Is PLAF theopneustos, god-breathed?

[Mike]

1 hour ago, So_crates said:

You've never heard of Occum's Razor?

A topic is only as complex as you make it.

When I ask you for the formula to find the area of a circle, I don't need the history of pi, the history of geometry, Archimedes biography, and a dissertation on the use of circles. The only thing I need to know is pi R-square.

If I'm asking for the time, I don't need someone to tell me how to build a clock.

As a matter of fact, my experience tells me the longer and more meandering an answer, the more likely someone's trying to con me. (Like the man said, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.)

So, in the spirit of that clarification you want to do:

So then what's the test, in 25 words or less, that's, according to Saint Vic, supposed to tell us what's God-breathe and what's not?

Here goes.

Maybe later this can be boiled down closer to 25 words.

Recognizing God speaking is similar to recognizing people in everyday life.

When I meet a human being, the words that they speak and the actions than take tell me about them. To begin with, I notice that they EXIST and are a conscious human most deeply by how their words line up with mine in conversation. 

They also tell me who they are, and I line that up with their words and actions. As time goes by I see how well they stick to their words; I get a feel for the quality of their personality by how they deal with stress and things not going their way.  At some point I may vouch for them as to who they claim they are.

Similarly with the God I met informally and intermittently from 1971 to 1987, and then much more rigorously in 1998. This God has lived in ideas of the PFAL writings long before VPW was born, and has come gradually and faintly into textual manifestation in writings like Kenyon, Styles. Then finally He came into full manifestation in the final PFAL writings.

Like getting to know and trust (with proof) a human takes time and interacting, the same holds with this Word of God in written form. When you do it, He eventually proves to you Who He is.

The only way to know for sure what is God-breathed, to the point of betting your life, is to have God tell you.  

 

Edited January 14, 2018 by Mike

[So_crates]

35 minutes ago, Mike said:

Mike in black

My responses in red

 

Here goes.

Maybe later this can be boiled down closer to 25 words.

Recognizing God speaking is similar to recognizing people in everyday life.

And how do I know God really speaks to people. As your argument with fruits of false prophets, that's not something I would hear so...

Quote

When I meet a human being, the words that they speak and the actions than take tell me about them.

To begin with, I notice that they EXIST and are a conscious human most deeply by how their words line up with mine in conversation. 

They also tell me who they are, and I line that up with their words and actions.

 

You mean like how Saint Vic's words and actions line up, right?

 

As time goes by I see how well they stick to their words; I get a feel for the quality of their personality by how they deal with stress and things not going their way.  At some point I may vouch for them as to who they claim they are.

 

So your telling me you intentionally set out to be a pain in the buns. I missed that chapter in Norman Vincent Peale's How To Win Friend And Influence People.

 

Similarly with the God I met informally and intermittently from 1971 to 1987, and then much more rigorously in 1998. This God has lived in ideas of the PFAL writings long before VPW was born, and has come gradually and faintly into textual manifestation in writings like Kenyon, Styles. Then finally He came into full manifestation in the final PFAL writings.

Like getting to know and trust (with proof) a human takes time and interacting, the same holds with this Word of God in written form. When you do it, He eventually proves to you Who He is.

And he's proved to me 42 years worth of times PLAF isn't Him

The only way to know for sure what is God-breathed, to the point of betting your life, is to have God tell you.  

And He hasn't and I doubt he will.

________________________________________

So then the test to whether or not something is God-breathe is that God tells you, right?

Seems to me it could be a recipe for calamity, as each person could here something different.

 

 

 

Edited January 14, 2018 by So_crates

[Mike]

1 hour ago, So_crates said:

And how do I know God really speaks to people.

I know there are other points you just made, but this one I wanted to quickly get to, since it is in that audience-addressal issue I mentioned earlier. 

I can only properly address my ideas to people who believe that (1) God exists, and (2) He rewards people who diligently seek Him. That includes the MANY different ways God can "speak" to us humans, not all of which are textual. I can only talk at length to people  who believe that or who want to. 

Edited January 14, 2018 by Mike

[So_crates]

41 minutes ago, Mike said:

I know there are other points you just made, but this one I wanted to quickly get to, since it is in that audience-addressal issue I mentioned earlier. 

