You're forgetting that men wrote the scriptures also. It's not whose pen did the writing, it's which God did the inspiring, in both cases.
Taking as a given those in the audience who believe the first (which is not all your audience here, but the rest are taking you even LESS seriously), you have yet to provide a reason to seriously entertain the second ( i.e. your concept that "God inspired vpw"). [You keep declaring it as if it's already been proven, which makes it a LOT harder to take your ideas seriously. If you build on smoke, you lose your serious audience. Again.
It sounds like you are focusing on the law of believing here. I agree that lots of work needs to be done there, but I think it's in our understanding.
What's to understand about believing? It being truth it works 100% of the time everywhere for everybody, right? You only need to know what's available, how to recieve it, what to do with it when you got it, and have your needs and wants parallel, right? Camera analogy, clear and concerned, right?
Geometry works 100% for everybody everywhere in the universe. There isn't no problem with understanding knowing the formula for finding the area of a square or volume of a cube. They are stated very simply and work time after time.
Believing isn't like that and therefore must be false and people use excuses to try and scoot it into the T column of the truth table.
Quote
But what about the other things PFAL promises? I received good when it comes to God being loving and forgiving. I found out how to read the Bible. I learned to SIT and serve others. Seeing that the dead are dead was a major benefit. I see most of those areas as very successful, even when we don't fully understand them. ...but believing needs some work.
What did Saint Vic tell us about the bible, in PLAF? Throw one thing out and you might as well throw the whole thing out, right? And since your claim is that PLAF replaces the bible...So now, because the law of believing doesn't fit your purpose your trying to throw it out. You want to throw the rest of PLAF out or shall I?
Further, Saint Vic said, again of the bible in PLAF, it's either all the truth or its a lie. Once again, you claim PLAF replaces the bible....also Saint Vic says the truth works 100% everywhere for everybody. So, I've proved the law of believing is a lie, which in return makes PLAF a lie.
Finally, as far as learning to SIT and see the dead are dead, they're both in the bible. Why would I need something else to tell me what the bible already does?
I'll also ask again, if the PLAF occupies so much of your life, why don't you ever quote from it or the bible?
Hey, Mike.......your position is centered on "wierwille's writings," right?
Not wierwille's teachings, per se.........nor his character...........nor his "demonstrating God's power" or lack thereof........right?
Well, consider this: Have you taken ANY TIME looking thru wierwille's letters to way corps? Letters/writings FROM wierwille.........
Yes, I have seen those letters. I wish you had payed attention when we discussed PFAL p.83. On that page VPW states: "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed."
Yes, I have seen those letters. I wish you had payed attention when we discussed PFAL p.83. On that page VPW states: "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed."
To which can be added, "Only the writings that support Mike's theory, as he's the one who gets to decide what's God-breathe and what's not."
Yes, I have seen those letters. I wish you had payed attention when we discussed PFAL p.83. On that page VPW states: "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed."
Would that be 'not all' without exception? or 'not all' without distinction?
GSC patrons, I will have you know that one of my posts is God-breathed. Yet only one. Please disperse yourselves and come back when you have the right key to the lock in the door you seek.
Here's my latest insight on Mike and his irrational devotion to the Orange Book, PFLAP and Dictor. (Disclaimer: who says I know any better than anyone else about Mike, or about anything related to twi?)
Kurt Andersen, in 2017, published Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire -- A 500-year history. It's a recollection of history, dealing with our obsession with freedom to believe whatever the hell we want to believe about any and every subject.
Quote
A razor-sharp thinker offers a new understanding of our post-truth world and explains the American instinct to believe in make-believe, from the Pilgrims to P. T. Barnum to Disneyland to zealots of every stripe . . . to [a certain self-exalted elected official].
"In this sweeping, eloquent history of America, Kurt Andersen demonstrates that what’s happening in our country today—this strange, post-factual, “fake news” moment we’re all living through—is not something entirely new, but rather the ultimate expression of our national character and path. America was founded by wishful dreamers, magical thinkers, and true believers, by impresarios and their audiences, by hucksters and their suckers. Believe-whatever-you-want fantasy is deeply embedded in our DNA."
This book appears to take Maria Konnakova's The Confidence Game (an exposition about how all of us as individuals are subject to deception, getting conned) and project the concepts out to religion and culture in general.
It seems apparent to me that many (most) of us here believe Mike is delusional regarding his stated intent to demonstrate to us that certain writings of VeePee were and are God-breathed.
