used in medicine, as Hirudo medicinalis of Europe, and alliedspecies.
Note: In the mouth of bloodsucking leeches are three convergent, serrated jaws, moved by strong muscles. By the motion of these jaws a stellate incision is made in the skin, through which the leech sucks blood till it is gorged, and then drops off. The stomach has large pouches on each side to hold the blood. The common large bloodsucking leech of America (Macrobdella decora) is dark olive above, and red below, with black spots. Many kinds of leeches are parasitic on fishes; others feed upon worms and mollusks, and have no jaws for drawing blood. See Bdelloidea. Hirudinea, and Clepsine.
3. (Surg.) A glass tube of peculiar construction, adapted for drawing blood from a scarified part by means of a vacuum.
Horse leech, a less powerful European leech (H[ae]mopis vorax), commonly attacking the membrane that lines the inside of the mouth and nostrils of animals that drink at pools where it lives.
Is all I can come up with...
Which doesn't help my understanding at all!
12 those who are pure in their own eyes
and yet are not cleansed of their filth;
13 those whose eyes are ever so haughty,
whose glances are so disdainful;
14 those whose teeth are swords
and whose jaws are set with knives
to devour the poor from the earth,
the needy from among mankind.
15 "The leech has two daughters.
'Give! Give!' they cry.
"There are three things that are never satisfied,
four that never say, 'Enough!':
Proverbs 30:12-15 (NIV)
Oh! But in context it makes plenty of sense! Duh me!
Truth is truth be it a priest or a thief who say's it.
What happened to speaking the truth in love? So what, truth is truth.
Why sign your posts "LOVE FROM THE DOVE....?"
Why not "HATE FROM THE BLOODSUCKING WORM...?"
I think it is the ellipsis, the three dots at the end of your signature indicating what's been omitted (or surpressed as the case may be) that makes all the difference.
Using Truth found in a Bible class-- a BIG difference
note it isn't said that the bible class was the truth but, rather, there there was truth in the class-- a BIG difference
So tell me , how much credence should be put in a class that is not wholly true and not about righteousness when we are talking about what God wants???
Temple Lady you misquoted me ,seems you left out part of the context. my response was in regard to this your statement not the foundational class material
It the righteous issue--They will tell you they are righteous now and for evermore
Which since you brought it up is what Romans says.
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. - Romans3:22-26
I guess we are ! It would be a shame if Mormon's would not accept the price paid.
note it isn't said that the bible class was the truth but, rather, there there was truth in the class-- a BIG difference
So tell me , how much credence should be put in a class that is not wholly true and not about righteousness when we are talking about what God wants???
Your right a Bible class is just that a structure or means to deliver the truth contained in it. It is not truth in and of itself because it is structure in which truth is disseminated. Much like a book is not truth in and of itself but it may contain truth.
So how much credence should be put in a class ......
While the class does have a section on righteousness it it not what it is about in it's entirety. How much credence I suppose would be based on how much truth is contained in it if one were honest and not basing their evaluation on their emotional feelings.
Some of what Wierwille taught was plagiarized. Of that plagiarized material, some is biblically accurate, some is not. The original authors are no more infallible than Wierwille.
Some of what Wierwille taught was original. Of that original material, some is biblically accurate, some is not. Wierwille was not immune from being right, despite his moral failings.
Some of what Wierwille taught, while not plagiarized, is not strictly original either, but reworked from other sources.
Some plagiarized material was combined with other plagiarized material or with his own work to make a point that the original author was not making, sometimes this was deliberate, sometimes it betrays a lack of understanding by Wierwille of what the original author was trying to say.
Some of what Wierwille taught was based on definitions of words in biblical languages that cannot be backed up by any other sources, in other words he made them up. There are also claims of fact that are also apparently made up. This undermines much of what he taught, it being based on unsupportable foundations.
White Dove, "This much we agree on Oak"
Wow! that's a lot!
How much credence I suppose would be based on how much truth is contained in it if one were honest and not basing their evaluation on their emotional feelings.[/color]
So, again, White Dove, why weigh truth abainst error? Why lace truth with error? Why not teach the truth & leave the error out?
Isnt' that part of waking up and strengthening the things that remain as Dylan exhorted?