I can only properly address my ideas to people who believe that (1) God exists, and (2) He rewards people who diligently seek Him. That includes the MANY different ways God can "speak" to us humans, not all of which are textual. I can only talk at length to people  who believe that or who want to. 

So, in other words, if people don't believe what you do...

Or is this a way of getting around how irrational your position is?

A few posts back you said:

Actually, I could “address” the logic to be compelling to the man-on-the-street, while I literally address it to you folks here. 

When we were discussing fruit and proof, you claimed:

It's hard to see ALL the fruit ACCURATELY in someone else's life.

Well, logically, just as its hard to see the fruit accurately in some else's life, its even harder to hear God speaking in someone elses life.

Again, you did say you were addressing  it logically for the man in the street didn't you?

I wonder how many of those men in the street believe God talks to them, or how many would buy it when someone told them God told them something was true.

As far as rewarding people who diligently seek him in relation to PLAF, I wonder how many of those woman Saint Vic pulled his shenanigans on were diligently seeking God. They certainly were rewarded weren't they.

Say, you like surveys. How about you do a survey of Saint Vic's victims and see if they were ever rewarded?

And who did get rewarded in those countless cases? Was he diligently seeking God when he was out of fellowship most of the time?

Edited January 14, 2018 by So_crates

[T-Bone]

13 hours ago, Mike said:

(SNIP)...

They also tell me who they are, and I line that up with their words and actions. As time goes by I see how well they stick to their words; I get a feel for the quality of their personality by how they deal with stress and things not going their way.  At some point I may vouch for them as to who they claim they are.

...(SNIP)

It seems odd to me then - that you would ever complain (as you did in a previous post - see quote below) about Grease Spotters pointing out that often your words do NOT line up with your actions - - i.e. the disparity between your claims of answering questions relevant to the topic / providing proofs for your arguments - compared to your typical evasive actions and trying to shift the focus of the discussion.

 

 

13 hours ago, Mike said:

(SNIP)...

I mean, isn’t that a documented given already?  You all are bound and determined to reject, pick apart, deride, mock, and DISOBEY any directive or plan of action my proof points to. So why should I fret about suiting you now, before I deliver the finished product?

...(SNIP)

 

 

Edited January 14, 2018 by T-Bone
formatting

[penworks]

Here's an idea: we each drop out of this topic and go read a book.

[DontWorryBeHappy]

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."........Thomas Paine.

[So_crates]

The first rule of writing anything is: Know your audience.

I don't go on an atheist website and try to witness to them.

Nor do I go onto a Young Republicans website to discuss the joys of socialism.

Nor would I go to communist website to chat up the benefits of capitalism.

Why? Because I know I'll create a flame war that will make World War III look like a bad case of flatulance.

So maybe he should consider the audience here.

[T-Bone]

36 minutes ago, penworks said:

Here's an idea: we each drop out of this topic and go read a book.

Good idea...I just started reading another techno-thriller by submarine expert DiMecurio “Attack of the Seawolf”.... anchors aweigh Grease Spotters !

[Grace Valerie Claire]

!

 

[Grace Valerie Claire]

1 hour ago, penworks said:

Here's an idea: we each drop out of this topic and go read a book.

Penworks, 

[chockfull]

6 hours ago, penworks said:

Here's an idea: we each drop out of this topic and go read a book.

Penworks, I like your style.  To quote Ziggy Marley in his song "Love is My Religion"

I don't want to fight, hey let's go fly a kite

[Rocky]

I will never be verified because I have never been verified. -- The Tweet of God (@TheTweetofGod)

 

 

Edited January 15, 2018 by Rocky

[Grace Valerie Claire]

On 1/13/2018 at 6:41 PM, Rocky said:

Mike, until you stop posting and work on your thesis, you'll never get it done. As you must be aware, most GSC posters don't believe you'll ever get it done anyway. Being a pinball just plays into those expectations.

It doesn't matter what you are proposing. It will only matter if you ever get to doing it.

Your rationalizations of clarifiers and small talk simply reveal your personal excuses for never getting it done.