It's not something that's possible to prove logically... because it's not logical to begin with. It's irrational. But Mike has dedicated years of his life to cementing his belief. Bully for him.
The reality is that humansNEEDstories. Mike has struggled to clearly articulate one that we all have some background understanding, even though nobody admits (on this website) to accepting along side him.
He cannot and will not prove anything along the lines he has so long and so emphatically claimed. Yet, neither can we disprove it rationally or logically (I think).
... It seems apparent to me that many (most) of us here believe Mike is delusional People HOPE I'm delusional, because if I'm lucid then my thesis is far more shocking. regarding his stated intent .WRONG ! Remember I was dragged here on a challenge? I agreed to "play along" with the proof thing at my speed and whim and ulterior motives (remember boilerplate?), to demonstrate to us that certain writings of VeePee were and are God-breathed.
."demonstrate" is a much better word, compared to "proof."
It's not something that's possible to prove logically....RIGHT! because it's not logical to begin with. .WRONG! It's irrational. .again: the HOPE of me being delusional But Mike has dedicated years of his life to cementing his belief. .WRONG! the cementing was done to my satisfaction around 18 years ago. Since then it's been more application of cemented principle. Bully for him. .so so
The reality is that humans need stories. .TRUE and true stories are better than false ones. Actually this point of people needing stories is the kernel of another thesis I have on Free Will versus Determinism. But that's another story. Mike has struggled .yes to clearly articulate one that we all have some background understanding, even though nobody admits (on this website) to accepting along side him.
He cannot and will not prove anything .depends on what kind of proof is specified. This sub-topic of the varieties of proof has caused many posters to become very shy and receding. I appreciate, Rocky, you standing apart from this. Are you a science fan? along the lines he has so long and so emphatically claimed. Yet, neither can we disprove it rationally or logically (I think)..THANK YOU!!!
The social sciences very much intrigue me. The nitpicky things on which you want to split hairs above are so inconsequential. That you believe you can prove anything about TWI, PFLAP and Dictor is a fool's errend. BUT... I don't see how it would be less noble than many other pursuits.
What's to understand about believing? It being truth it works 100% of the time everywhere for everybody, right? You only need to know what's available, how to recieve it, what to do with it when you got it, and have your needs and wants parallel, right? Camera analogy, clear and concerned, right? .I have found every item in that list fraught with difficulties on my end regarding precision and accuracy. I think it's extremely EASY for someone to apply this Law in a sloppy manner, especially over time when the drift factor is considered. I have found that when I focus on simple spiritual things, like Solomon did, then things work much better. This is a huge topic. Much more needed.
Geometry works 100% for everybody everywhere in the universe. There isn't no problem with understanding knowing the formula for finding the area of a square or volume of a cube. They are stated very simply .THAT'S the key word, "simply." They are simple scalar numbers. Conversely, the parameters in the Law of Believing are not numerical but farmore complicated than tensors. and work time after time.
Believing isn't like that and therefore must be false .NO! and people use excuses to try and scoot it into the T column of the truth table. .So what's the difference? You scoot it into the F column simply because you wan tthe parameters to be as simple as stretching a tape measure. It's LIFE we're talking about, not simple geometry. Beef up your analogy a bit, and try again. Avoid the oversimplification.
What did Saint Vic tell us about the bible, in PLAF? Throw one thing out and you might as well throw the whole thing out, right? . NO! I answered that days ago. And since your claim is that PLAF replaces the bible...NO! Again: that's a WAY oversimplification. .So now, because the law of believing doesn't fit your purpose your trying to throw it out..NO! I throw out my juvenile understanding of it, that came from memorizing the film class words. I come back to written PFAL and re-study the Law of Believing. . You want to throw the rest of PLAF out or shall I? .By now I shouldn't have to say much.
,,,
Finally, as far as learning to SIT and see the dead are dead, they're both in the bible. Why would I need something else to tell me what the bible already does? .They are BURIED in the KJV to get the terminology more accurate. Buried BAD! None of us would have ever found them. The very few who could find them would never be able to pass on their findings very much. They'd STAY buried in the texts.
I'll also ask again, if the PLAF occupies so much of your life, why don't you ever quote from it or the bible?
.I used to do lots of quotes years ago. This time I've been TRYING to make it Mike-lite.
Quoting both KJV and PFAL is very powerful, but it's not exactly the softer tone I'd like to work in. It's pretty hard hitting on you folks, and it's energy intensive on me, retrieving and posting the right stuff. If there's some quote you'd like me to post, I'd be happy to oblige.
