No Oaks...I believe something is true if the Word says it's true. Enter everybodies interpretation of 'what does the word say'. So...try it, apply it, if the 'interpretations' right it should work.
Who was it said "95% of the Bible is plain common sense" ?
The application 'works' (IMO) concerning the 'manifestations', believing, Jesus Son of God, the dead are dead, spiritual entities, etc...
Okay, so something's true because "The Word" says it's so, therefore if you try it, it should "work".
The problem there is that there are plenty of other religions and philosophies that "work" also.
Not a problem if you don't claim that the bible is exclusive truth, somewhat of a problem if you do.
The reason I'm even bringing this up is that I see this time and time again in doctrinal discussions. Everybody has their own opinion (and welcome to it, IMHO) - but so often the final argument is something like "it works for me". What I see here is that it comes down to experience. You believe certain things, apply them and you get the expected results; I believe something different, apply it and also get the expected results. Seeing it "work" confirms what you already believe...but only in your own mind...it doesn't invalidate what someone else believes and has confirmed by a different set of results that "work".
For a bunch of people who supposedly learned to separate truth from error and were taught not to let experience trump "The Word of God" we sure put a lot of stock in experience. For people who supposedly learned to "work the Word" we sure rely a lot on what one man said.
Maybe you and all the PFAL fans here do a lot of research and "working of the Word" and just choose not to rehash it here, I'm just going by what I see.
It would be refreshing to see PFAL fans rationally argue for what they believe is correct in PFAL rather than letting themselves get run off or shut down by opposing opinions.
DM/TS - the relationship between squealiating and squills is unclear. How did they come together to form the new term? Someday an engles linguister will do a phd thesis on it and offer an answer, hopefully.
I'm still working on the #1 reason as I feel it's the real answer to the question, Abigail. Maybe a collation of the posts on this thread.
For the time being, I don't know, though. IMO. YMMVSBIIDSPW ("your mileage may vary some but if it does something's probably wrong")
It's Saturday! There's a hammer somewhere with my name on it!
Hey Oaks...the last bit of what you said I think applies here. Apart from Mike, yeah, I am one that 'can't be bothered' rehashing it all. Probably due to a fact of 'finger typing laziness' !!
Any 'new stuff' I just glean from the likes of Wayne Clapp, Kevin Gigou, Bob Darnell, John Shroyer etc... over at CFFM.
It's true also what you said about something working for someone and something else working for someone else and that's cool.
Hey Oaks...the last bit of what you said I think applies here. Apart from Mike, yeah, I am one that 'can't be bothered' rehashing it all. Probably due to a fact of 'finger typing laziness' !!
To each his or her own, I guess, but why bother getting involved in a discussion at all if your whole position can be summed up as "oh yeah, it does too"?
One thing that I have retained from my TWI/PFAL days is a desire to have a good reason why I believe what I do. Wierwille claimed to be teaching us keys to be able to read and understand the bible, not just accept what the priest or minsiter or rabbi tells us. I don't want to ever fall back into relying on other folks for my interpretations and beliefs. If I can't break down and explain why I hold a certain position, maybe I don't really believe it.
It's true also what you said about something working for someone and something else working for someone else and that's cool.
Allan, I'm pleasantly surprised to hear you say that. I may have misjudged you.
Why do we continue to hound those who clearly not going to change their minds?
Because it's fun
And that just might be exactly why this doesn't happen.
It would be refreshing to see PFAL fans rationally argue for what they believe is correct in PFAL rather than
letting themselves get run off or shut down by opposing opinions.
Oak just some for for thought, My experience is that you are not in the "having fun"category but there are far to many IMHO.
What would be the point in providing sport for someone that by their own admission has no real interest in a conversation? There is no rational argument that will suffice for someone who only wants to "have fun" at another's expense. It's a circle jerk at best. And if their pals join in then all you will accomplish is spending the day trying to keep up with the questions on multiple posts meanwhile those "having fun" only generally have one person to respond to. It takes a lot of thought to lay out a quality post to compose it in a way that brings your point across, and with consideration for others ideas also. But it's never good enough for those who want to "have fun", there were not enough disclaimers, the grammar was wrong, and on it goes...and when all else fails lets talk about abuse because it has to do with every subject you know. If people don't like the response or lack thereof then maybe it's time to look at the message sent.