So, WD, why does the bible make such a big deal about character, then? Especially the character of those who have/take authority over God's people?
Because it is what we should strive for in our life. BUT it does not define truth as Oak recognized, it is a seperate issue.
Wierwille was not immune from being right, despite his moral failings.
This is not hard to grasp - I'll say it again. Truth is truth it does not change based upon the morals of those speaking. It is not effected by their actions. 1+1 =2 will remain true if it is said by a teacher, a rapist, a priest, or a thief. Their morals have no bearing on the fact that it is true. Now if you will listen to them ,it may have bearing depending on your choice. But it does not change the truth in their statement.
I don`t think that wierwille with ALL of his various sources that he studied ever honestly understood being a Christian.
I think that with his vast knowledge that he THOUGHT that he did....Thomas is right..... I only have to look at his lack of love and his willingness to utterly destroy any who displeased him.....to realise that what vpw practiced and taught isn`t *truth* in the context of Christianity.
PFAL, gives people the illusion of *truth* ....the appearance of being spiritual....but is proven lacking in THE most fundimentally important aspect in all Christianity .... Charity.
IMHO............He had to teach error to make his ministry to stand out alone. He had to have people believe his error and follow him. By what he taught and what we believed made us follow one man while discounting and rejecting other beliefs. This is how he got such a big following and our money. vpw was a rebel and made us rebels. We thought we were elite but what we ended up being was a follower of a man. We were to be together as much as possibe and not with unbelievers. We were to witness what we were taught in pfal and yes some of it was truth. Get them to twig and see if they were open to hear and agree with "Blue Book" teachings. Then get them to sign up for pfal so they would soon be just like us (a wierwille believer).
How much credence I suppose would be based on how much truth is contained in it if one were honest and not basing their evaluation on their emotional feelings.[/color]
So, again, White Dove, why weigh truth abainst error? Why lace truth with error? Why not teach the truth & leave the error out?
Isnt' that part of waking up and strengthening the things that remain as Dylan exhorted?
I don't think I said to do that Thomas!
We are to weigh things as to what the scripture says. That said we can learn from sources despite the fact that all men are imperfect you can find error in any book or class. Doesn't mean we need to throw it out based on a emotional response. Use the truth leave the rest pretty simple concept. Show me a church that does not lace truth with error including yours Thomas.
I think you misread Dylan he said strengthen the things that remain not throw everything out and start over. BIG Difference! Then again one would have to have completed the first part of the equation When you going to wake up?
So, WD, why does the bible make such a big deal about character, then? Especially the character of those who have/take authority over God's people?
Because it is what we should strive for in our life. BUT it does not define truth as Oak recognized, it is a seperate issue.
This is not hard to grasp - I'll say it again. Truth is truth it does not change based upon the morals of those speaking. It is not effected by their actions. 1+1 =2 will remain true if it is said by a teacher, a rapist, a priest, or a thief. Their morals have no bearing on the fact that it is true. Now if you will listen to them ,it may have bearing depending on your choice. But it does not change the truth in their statement.
WD! I am surprised at you. Do you really believe that all the scriptures that instruct us to 'test the spirits', 'follow not those who', 'believe not those who', etc etc are there for no real reason?
I mean, seriously, why have any part of the bible besides Romans 10:9 if all the rest of the 'instruction in righteousness' has no defining impact on truth?
I understand why any pfal adherant would need to believe that was so dove....but the bible just doesn`t support that position.
*Truth* is suspect if the one declaring it to be so...is of low moral character.
Every scripture given us as sign posts to indicate the spiritual healthiness or lack there of says that wierwille/pfal fail the test miserably.
The *fruit* is of the flesh...the teacher lacked *charity* as well as morals.... For many, the exposure and application of these *truths* brought great suffering.
ALL significant indications that this wasn`t spiritually healthy.
Truth is Truth Morals are Morals Cool two seperate issues. Sometimes they intertwine but they do not change each other.
Do you really think that if if Charles Manson said 1+1=2 it would be wrong because he said so?
Charles Manson probably can add 1 and 1. I'll bet Charles Manson cannot do quadratic equations.
So?
Well, adding 1 and 1 is elementary and is probably the most math he'll ever need in life. BUT that doesn't mean Charles Manson has an understanding of mathematics...it just means he can count his fingers and toes.