The social sciences very much intrigue me. The nitpicky things on which you want to split hairs above are so inconsequential. That you believe you can prove anything about TWI, PFLAP and Dictor is a fool's errend. BUT... I don't see how it would be less noble than many other pursuits.
I can only prove a few simple things. I proved here that VPW knew or strongly believed his Gartmore teaching was going to be his last. I did it with his words in the POP. I realized the proof's result was pretty trivial, and the premise to trust the POP was a little shakey, but I admitted them up front. It was a nice tight proof. Big deal!
I can describe some of the personal proofs I have enjoyed, but that requires huge set ups.
I can describe some neat pointers that say "Definite maybe, and worth investing in." Again, set ups.
The strongest demonstration would be to try it out via "experimental believing" but few are willing or practiced at such zen like exercises. Doing this for very extended periods of time are like a Hail Mary pass. If it all works, it's a strong personal proof, and inspires another round. I think you mentioned similar things on how people like a story. If it works they do it again. But experience is no guarantee for truth, so additional measures should also be in place.
Geometry works 100% for everybody everywhere in the universe. There isn't no problem with understanding knowing the formula for finding the area of a square or volume of a cube. They are stated very simply .THAT'S the key word, "simply." They are simple scalar numbers. Conversely, the parameters in the Law of Believing are not numerical but farmore complicated than tensors.
------------------------------------
So what your saying is that God, who created a law that defines a human life (The just shall zoe by pistis, remember?) and in his infinite wisdom he made that same law that humans rely on for everything so complicated its beyond human comprehension. Heck, He made it even more complicated than gravity (fall too far you'll get hurt), intertia, or even changing matter to energy, as all that conversion requires is knowing E=MC-square.
In my book, after 42 years of experience, IF there was a law of believing, somebody would have studied it and know the physics of it.
However, interesting enough, PLAF doesn't provide anything buy the principles I outlines and everything else, by your words, is more complicated
----------------------------------------------
Believing isn't like that and therefore must be false .NO! and people use excuses to try and scoot it into the T column of the truth table. .So what's the difference? You scoot it into the F column simply because you wan tthe parameters to be as simple as stretching a tape measure. It's LIFE we're talking about, not simple geometry. Beef up your analogy a bit, and try again. Avoid the oversimplification.
No, I scoot it into the F column based on 42 years of experience.
Yah, it's life, not geometry. Okay, does gravity work the same for everybody. How complicated is it? How hard is it to figure you fall too far you hurt yourself? Does it require a lot of complication?
Say I'm attempting to create a perpetual motion machine and I claim I know this one law in physics nobody else knows. After 42 years of failure, I have to re-evaluate whether that law I'm so sure of really exists.
Your also trying to deny the truths of God are simple. Let's take the big truth, the new birth: confess with your mouth, believe in your heart. Simple, no camera analogies, no clear and concerned, no Oh, but its more complicated than that. Confess, believe, poof. Now why would God once again, make a law so crucial to human life, as the law of believing, more complicated than that?
There's no oversimplification on my part, just recognition that somebody's trying to con me.
What did Saint Vic tell us about the bible, in PLAF? Throw one thing out and you might as well throw the whole thing out, right? . NO! I answered that days ago. And since your claim is that PLAF replaces the bible...NO! Again: that's a WAY oversimplification. .So now, because the law of believing doesn't fit your purpose your trying to throw it out..NO! I throw out my juvenile understanding of it, that came from memorizing the film class words. I come back to written PFAL and re-study the Law of Believing. . You want to throw the rest of PLAF out or shall I? .By now I shouldn't have to say much.
A few post back you were claiming repitition was needed, now your claiming meh, I covered that. So, which is it?
It's also been noted in other posts by others that you have a way of claiming you address issues, yet you never did. So answer it again or tell me where you did answer it.
And Saint Vic never wrote throw one thing out you might as well throw the whole thing out, right? And he never wrote the truth or lie quote, right? I think you need to restudy your PLAF books. Or are you going to claim those sentences aren't God-breathe because they don't fit your purpose?
Finally, as far as learning to SIT and see the dead are dead, they're both in the bible. Why would I need something else to tell me what the bible already does? .They are BURIED in the KJV to get the terminology more accurate. Buried BAD! None of us would have ever found them. The very few who could find them would never be able to pass on their findings very much. They'd STAY buried in the texts.