David, I suspect it's all of the above. Your posts are always very well thought out and respectful. When one is treated with respect, it's easy to respond in kind. :)
You don't insult the person asking and you ARE willing to have a real discussion. You are also willing to explain "why" when asked, whereas others just say, "so and so teaches on this" or "it's in the blue book" or "vee pee said it". You've obviously spent time considering your viewpoint and are willing to talk about it. That you talk about it in a calm, mature manner also makes a big difference.
They say, "you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar" and your words are sweet honey, David.
"It would be refreshing to see PFAL fans rationally argue for what they believe is correct in PFAL rather than letting themselves get run off or shut down by opposing opinions."
We are witnesses, not defense attorneys. Truth needs no defense.
ditto what previous posters said on the subject...I always thought (even when I was drinking the Kool-Aid) that "the truth needs no defense" was pretty lame. How do we know it's the truth if we don't explain it, investigate it it, "prove it" to ourselves. PFAL is no longer the standard for truth for most of us here; even most who hold to a goodly chunk of it do so because they have been convinced by their own study that it's so, not because they were told it was so.
And if the context and flow of what I am saying, you'd realize that I'm against PFAL fans being summarily ostracized, but would like to see rational discussion by those folks of their beliefs.
Run off or shot down??? Somebody's stoned.
Up to your usual mornoic standard of rebuttal I see. And i posted shut down, not shot down. Edited by Oakspear
quote: It would be refreshing to see PFAL fans rationally argue for what they believe is correct in PFAL rather than letting themselves get run off or shut down by opposing opinions.
We are witnesses, not defense attorneys. Truth needs no defense. Run off or shot down??? Somebody's stoned.
well... this'll probably be called hounding... but I think it's a perfect example of inviting opposition... I feel that a some of the 'hounding opposition' brings it on themselves in that they phrase things in a particularly antagonistic way... not all of them... some of them...
A couple of folks have already spoken to the second statement made... I'd post to the first one in that "It would be refreshing to see PFAL fans rationally argue for what they believe is correct in PFAL"... and either leave it at that or end it with rather than coming on and using the argument of 'because I know it' or 'because veepee said so'...
Tom: The quote presumes that I am obligated to "rationally argue" (defend) what I believe to be spiritual truth. I'm not. He never defends his atheism; why should I defend PFAL?
WW: Paul "reasoned with them out of the scriptures". That's what PFAL does. Paul didn't have to rationally argue with anybody about whether or not the scriptures were the word of God; both parties agreed that the scriptures were the standard for truth. That is not the case here. Oh, and of course there's no way God was working in those peoples' hearts while Paul was speaking to them, right? That never happens does it?
Oakspear: I think it would be refreshing if you would rationally defend your atheist position. You believe there is no God. That there is no intelligent design behind the so called creation. The human body is not man made, yet it generally lasts much longer than anything that IS man made. The sun is 93 million miles from earth. If it was 88 million miles from earth we'd all burn up. If it was 98 million miles from earth, we'd all freeze. But it just HAPPENS to be 93 million miles from earth and helps to sustain life here. C'mon. Rationally argue with me about why you believe there is no God who intelligently designed all this stuff.
Oakspear also freely discusses his beliefs and has engaged and participated in numerous discussions about why he thinks the way he does.
JohnIAm, I don't recall seeing much of you posting in the Doctrinal section...could be CRS on my part, tough ;) , but that's where most of those discussions take place. You might find enjoyable, enlightening reading down there. :)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
10
7
14
7
Popular Days
May 3
31
May 4
15
May 8
12
May 5
7
Top Posters In This Topic
Oakspear 10 posts
johniam 7 posts
Tom Strange 14 posts
dmiller 7 posts
Popular Days
May 3 2006
31 posts
May 4 2006
15 posts
May 8 2006
12 posts
May 5 2006
7 posts
allan w.
No Oaks...I believe something is true if the Word says it's true. Enter everybodies interpretation of 'what does the word say'. So...try it, apply it, if the 'interpretations' right it should work.