Quoting scripture is like adding 1 and 1...it's elementary and the most truth most people will ever need in life. BUT it doesn't mean that one has an understanding of the truth...it just means one can memorize scripture.
The whole purpose of TEACHING is to impart understanding.
If a teacher does not understand what he/she is teaching, then they are not teaching at all...they are simply imparting their own lack.
How do Christians know if a bible teacher has an understanding of the bible?
The teacher's fruit manifested in the teacher's life.
If the fruit is bad, then one knows for a certainty that the teacher has no understanding of the truth...and should, therefore, not listen to a thing that teacher has to say.
I understand why any pfal adherant would need to believe that was so dove....but the bible just doesn`t support that position.
*Truth* is suspect if the one declaring it to be so...is of low moral character.
Fine so check it out that's what you were supposed to be doing anyway moral suspect or not.
Every scripture given us as sign posts to indicate the spiritual healthiness or lack there of says that wierwille/pfal fail the test miserably.
The *fruit* is of the flesh...the teacher lacked *charity* as well as morals.... For many, the exposure and application of these *truths* brought great suffering.
ALL significant indications that this wasn`t spiritually healthy.
And for many they did not!!! So do numbers define truth I think not! either way the majority falls ,they don't.
So VPS life dictates if Bullingers or Welch or Lamsa or Stiles or Pillai or B G Leonard words are truth or not?
Charles Manson probably can add 1 and 1. I'll bet Charles Manson cannot do quadratic equations.
So?
Well, adding 1 and 1 is elementary and is probably the most math he'll ever need in life. BUT that doesn't mean Charles Manson has an understanding of mathematics...it just means he can count his fingers and toes.
Quoting scripture is like adding 1 and 1...it's elementary and the most truth most people will ever need in life. BUT it doesn't mean that one has an understanding of the truth...it just means one can memorize scripture.
The whole purpose of TEACHING is to impart understanding.
If a teacher does not understand what he/she is teaching, then they are not teaching at all...they are simply imparting their own lack.
How do Christians know if a bible teacher has an understanding of the bible?
The teacher's fruit manifested in the teacher's life.
If the fruit is bad, then one knows for a certainty that the teacher has no understanding of the truth...and should, therefore, not listen to a thing that teacher has to say.
That's what the bible says, anyway.
Jesus never said the Scribes never spoke the truth he addressed their choice of what they did with it. Not one in the same. We'll leave the math out maybe it is confusing you here. I learned truth in the Catholic Church despite it's moral state and the morals of those teaching me. I can use that truth independent of the way those who instructed me did. Another words I can benefit from truth learned leave the rest.
We are to weigh things as to what the scripture says. That said we can learn from sources despite the fact that all men are imperfect you can find error in any book or class. Doesn't mean we need to throw it out based on a emotional response. Use the truth leave the rest pretty simple concept. Show me a church that does not lace truth with error including yours Thomas.
I think you misread Dylan he said strengthen the things that remain not throw everything out and start over. BIG Difference!
I'm not saying you should throw everything out & start over. You say "Use the truth leave the rest pretty simple concept." That's exactly what I'm asking - why don't you do that? Everytime someone shows that PFAL class, the whole class is there - including the "rest" that is not the truth. Why not leave THAT rest out, utilize what truth you've found, & YOU teach the truth?
Of course, everyone's "truth" is laced with error, but to deliberately leave in what you acknowledge to be error doesn't strengthen what remains; it let's the error remain.
You can separate truth from error, right? I'm not saying throw out the truth; I'm saying throw out the error. It's supposed to be the foundation of the Word, & it has error - not only the error that is inescapable in anyone's product - but error that you recognize as such.
I say that if you can't separate out the truth from the error, then you ought not to be sharing the product with others ignorantly - you're the blind leading the blind into the same ditch that all greasespotters inevitably visited one midnight, but didn't really become greasespots by the grace & mercy of God.
But I'm saying you can separate truth from error, & that's how you should teach the foundation to the Word - in as pure a manner as you know how to.
That having been said, I must also say that besides the errors that have been pointed out here & there in this thread, there are what must be called critical errors in PFAL with regard to its mission to lay the foundation of the Word for people.
The Word says "... let every man take heed how he builds thereupon, for other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."