Yah, they'd stay buried. Nobody has ever found them. Nobody like say the Jehovah Witnesses or any charasmatic group or BG Leonard or any of the authors Saint Vic stole the text from
Quoting both KJV and PFAL is very powerful, but it's not exactly the softer tone I'd like to work in. It's pretty hard hitting on you folks, and it's energy intensive on me, retrieving and posting the right stuff. If there's some quote you'd like me to post, I'd be happy to oblige
I would think if you studied PLAF as intensely as you claim you could quote it right off the top of your head, like I do.
I pitched all my PLAF books in the dumpster in the early '90s. My being able to quote it off the top of my head should tell you how much I studied PLAF, believed it, how committed i was and how much I attempted to apply it.
The results: nothing. That's why I can confidently say PLAF is a scam
And, before you pull the age card, remember I'm probably close to your age,
That was PRECISELY why I started the ONE THING thread. But you wouldn't post on it, and it's now been locked.
You've adequately demonstrated your ability to post here. What more "set up" can you possibly need?
Hi Twinky.
When you give up your Perry Mason approach maybe we can talk a little.
It’s so funny and ironic the way modcat5 slapped you down. Ten years ago he was in your role as prosecutor here. I mocked that approach then, and had a lot of fun with it. I would spin courtroom skit dialogs to drag us into, and I loved it. But it was too draining for us all and I had to quit. I’m not at all interested in any reprise performances.
But the irony was thick the other day as the judge came in and shut down your thread. It was too much for me to comment on; just savored it.
My respect for Raf rose in the later days of our encounters 10 years ago, and then it rose again as I returned here and we talked a bit. But this latest intervention of his was astounding!
It inspired me to want to aspire to higher standards of discourse myself.
I can relate better to how the rules in the Senate are noble. I see the atmosphere here as VASTLY improved over the mudfight it used to be 10 years ago.Pawtucket was stellar in how he managed it and eventually calmed it, and now I see others filling those shoes. I commend them for helping these VERY difficult topics get a fair airing.
So, if you play lawyer then I get tempted to play stand-up comic. I think the trial of the Chicago 8 should be mandatory Perry Mason material for lawyers and judges to know what boundaries are where, even for officialdom.
If you still want to play lawyer, remember that in this courtroom I have comparatively unlimited ability to dodge and confound your questioning, AND I have nearly unlimited ability to introduce any evidence I want. Also remember, I am not charged with a crime, just an outrageously unusual thesis.
I actually have been bringing up “one thing” at a time (low key) that anyone in an inquisitive, friendly mode can see, but like ethics and morality, it’s totally invisible to the lawyer-mode that can only see the manipulation of words for jury influence.
I will read this later for detail. But need to go to work for a while.
I'm laughing at how my response (maybe in purple funny fonts) will make this post look to future cyber archeologists when the find it 5,000 years from now. It will be pretty difficult to decode IMO. LoL
It’s so funny and ironic the way modcat5 slapped you down. Ten years ago he was in your role as prosecutor here. I mocked that approach then, and had a lot of fun with it. I would spin courtroom skit dialogs to drag us into, and I loved it. But it was too draining for us all and I had to quit. I’m not at all interested in any reprise performances.
But the irony was thick the other day as the judge came in and shut down your thread. It was too much for me to comment on; just savored it.
My respect for Raf rose in the later days of our encounters 10 years ago, and then it rose again as I returned here and we talked a bit. But this latest intervention of his was astounding!
It inspired me to want to aspire to higher standards of discourse myself.
I can relate better to how the rules in the Senate are noble. I see the atmosphere here as VASTLY improved over the mudfight it used to be 10 years ago.Pawtucket was stellar in how he managed it and eventually calmed it, and now I see others filling those shoes. I commend them for helping these VERY difficult topics get a fair airing.
So, if you play lawyer then I get tempted to play stand-up comic. I think the trial of the Chicago 8 should be mandatory Perry Mason material for lawyers and judges to know what boundaries are where, even for officialdom.
If you still want to play lawyer, remember that in this courtroom I have comparatively unlimited ability to dodge and confound your questioning, AND I have nearly unlimited ability to introduce any evidence I want. Also remember, I am not charged with a crime, just an outrageously unusual thesis.
I actually have been bringing up “one thing” at a time (low key) that anyone in an inquisitive, friendly mode can see, but like ethics and morality, it’s totally invisible to the lawyer-mode that can only see the manipulation of words for jury influence.
Hint: Christ formed. It’s a big deal.