Who was it said "95% of the Bible is plain common sense" ?
The application 'works' (IMO) concerning the 'manifestations', believing, Jesus Son of God, the dead are dead, spiritual entities, etc...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Okay, so something's true because "The Word" says it's so, therefore if you try it, it should "work".
The problem there is that there are plenty of other religions and philosophies that "work" also.
Not a problem if you don't claim that the bible is exclusive truth, somewhat of a problem if you do.
The reason I'm even bringing this up is that I see this time and time again in doctrinal discussions. Everybody has their own opinion (and welcome to it, IMHO) - but so often the final argument is something like "it works for me". What I see here is that it comes down to experience. You believe certain things, apply them and you get the expected results; I believe something different, apply it and also get the expected results. Seeing it "work" confirms what you already believe...but only in your own mind...it doesn't invalidate what someone else believes and has confirmed by a different set of results that "work".
For a bunch of people who supposedly learned to separate truth from error and were taught not to let experience trump "The Word of God" we sure put a lot of stock in experience. For people who supposedly learned to "work the Word" we sure rely a lot on what one man said.
Maybe you and all the PFAL fans here do a lot of research and "working of the Word" and just choose not to rehash it here, I'm just going by what I see.
It would be refreshing to see PFAL fans rationally argue for what they believe is correct in PFAL rather than letting themselves get run off or shut down by opposing opinions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
CRacKS R Us Abigail!
DM/TS - the relationship between squealiating and squills is unclear. How did they come together to form the new term? Someday an engles linguister will do a phd thesis on it and offer an answer, hopefully.
I'm still working on the #1 reason as I feel it's the real answer to the question, Abigail. Maybe a collation of the posts on this thread.
For the time being, I don't know, though. IMO. YMMVSBIIDSPW ("your mileage may vary some but if it does something's probably wrong")
It's Saturday! There's a hammer somewhere with my name on it!
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Hey Oaks...the last bit of what you said I think applies here. Apart from Mike, yeah, I am one that 'can't be bothered' rehashing it all. Probably due to a fact of 'finger typing laziness' !!
Any 'new stuff' I just glean from the likes of Wayne Clapp, Kevin Gigou, Bob Darnell, John Shroyer etc... over at CFFM.
It's true also what you said about something working for someone and something else working for someone else and that's cool.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
One thing that I have retained from my TWI/PFAL days is a desire to have a good reason why I believe what I do. Wierwille claimed to be teaching us keys to be able to read and understand the bible, not just accept what the priest or minsiter or rabbi tells us. I don't want to ever fall back into relying on other folks for my interpretations and beliefs. If I can't break down and explain why I hold a certain position, maybe I don't really believe it.
Allan, I'm pleasantly surprised to hear you say that. I may have misjudged you.Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
An Athlete of the Spirit!!!
Kidding, jussst kidding! ~~~
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Heard tonight:
Why do we continue to hound those who clearly not going to change their minds?
Because it's fun
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Even though I hang onto some of the tenets of pfal, I've never felt *hounded*.
Meebe because I'm willing to look at the *other side*, and consider??
I don't know.
Meebe because I don't propound them as *all truth*?
I don't know.
Meebe because I see a lot of sense in all the varying viewpoints?
I don't know.
Meebe because I am willing to change my thinking at times?
I don't know.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"HOUND NOT, LEST YE BE HOUNDED IN RETURN!!"
"How many times shall I hound my brother, Lord? Til seven times???
"Nay -- I say unto ye - NOT until seven times shalt thou hound him ---
But thou shalt hound him until seventy x seven times!!
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Oak just some for for thought, My experience is that you are not in the "having fun"category but there are far to many IMHO.