That business where Wierwille sets himself up to be called the teacher has got to go.
Matthew 23:8 Â But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 Â And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Â Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11 Â But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 Â And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
This is in the middle of one of Jesus' most scathing rebukes to the hypocritical Pharisees because they took the place of Christ.
Jesus Christ IS the foundation that has been laid. He is the teacher.
Any solid foundation would have to keep our "father" or our "teacher" from taking his place & let Jesus Christ only take that place.
I think the biggest problem with this is that they don't know where the error is. They have merely memorized a class and they have a lazy way to teach people, which means to me that they really don't care about helping people so maybe it's a power thing. If they really cared about people, they wouldn't want to teach any error.
If the Devil himself put together a class with the mix of truth, error and b.s. like vee pee did, and they took that class and felt like it changed their lives, they would use that class to teach people.
They really don't have a handle on what the truth is and they can't prove or justify anything that they teach, all they can do is parrot what they learned in PFAL and TWI. There's no understanding and it seems to be obvious there's no desire to have any understanding. Certainly refraining from open discussion about PFAL and lack of comment on Jerry's awesome documentation of the in depth analysis of PFAL that went on previously seems to indicate that.
If someone were to pick apart PFAL - take out the bad - keep the good and make their own class, I'd certainly support them, but there's no way I can see to justify or supporting people teaching error and bondage to people. It's lying. Bold Faced Lying and they should be ashamed. IMNHO
Jesus never said the Scribes never spoke the truth he addressed their choice of what they did with it. Not one in the same.
WD...puhleeze!
42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." John 8:42-47 (NIV)
Now you can nitpick all day about who Jesus was talking to here...the point is not who he was talking to, but what he was saying.
We'll leave the math out maybe it is confusing you here.
LMAO!!! Sorry Dove...coming from a dyed-in-wool twit, I find this statement hilarious. After all...it's all about 'mathematical exactness'. Please, don't leave out the math on my part! I can do quadratic equations (and more) and I do teach mathematics. LMAO!!!!
I learned truth in the Catholic Church despite it's moral state and the morals of those teaching me. I can use that truth independent of the way those who instructed me did.
So why'd ya leave and turn to twi?
Another words I can benefit from truth learned leave the rest.
Obviously you can't...otherwise you wouldn't give an ear to immoral teachers...which is what the truth instructs...and which is what you have not learned in all of your years 'benefiting' from the truth (which I think is a very telling choice of words, btw).
Another words I can benefit from truth learned leave the rest.
Not to nitpick, but it's actually "in other words" - that's the proper grammar and phrase. :)
I suppose if the Devil was having a symposium and going to be sharing "truth" WD would want to sit as his feet so he can benefit from the truth. After all, that's what Jesus did, right? ;)
The problem comes from continuing to teach "the rest".
Thomas I don't run PFAL classes. The material is dated, look when it was filmed. I don't even use some of the ones produced post way for that reason also. I would not want to have to work through each session and explain the changes. That said as we continue to learn and grow anything we produce in the way of classes will eventually date. For someone starting out in their learning I would not recommend utilizing such a class. However it would not make it useless as a reference to someone who could or would have the background to sift through it and learn something from it. And it does not negate the fact that a lot of useful work from other sources is contained there in one place. Use it or not I don't really care, I do reject the opinion that someone's morals somehow morphs the truth contained in a class into untruth.
I get about 35 CD teachings a month from various sources sometimes they have useful and accurate information sometimes they suck that’s they way it is. You have to dig through the stuff to get the good. The same is true of any Christian bestseller book. Still I don't need to know and in most cases don't about the lifestyle of the writer.
I learned truth in the Catholic Church despite it's moral state and the morals of those teaching me. I can use that truth independent of the way those who instructed me did.
So why'd ya leave and turn to twi?
Because I found a better environment for learning truth Which by the way is also why I left
Jerry's awesome documentation of the in depth analysis of PFAL
I haven't been around here for a while, Belle - where is that?
Oh, & don't hold back so much - tell us what you really think. Just kidding; actually, it is very gratifying to see how much you've grown since the last time I was here. What a big and honest heart & mind!
