer, but I learned to not accept that line of thinking long ago for this reason. IF Jesus Christ actually got up from the dead in a biological sense, then that is the absolute reality. God hates death for all people, regardless how they happen to relate to that termination of the biological process. In general, I see that God makes the same things available for everyone regardless of their personal persuasions. It's like dmiller put it, when we ask God we can get HIS answer, and we should line up with it for maximum efficiency, and dump our own theology.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I'm not feeling *warm and cozy* for saying what I said. All I said was "Tell that to Yeshua. He might have a slightly different opinion." And in case you missed it -- I said that in response to what Oak said (doubtfully) about one person's experience being good enough for the whole world.
I personally think that that one person's experience was enough for the whole world. And suffice it to say, He isn't posting on this site, or sending folks to a fiery place because of a difference of opinion! :D
(again --- just an IMO -- but I do think that all *accusations* of personal experience, should go all the way up to the top, and not just be relegated to those of us here on GreaseSpot. What do you say, eh?)
David
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
My understanding is that WE normal people should not base doctrine on our experiences.
God had to search far and wide for very special and rare people to which He could reveal His will to and trust them to DO His will with the message. These special people, prophets, are rare and had to be ready for the devil's high priority assaults on them to thwart the message. For these special (and hounded) people, who could tell the difference between senses and spirit and between the True God and satan, their spiritual experiences with the True God, recorded in writing, form the basis for our right doctrine.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Maybe he would have a different opinion...maybe not. That's kinda my point. And David, despite the wide chasm between our beliefs, we manage to get by without insulting each or consigning each other to hell. (Maybe because I don't believe in hell B)
No, but we should base our relationships, including the one with our deity, on experience. After all, what is written, as it's been ably stated by another poster, boils down to someone else's experience. Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Yup. Yeshua = Jesus. And I am certain He would have an entirely different point of view from either the one you espouse, or the one I espouse. 'nother words -- I don't know if either of us is right, but I suspect that there will be a day when we find out. I've got my fingers crossed for all of us! :D
And I will say this (for the benefit of the folks that think they are absolutely right) --- there is only ONE who is right. Sure -- everyone here seems to know the *truth* (in all it's various forms), but as Oak just said, he and I are worlds apart (doctrinally speaking), yet both of us are willing to acknowledge the fact that there is an intangible entity that cannot be grasped (physically), and we do our best to understand it as best we can.
Civility may not be mandatory here, but it sure would be a nice addition. :D :D
David
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LornaDoone
:D Ummmmmm interesting topic and well discussed. I like your comments Rascal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Actually it's worth a great deal
Thank You
And while I disagree with much you still hold dear-- I do admire that you have the courage of your convictions
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
WE normal people?...and who decides who the normal people are?...You?
God had to search far and wide for very special and rare people...says who?...You?
You assert that the "spiritual experiences" of other "special and rare" people form the "basis" for our right doctrine...What makes a person "special and rare"?...Getting drunk and raping women?
Am I to assume that YOU have decided that I am a "normal" person and not a "special and rare" person?...If so, how did you conclude this?
I noticed that you included yourself in the category of being a "normal" person when you used the word "We"...Seeing that you have concluded that you, yourself, are not a "special and rare" person, why do you believe that your spiritual insights are more valid than anyone else's here at the GreaseSpot?...especially when you define the "special and rare" people as those "who could tell the difference between senses and spirit and between the true God and satan"?
By you're own words...You are not a "special and rare"person, therefore you cannot tell the difference between senses and spirit, nor can you tell the difference between the true God and satan.
Of course, the message you convey is contrary to what the book of Ephesians says about every Christian having the abilities that you attribute to only "special and rare" people. In fact, your words cause division within the body of Christ because you falsely manufacture 2 categories of people within the body of Christ...those who are "special and rare" and those who are "normal"...or as I like to say, the "haves" and the "have nots"...this is totally contrary to what the bible teaches. Is it any wonder that people think you are a buffoon?
Edited by GrouchoMarxJrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Funny, my Bible says:
Amos was an herdsman and lest we forget, Joseph & Mary, Mary Magdalene, Noah, Jonah, the disciples weren't considered "special" people by society in any way shape or form....
You're contradicting the scriptures, Mike. God has always used "normal" people to get his message across. If someone is too caught up in labels, appearances and status then they're going to miss the message. You have to be humble in heart and able to recognize the spark of divinity in people to learn. In fact, as Groucho so eloquently stated, we're all of one body and WE ALL contribute in one way or another to that ONE BODY, like it or not.
Edited by BelleLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Rare and special is NOT a catagory I would place a man who was a thief ..... a cold hearted destroyer of those innocent souls placed in his care .... a man who raped those who naievely placed their trust in him...believing that as a man of God he had their best interests at heart.
There is an entirely different catagory for a man who manifested those qualities....there are instructions given for dealing with those who manifest the fruit in vp`s life.
Heres a hint.... it WASN`T to trust him as the one to bring forth God`s word....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Mike...I'm waiting for you to answer my questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Groucho,
I didn't see the activity on this thread until just this afternoon.
You asked me some of the same questions on the other thread I've been working on lately, " VPW's Source for the Law of Believing" and I gave some answers.
These two threads have some same posters and similar posting, so I will answer more over there. It's complicated enough for me to deal with a barrage of questions from many people on even one thread, but two overwealms me.
Let's shift the action over there, ok?
See you later.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
hi mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi Exy,
Long time no talk.
How did you know I would come back here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i didn't really know, but i'm glad you did
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I have only a few minutes to talk.
Would you like to now, or talk some later?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
So, ALL your answers to ALL his questions will be over there?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
If I answered ALL the questions thrown at me I'd never have time to master PFAL, donchya know?
I do my best if I think it will help anyone.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
How the hell do these threads turn into "Mike" threads? :blink:
I suppose it is possible for God to say..."You morons have it all wrong, I'm issuing a new 'Word of God' called PFAL because the old one is such a mess...tattered remants, y'know"
But Wierwille's claim was that it was only the interpretation of the bible was wrong, that various translations were wrong, not that the bible itself, in it's original text, was wrong. He stated repeatedly that we, through the "keys" that he taught, get back to thoise originals.
While Wierwille did not claim that his teachings superceded the bible, he implied and suggested, if not taught explicitly, that his interpretation and application were superior to all others, and were the true "orthodox" (my term, not his) teachings of the bible.
Much of this is mere semantics. Wierwille wanted us to believe that whatever came out of his mouth, or at least the end of his pen, was THE TRUTH, whether he made a clear claim that his books were on par with Galatians or Titus or not.
Where we are at an advantage over scholars poring over canonical and extra-canonical texts is that PFAL was written in English, and many of us actually heard the author speak and expound upon his books. We heard his own interpretation of his own works. We don't have to agonize over the correct interpreation of an unfamiliar word, or any of the things that you ahve to do with an old Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek text.
So where Mike claims that Wierwille said such-and-such, we can go to PFAL and refute him. Which has been done. Wierwille's works often do not say what Mike says that they say, unless you have a gnostic-like secret knowledge that allows you to understand what it really means.
And yet, Mike's detractors refer back to "the bible", a collection of writings put together by a committee of the victors in a centuries-long battle of words and political influence.
Edited by OakspearLink 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.