What would be the point in providing sport for someone that by their own admission has no real interest in a conversation? There is no rational argument that will suffice for someone who only wants to "have fun" at another's expense. It's a circle jerk at best. And if their pals join in then all you will accomplish is spending the day trying to keep up with the questions on multiple posts meanwhile those "having fun" only generally have one person to respond to. It takes a lot of thought to lay out a quality post to compose it in a way that brings your point across, and with consideration for others ideas also. But it's never good enough for those who want to "have fun", there were not enough disclaimers, the grammar was wrong, and on it goes...and when all else fails lets talk about abuse because it has to do with every subject you know. If people don't like the response or lack thereof then maybe it's time to look at the message sent.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Actually, Rev. Bob Darnell lays out a couple of good replies to this question in his latest teaching at CFFM.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
David, I suspect it's all of the above. Your posts are always very well thought out and respectful. When one is treated with respect, it's easy to respond in kind. :)
You don't insult the person asking and you ARE willing to have a real discussion. You are also willing to explain "why" when asked, whereas others just say, "so and so teaches on this" or "it's in the blue book" or "vee pee said it". You've obviously spent time considering your viewpoint and are willing to talk about it. That you talk about it in a calm, mature manner also makes a big difference.
They say, "you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar" and your words are sweet honey, David.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: It would be refreshing to see PFAL fans rationally argue for what they believe is correct in PFAL rather than
letting themselves get run off or shut down by opposing opinions.
We are witnesses, not defense attorneys. Truth needs no defense. Run off or shot down??? Somebody's stoned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"Truth needs no defense."
Eh, chapter and verse, please.
What I found was a different story...
Acts 17:1-3
"Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica,
where there was a synagogue of the Jews:
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned
with them out of the Scriptures,
Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from
the dead; and that 'this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ'."
Acts 18:4
"And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the
Jews and the Greeks."
Acts 18:19
"And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into
the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews."
Seems the apostle PAUL disagreed with you.
Who you gonna believe-the apostle Paul, or....?
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Well...Twi is NOT truth and i suppose that is the reason why it DOES need a defense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
:o :D :o :D :o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
ditto what previous posters said on the subject...I always thought (even when I was drinking the Kool-Aid) that "the truth needs no defense" was pretty lame. How do we know it's the truth if we don't explain it, investigate it it, "prove it" to ourselves. PFAL is no longer the standard for truth for most of us here; even most who hold to a goodly chunk of it do so because they have been convinced by their own study that it's so, not because they were told it was so.
And if the context and flow of what I am saying, you'd realize that I'm against PFAL fans being summarily ostracized, but would like to see rational discussion by those folks of their beliefs.
Up to your usual mornoic standard of rebuttal I see. And i posted shut down, not shot down.Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
well... this'll probably be called hounding... but I think it's a perfect example of inviting opposition... I feel that a some of the 'hounding opposition' brings it on themselves in that they phrase things in a particularly antagonistic way... not all of them... some of them...
A couple of folks have already spoken to the second statement made... I'd post to the first one in that "It would be refreshing to see PFAL fans rationally argue for what they believe is correct in PFAL"... and either leave it at that or end it with rather than coming on and using the argument of 'because I know it' or 'because veepee said so'...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Tom: The quote presumes that I am obligated to "rationally argue" (defend) what I believe to be spiritual truth. I'm not. He never defends his atheism; why should I defend PFAL?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
WW: Paul "reasoned with them out of the scriptures". That's what PFAL does. Paul didn't have to rationally argue with anybody about whether or not the scriptures were the word of God; both parties agreed that the scriptures were the standard for truth. That is not the case here. Oh, and of course there's no way God was working in those peoples' hearts while Paul was speaking to them, right? That never happens does it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Oakspear: I think it would be refreshing if you would rationally defend your atheist position. You believe there is no God. That there is no intelligent design behind the so called creation. The human body is not man made, yet it generally lasts much longer than anything that IS man made. The sun is 93 million miles from earth. If it was 88 million miles from earth we'd all burn up. If it was 98 million miles from earth, we'd all freeze. But it just HAPPENS to be 93 million miles from earth and helps to sustain life here. C'mon. Rationally argue with me about why you believe there is no God who intelligently designed all this stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Oakspear's not an atheist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Oakspear also freely discusses his beliefs and has engaged and participated in numerous discussions about why he thinks the way he does.
JohnIAm, I don't recall seeing much of you posting in the Doctrinal section...could be CRS on my part, tough ;) , but that's where most of those discussions take place. You might find enjoyable, enlightening reading down there. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
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.