Did I say hi. It's good to "see" you again, Belle.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
19
16
16
32
Popular Days
Mar 24
58
Mar 23
35
Mar 26
33
Mar 25
23
Top Posters In This Topic
Tom 19 posts
Belle 16 posts
CoolWaters 16 posts
WhiteDove 32 posts
Popular Days
Mar 24 2006
58 posts
Mar 23 2006
35 posts
Mar 26 2006
33 posts
Mar 25 2006
23 posts
CoolWaters
Is all I can come up with...
Which doesn't help my understanding at all!
Oh! But in context it makes plenty of sense! Duh me!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
What happened to speaking the truth in love? So what, truth is truth.
Why sign your posts "LOVE FROM THE DOVE....?"
Why not "HATE FROM THE BLOODSUCKING WORM...?"
I think it is the ellipsis, the three dots at the end of your signature indicating what's been omitted (or surpressed as the case may be) that makes all the difference.
Edited by Thomas HellerLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Which since you brought it up is what Romans says.
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. - Romans3:22-26
I guess we are ! It would be a shame if Mormon's would not accept the price paid.
Your right a Bible class is just that a structure or means to deliver the truth contained in it. It is not truth in and of itself because it is structure in which truth is disseminated. Much like a book is not truth in and of itself but it may contain truth.While the class does have a section on righteousness it it not what it is about in it's entirety. How much credence I suppose would be based on how much truth is contained in it if one were honest and not basing their evaluation on their emotional feelings.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Thankyou Thomas and CW, it makes much more to me sense now :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Belle I got your point! I just don't agree with you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
QUOTE
Some of what Wierwille taught was plagiarized. Of that plagiarized material, some is biblically accurate, some is not. The original authors are no more infallible than Wierwille.
Some of what Wierwille taught was original. Of that original material, some is biblically accurate, some is not. Wierwille was not immune from being right, despite his moral failings.
Some of what Wierwille taught, while not plagiarized, is not strictly original either, but reworked from other sources.
Some plagiarized material was combined with other plagiarized material or with his own work to make a point that the original author was not making, sometimes this was deliberate, sometimes it betrays a lack of understanding by Wierwille of what the original author was trying to say.
Some of what Wierwille taught was based on definitions of words in biblical languages that cannot be backed up by any other sources, in other words he made them up. There are also claims of fact that are also apparently made up. This undermines much of what he taught, it being based on unsupportable foundations.
White Dove, "This much we agree on Oak"
Wow! that's a lot!
So, again, White Dove, why weigh truth abainst error? Why lace truth with error? Why not teach the truth & leave the error out?
Isnt' that part of waking up and strengthening the things that remain as Dylan exhorted?
Edited by Thomas HellerLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Because it is what we should strive for in our life. BUT it does not define truth as Oak recognized, it is a seperate issue.
This is not hard to grasp - I'll say it again. Truth is truth it does not change based upon the morals of those speaking. It is not effected by their actions. 1+1 =2 will remain true if it is said by a teacher, a rapist, a priest, or a thief. Their morals have no bearing on the fact that it is true. Now if you will listen to them ,it may have bearing depending on your choice. But it does not change the truth in their statement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I don`t think that wierwille with ALL of his various sources that he studied ever honestly understood being a Christian.
I think that with his vast knowledge that he THOUGHT that he did....Thomas is right..... I only have to look at his lack of love and his willingness to utterly destroy any who displeased him.....to realise that what vpw practiced and taught isn`t *truth* in the context of Christianity.
PFAL, gives people the illusion of *truth* ....the appearance of being spiritual....but is proven lacking in THE most fundimentally important aspect in all Christianity .... Charity.
Without that....it was all simply noise
Link to comment
Share on other sites
justloafing
IMHO............He had to teach error to make his ministry to stand out alone. He had to have people believe his error and follow him. By what he taught and what we believed made us follow one man while discounting and rejecting other beliefs. This is how he got such a big following and our money. vpw was a rebel and made us rebels. We thought we were elite but what we ended up being was a follower of a man. We were to be together as much as possibe and not with unbelievers. We were to witness what we were taught in pfal and yes some of it was truth. Get them to twig and see if they were open to hear and agree with "Blue Book" teachings. Then get them to sign up for pfal so they would soon be just like us (a wierwille believer).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
QUOTE(WhiteDove @ Mar 24 2006, 08:17 AM)
How much credence I suppose would be based on how much truth is contained in it if one were honest and not basing their evaluation on their emotional feelings.[/color]
So, again, White Dove, why weigh truth abainst error? Why lace truth with error? Why not teach the truth & leave the error out?