Hint: Christ formed is a big deal.
And , of course, your showing us an example of how well PLAF formed Christ in you by gloating, right?
Strange, I don't recall the love of god and renewed mind involving gloating.
Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
LOL.Mike, you got discredited and left here embarrassed with your tail between your legs, unable to successfully rebut a single point I had made.
I will not let rules be violated just because I don't like you, but I will also not permit you to lie and distort what happened here during your first attempt to promote your laughable thesis.
PFAL fails your thesis on its own terms.
That alone should embarrass you into silence. That it hasn't is just evidence of how shameless you are in your devotion to a degenerate, perverted xerox machine who was no more a follower of Christ in his day than I am today.
LOL.Mike, you got discredited and left here embarrassed with your tail between your legs, unable to successfully rebut a single point I had made.
I will not let rules be violated just because I don't like you, but I will also not permit you to lie and distort what happened here during your first attempt to promote your laughable thesis.
PFAL fails your thesis on its own terms.
That alone should embarrass you into silence. That it hasn't is just evidence of how shameless you are in your devotion to a degenerate, perverted xerox machine who was no more a follower of Christ in his day than I am today.
I can only prove a few simple things. I proved here that VPW knew or strongly believed his Gartmore teaching was going to be his last. I did it with his words in the POP. I realized the proof's result was pretty trivial, and the premise to trust the POP was a little shakey, but I admitted them up front. It was a nice tight proof. Big deal!
I can describe some of the personal proofs I have enjoyed, but that requires huge set ups.
I can describe some neat pointers that say "Definite maybe, and worth investing in." Again, set ups.
The strongest demonstration would be to try it out via "experimental believing" but few are willing or practiced at such zen like exercises. Doing this for very extended periods of time are like a Hail Mary pass. If it all works, it's a strong personal proof, and inspires another round. I think you mentioned similar things on how people like a story. If it works they do it again. But experience is no guarantee for truth, so additional measures should also be in place.
Isn't there something in PFLAP about changing a word? I didn't say (and I didn't mean) "people like a story." Humans (and humanity) NEED stories.
... It seems apparent to me that many (most) of us here believe Mike is delusional People HOPE I'm delusional, because if I'm lucid then my thesis is far more shocking. regarding his stated intent .WRONG ! Remember I was dragged here on a challenge?
1) Nobody's forcing you to do ANYthing.
2) You seriously mischaracterize belief as hope.
3) "because if I'm lucid..." seems to take the form of an argument, but is FAR from a legitimate argument.
And , of course, your showing us an example of how well PLAF formed Christ in you by gloating, right?
Strange, I don't recall the love of god and renewed mind involving gloating.
Strange, I don't recall gloating.
Did you know the reason for smiley faces and emojis is because it's so easy for humans to mis-write and mis-read emotions into a text that are not intended to be there.
If you can point out a massive context of mine that supports this impression of yours, then I'd seriously consider re-writing it due to my accidentally writing it in a way that suggests gloating. You might also re-think how you read that same context to see if you are injecting that gloating in that I can't remember doing.
Part of the love of God is to assume a miscommunication took place before jumping on the sin possibility.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
63
252
68
130
Popular Days
Jan 25
114
Jan 6
58
Jan 9
51
Jan 3
45
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 63 posts
Mike 252 posts
waysider 68 posts
So_crates 130 posts
Popular Days
Jan 25 2018
114 posts
Jan 6 2018
58 posts
Jan 9 2018
51 posts
Jan 3 2018
45 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."........Thomas Paine.
penworks
Here's an idea: we each drop out of this topic and go read a book.
DontWorryBeHappy
Can anyone tell me dictor paul's scriptural position on the word "Covfefe"? What is the true meaning of that word?? Mike's textual criticism, and use of the basic dictor "keys to research", is as made
Posted Images
WordWolf
Taking as a given those in the audience who believe the first (which is not all your audience here, but the rest are taking you even LESS seriously), you have yet to provide a reason to seriously entertain the second ( i.e. your concept that "God inspired vpw"). [You keep declaring it as if it's already been proven, which makes it a LOT harder to take your ideas seriously. If you build on smoke, you lose your serious audience. Again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Hey, Mike.......your position is centered on "wierwille's writings," right?
Not wierwille's teachings, per se.........nor his character...........nor his "demonstrating God's power" or lack thereof........right?