Rocky, bingo!!

[Mike]

23 hours ago, So_crates said:

The first rule of writing anything is: Know your audience.

I don't go on an atheist website and try to witness to them.

Nor do I go onto a Young Republicans website to discuss the joys of socialism.

Nor would I go to communist website to chat up the benefits of capitalism.

Why? Because I know I'll create a flame war that will make World War III look like a bad case of flatulance.

So maybe he should consider the audience here.

To “know your audience” is something I can turn back to you.  I know this posting audience well. I also know of segments of the non-posting audience; maybe better than you.

There are people wanting to leave TWI right now, but who can’t because they are convinced (like many of us were) that there is SOMETHING worth staying for and slogging through the junk for.  I  say that something is the pure written forms of PFAL and NOT the TVTs and the newer teachings. What do you say to THAT audience? They are not going to buy your “Pure Evil” model of PFAL.

There are many, many such grads who did successfully leave. They know something went right and something went wrong. Then they glance here and see the Pure Evil model and know there’s not going to  be any genuine help here for them.

Last summer two grads independent of each other ( I contacted them) posted the entire PFAL class set of videos on the Internet; one on FaceBook and one on YouTube.  Those videos were up for many months before being finally removed. For one, 700 grads signed up in less than a week. Word got out. You should have seen the comments!  Most had not seen the class in 30 years! They were overjoyed.

There are many, many such grads out there. They are confused as to how or if they should separate PFAL out from the TVTs.  This portion of your audience you lose, daily.

 

Edited January 15, 2018 by Mike

[So_crates]

46 minutes ago, Mike said:

To “know your audience” is something I can turn back to you.  I know this posting audience well. I also know of segments of the non-posting audience; maybe better than you.

 

There's little more annoying than someone who constantly insists he knows everything better than everyone else, yet when it comes time to provide proof he never does.

 

Quote

There are people wanting to leave TWI right now, but who can’t because they are convinced (like many of us were) that there is SOMETHING worth staying for and slogging through the junk for.  I  say that something is the pure written forms of PFAL and NOT the TVTs and the newer teachings. What do you say to THAT audience? They are not going to buy your “Pure Evil” model of PFAL.

 

Pretty big talk from someone who just made them slog through 13 pages of dribble, dribble, dribble to get to PLAF is God-breathe because I say its God-breathe and I know it because God tells me it is (see how easy it is to put something in 25 words or less).

 

Quote

There are many, many such grads who did successfully leave. They know something went right and something went wrong. Then they glance here and see the Pure Evil model and know there’s not going to  be any genuine help here for them.

 Your really fixated on the "pure evil" model. aren't you?

This forum has provided more than ample proof of all the evil he's done, where's your proof of the good?

Ever hear of me thinks thou protests too much? Perhaps deep in your heart you know Saint Vic was an evil, evil man and would prefer to whitewash his evil in favor of something you think you'd gain.

Your also constantly claiming people are trying to shut you up, mocking you, and picking your statements apart.

Perhaps you should look at your believing when you see that "pure evil" model and think your getting negative results here.

 

Quote

There are many, many such grads out there. They are confused as to how or if they should separate PFAL out from the TVTs.  This portion of your audience you lose, daily.

And you know this how? Now you can read the minds of everyone coming to this forum, right?

Edited January 15, 2018 by So_crates

[skyrider]

Mike........... all of your rebuttals, sidesteps, and tangents expose your credibility.

Many posters have strongly encouraged you to:

• Stay away and write your position paper or "thesis"
• Not allow postings to distract you
• Giving you time and space
• Encouraging your efforts

I went silent for one week......... so as not to contribute to your flailing excuses.

And now......you start again with sidetracks.

You got NOTHING man.............You've lost ALL CREDIBILITY as far as I'm concerned.

40 years of squat....down the hole......."honoring a fraudster's writings."

What you look at .........YOU BECOME (i.e.....Xeroxed fraud)

 

 

.

 

Edited January 15, 2018 by skyrider

[waysider]

The "pure evil model" is an invention of Mike. Its purpose is to generate an "us against them" scenario. Lots and lots of people have come to GSC and acknowledged that, along with the bad, they also had some good experiences and met some genuinely good people. I am one of them.None of that excuses or justifies the other side of the story.