Isnt' that part of waking up and strengthening the things that remain as Dylan exhorted?
I don't think I said to do that Thomas!
We are to weigh things as to what the scripture says. That said we can learn from sources despite the fact that all men are imperfect you can find error in any book or class. Doesn't mean we need to throw it out based on a emotional response. Use the truth leave the rest pretty simple concept. Show me a church that does not lace truth with error including yours Thomas.
I think you misread Dylan he said strengthen the things that remain not throw everything out and start over. BIG Difference! Then again one would have to have completed the first part of the equation When you going to wake up?
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
WD! I am surprised at you. Do you really believe that all the scriptures that instruct us to 'test the spirits', 'follow not those who', 'believe not those who', etc etc are there for no real reason?
I mean, seriously, why have any part of the bible besides Romans 10:9 if all the rest of the 'instruction in righteousness' has no defining impact on truth?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Truth is Truth Morals are Morals Cool two seperate issues. Sometimes they intertwine but they do not change each other.
Do you really think that if if Charles Manson said 1+1=2 it would be wrong because he said so?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I understand why any pfal adherant would need to believe that was so dove....but the bible just doesn`t support that position.
*Truth* is suspect if the one declaring it to be so...is of low moral character.
Every scripture given us as sign posts to indicate the spiritual healthiness or lack there of says that wierwille/pfal fail the test miserably.
The *fruit* is of the flesh...the teacher lacked *charity* as well as morals.... For many, the exposure and application of these *truths* brought great suffering.
ALL significant indications that this wasn`t spiritually healthy.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
Charles Manson probably can add 1 and 1. I'll bet Charles Manson cannot do quadratic equations.
So?
Well, adding 1 and 1 is elementary and is probably the most math he'll ever need in life. BUT that doesn't mean Charles Manson has an understanding of mathematics...it just means he can count his fingers and toes.
Quoting scripture is like adding 1 and 1...it's elementary and the most truth most people will ever need in life. BUT it doesn't mean that one has an understanding of the truth...it just means one can memorize scripture.
The whole purpose of TEACHING is to impart understanding.
If a teacher does not understand what he/she is teaching, then they are not teaching at all...they are simply imparting their own lack.
How do Christians know if a bible teacher has an understanding of the bible?
The teacher's fruit manifested in the teacher's life.
If the fruit is bad, then one knows for a certainty that the teacher has no understanding of the truth...and should, therefore, not listen to a thing that teacher has to say.
That's what the bible says, anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
And for many they did not!!! So do numbers define truth I think not! either way the majority falls ,they don't.
So VPS life dictates if Bullingers or Welch or Lamsa or Stiles or Pillai or B G Leonard words are truth or not?
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Jesus never said the Scribes never spoke the truth he addressed their choice of what they did with it. Not one in the same. We'll leave the math out maybe it is confusing you here. I learned truth in the Catholic Church despite it's moral state and the morals of those teaching me. I can use that truth independent of the way those who instructed me did. Another words I can benefit from truth learned leave the rest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
I'm not saying you should throw everything out & start over. You say "Use the truth leave the rest pretty simple concept." That's exactly what I'm asking - why don't you do that? Everytime someone shows that PFAL class, the whole class is there - including the "rest" that is not the truth. Why not leave THAT rest out, utilize what truth you've found, & YOU teach the truth?
Of course, everyone's "truth" is laced with error, but to deliberately leave in what you acknowledge to be error doesn't strengthen what remains; it let's the error remain.
You can separate truth from error, right? I'm not saying throw out the truth; I'm saying throw out the error. It's supposed to be the foundation of the Word, & it has error - not only the error that is inescapable in anyone's product - but error that you recognize as such.
I say that if you can't separate out the truth from the error, then you ought not to be sharing the product with others ignorantly - you're the blind leading the blind into the same ditch that all greasespotters inevitably visited one midnight, but didn't really become greasespots by the grace & mercy of God.