 

edit: spelling

Edited January 15, 2018 by waysider

[Mike]

42 minutes ago, skyrider said:

Mike........... all of your rebuttals, sidesteps, and tangents expose your credibility.

Many posters have strongly encouraged you to:

• Stay away and write your position paper or "thesis"
• Not allow postings to distract you
• Giving you time and space
• Encouraging your efforts

I went silent for one week......... so as not to contribute to your flailing excuses.

And now......you start again with sidetracks.

You got NOTHING man.............You've lost ALL CREDIBILITY as far as I'm concerned.

40 years of squat....down the hole......."honoring a fraudster's writings."

What you look at .........YOU BECOME.  

 

I see you haven't lost your TWI confrontation skills. Too bad for you, those techniques stopped working on me decades ago.

I heard the suggestions of other posters (as you documented above), and I apply them in the mix I feel is right.

I do not look much to your indignation when I decide what to do…. to wait on posting or posting. I take breaks and think about my manifesto according to the schedule that suits me… not you. If you really like scolding like that, though, feel free to let her rip.

I’m currently weighing formats and audiences for such a manifesto or  “proof.”  I’m also currently weighing lengths, density, and how thorough I want to do it.  I have memories of long ago putting out a few brief sketches of proof formulas, so I’m slowly reading the archives here as well as my own archives, searching for templates of mini-manifestos. I’m getting a lot of new ideas in the process. I get ideas interacting here, answering SOME questions, and clearing up  some misconceptions.

I find that the focus or the root theme of my manifesto is just as important as the contents.

From the small talk here so far I can see that many (to most) of you have OODLES of misconceptions as to exactly WHAT it is I am trying to prove.

How am I going to prove some detailed thesis, if many readers already are saddled with a very distorted notion of where the proof is going?

I’m happy to fix such misconceptions, one-by-one, but feel repetion may be necessary for some people. Sometimes I clarify a point with one poster, but that clarification is not absorbed with understanding by another poster who has the SAME misconception. Some of the needed clarifications seem to need frequent repetition.

So, anytime you want to ASSIST me in my manifesto organization (instead of scolding me like a Craighead about my progress) please feel free to do so.

Edited January 15, 2018 by Mike

[So_crates]

5 minutes ago, Mike said:

From the small talk here so far I can see that many (to most) of you have OODLES of misconceptions as to exactly WHAT it is I am trying to prove.

If we have misconceptions, that's YOUR FAULT. Your responsibility is to transmit your message so that there are no misunderstandings.

[waysider]

Mike, it might help your cause if you stopped labeling your case as a manifesto. That's simply self-serving glorification. Perhaps in a semantic sense it is a manifesto.  We don't really know because we haven't seen it. Maybe if you just said "Here's what I believe." and then (This is the important part.) provide some reasons why, people would be a bit more receptive.

[Mike]

4 minutes ago, So_crates said:

If we have misconceptions, that's YOUR FAULT. Your responsibility is to transmit your message so that there are no misunderstandings.

 

I'm working on it.

[skyrider]

Hey Mike..........

If you want me to ASSIST you in detailing your "thesis paper".......

Here's an example of how I approached my "thesis" of wierwille's/twi's dark underbelly...............Insanity on Steroids

[skyrider]

15 minutes ago, Mike said:

 

So, anytime you want to ASSIST me in my manifesto organization (instead of scolding me like a Craighead about my progress) please feel free to do so.

 

Glad to help.

[So_crates]

25 minutes ago, Mike said:

I’m happy to fix such misconceptions, one-by-one, but feel repetion may be necessary for some people. Sometimes I clarify a point with one poster, but that clarification is not absorbed with understanding by another poster who has the SAME misconception. Some of the needed clarifications seem to need frequent repetition.

I assure you we don't need repetition. 

Repetition is the bull bureaucrats pull when they don't have an answer. Repetition is a non-answer: It's something said so it looks like it's answering a question, but its not.

If you find people have the same misconceptions, then change the way the message is transmitted.

Edited January 15, 2018 by So_crates