But I'm saying you can separate truth from error, & that's how you should teach the foundation to the Word - in as pure a manner as you know how to.
That having been said, I must also say that besides the errors that have been pointed out here & there in this thread, there are what must be called critical errors in PFAL with regard to its mission to lay the foundation of the Word for people.
The Word says "... let every man take heed how he builds thereupon, for other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."
That business where Wierwille sets himself up to be called the teacher has got to go.
Matthew 23:8 Â But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 Â And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Â Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11 Â But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 Â And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
This is in the middle of one of Jesus' most scathing rebukes to the hypocritical Pharisees because they took the place of Christ.
Jesus Christ IS the foundation that has been laid. He is the teacher.
Any solid foundation would have to keep our "father" or our "teacher" from taking his place & let Jesus Christ only take that place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Is really about Wierwille worship? Please say no.
Again, simply, why not just teach the truth & leave the error out?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I think the biggest problem with this is that they don't know where the error is. They have merely memorized a class and they have a lazy way to teach people, which means to me that they really don't care about helping people so maybe it's a power thing. If they really cared about people, they wouldn't want to teach any error.
If the Devil himself put together a class with the mix of truth, error and b.s. like vee pee did, and they took that class and felt like it changed their lives, they would use that class to teach people.
They really don't have a handle on what the truth is and they can't prove or justify anything that they teach, all they can do is parrot what they learned in PFAL and TWI. There's no understanding and it seems to be obvious there's no desire to have any understanding. Certainly refraining from open discussion about PFAL and lack of comment on Jerry's awesome documentation of the in depth analysis of PFAL that went on previously seems to indicate that.
If someone were to pick apart PFAL - take out the bad - keep the good and make their own class, I'd certainly support them, but there's no way I can see to justify or supporting people teaching error and bondage to people. It's lying. Bold Faced Lying and they should be ashamed. IMNHO
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
WD...puhleeze!
Now you can nitpick all day about who Jesus was talking to here...the point is not who he was talking to, but what he was saying.LMAO!!! Sorry Dove...coming from a dyed-in-wool twit, I find this statement hilarious. After all...it's all about 'mathematical exactness'. Please, don't leave out the math on my part! I can do quadratic equations (and more) and I do teach mathematics. LMAO!!!!
So why'd ya leave and turn to twi?
Obviously you can't...otherwise you wouldn't give an ear to immoral teachers...which is what the truth instructs...and which is what you have not learned in all of your years 'benefiting' from the truth (which I think is a very telling choice of words, btw).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Not to nitpick, but it's actually "in other words" - that's the proper grammar and phrase. :)
I suppose if the Devil was having a symposium and going to be sharing "truth" WD would want to sit as his feet so he can benefit from the truth. After all, that's what Jesus did, right? ;)
The problem comes from continuing to teach "the rest".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Thomas I don't run PFAL classes. The material is dated, look when it was filmed. I don't even use some of the ones produced post way for that reason also. I would not want to have to work through each session and explain the changes. That said as we continue to learn and grow anything we produce in the way of classes will eventually date. For someone starting out in their learning I would not recommend utilizing such a class. However it would not make it useless as a reference to someone who could or would have the background to sift through it and learn something from it. And it does not negate the fact that a lot of useful work from other sources is contained there in one place. Use it or not I don't really care, I do reject the opinion that someone's morals somehow morphs the truth contained in a class into untruth.
I get about 35 CD teachings a month from various sources sometimes they have useful and accurate information sometimes they suck that’s they way it is. You have to dig through the stuff to get the good. The same is true of any Christian bestseller book. Still I don't need to know and in most cases don't about the lifestyle of the writer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
QUOTE(WhiteDove @ Mar 24 2006, 08:33 AM)
I learned truth in the Catholic Church despite it's moral state and the morals of those teaching me. I can use that truth independent of the way those who instructed me did.
So why'd ya leave and turn to twi?
Because I found a better environment for learning truth Which by the way is also why I left
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
I haven't been around here for a while, Belle - where is that?
Oh, & don't hold back so much - tell us what you really think. Just kidding; actually, it is very gratifying to see how much you've grown since the last time I was here. What a big and honest heart & mind!
Did I say hi. It's good to "see" you again, Belle.
And
to all.
Tom
Edited by Thomas HellerLink 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.