Well, consider this: Have you taken ANY TIME looking thru wierwille's letters to way corps? Letters/writings FROM wierwille.........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
What's to understand about believing? It being truth it works 100% of the time everywhere for everybody, right? You only need to know what's available, how to recieve it, what to do with it when you got it, and have your needs and wants parallel, right? Camera analogy, clear and concerned, right?
Geometry works 100% for everybody everywhere in the universe. There isn't no problem with understanding knowing the formula for finding the area of a square or volume of a cube. They are stated very simply and work time after time.
Believing isn't like that and therefore must be false and people use excuses to try and scoot it into the T column of the truth table.
What did Saint Vic tell us about the bible, in PLAF? Throw one thing out and you might as well throw the whole thing out, right? And since your claim is that PLAF replaces the bible...So now, because the law of believing doesn't fit your purpose your trying to throw it out. You want to throw the rest of PLAF out or shall I?
Further, Saint Vic said, again of the bible in PLAF, it's either all the truth or its a lie. Once again, you claim PLAF replaces the bible....also Saint Vic says the truth works 100% everywhere for everybody. So, I've proved the law of believing is a lie, which in return makes PLAF a lie.
Finally, as far as learning to SIT and see the dead are dead, they're both in the bible. Why would I need something else to tell me what the bible already does?
I'll also ask again, if the PLAF occupies so much of your life, why don't you ever quote from it or the bible?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yes, I have seen those letters. I wish you had payed attention when we discussed PFAL p.83. On that page VPW states: "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
To which can be added, "Only the writings that support Mike's theory, as he's the one who gets to decide what's God-breathe and what's not."
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I would care less, but that would require effort.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Would that be 'not all' without exception? or 'not all' without distinction?
GSC patrons, I will have you know that one of my posts is God-breathed. Yet only one. Please disperse yourselves and come back when you have the right key to the lock in the door you seek.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Here's my latest insight on Mike and his irrational devotion to the Orange Book, PFLAP and Dictor. (Disclaimer: who says I know any better than anyone else about Mike, or about anything related to twi?)
Kurt Andersen, in 2017, published Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire -- A 500-year history. It's a recollection of history, dealing with our obsession with freedom to believe whatever the hell we want to believe about any and every subject.
"In this sweeping, eloquent history of America, Kurt Andersen demonstrates that what’s happening in our country today—this strange, post-factual, “fake news” moment we’re all living through—is not something entirely new, but rather the ultimate expression of our national character and path. America was founded by wishful dreamers, magical thinkers, and true believers, by impresarios and their audiences, by hucksters and their suckers. Believe-whatever-you-want fantasy is deeply embedded in our DNA."
This book appears to take Maria Konnakova's The Confidence Game (an exposition about how all of us as individuals are subject to deception, getting conned) and project the concepts out to religion and culture in general.
It seems apparent to me that many (most) of us here believe Mike is delusional regarding his stated intent to demonstrate to us that certain writings of VeePee were and are God-breathed.
It's not something that's possible to prove logically... because it's not logical to begin with. It's irrational. But Mike has dedicated years of his life to cementing his belief. Bully for him.
The reality is that humans NEED stories. Mike has struggled to clearly articulate one that we all have some background understanding, even though nobody admits (on this website) to accepting along side him.
He cannot and will not prove anything along the lines he has so long and so emphatically claimed. Yet, neither can we disprove it rationally or logically (I think).
Edited by Rockyembed more links
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
The social sciences very much intrigue me. The nitpicky things on which you want to split hairs above are so inconsequential. That you believe you can prove anything about TWI, PFLAP and Dictor is a fool's errend. BUT... I don't see how it would be less noble than many other pursuits.
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I can only prove a few simple things. I proved here that VPW knew or strongly believed his Gartmore teaching was going to be his last. I did it with his words in the POP. I realized the proof's result was pretty trivial, and the premise to trust the POP was a little shakey, but I admitted them up front. It was a nice tight proof. Big deal!
I can describe some of the personal proofs I have enjoyed, but that requires huge set ups.
I can describe some neat pointers that say "Definite maybe, and worth investing in." Again, set ups.
The strongest demonstration would be to try it out via "experimental believing" but few are willing or practiced at such zen like exercises. Doing this for very extended periods of time are like a Hail Mary pass. If it all works, it's a strong personal proof, and inspires another round. I think you mentioned similar things on how people like a story. If it works they do it again. But experience is no guarantee for truth, so additional measures should also be in place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
That was PRECISELY why I started the ONE THING thread. But you wouldn't post on it, and it's now been locked.
You've adequately demonstrated your ability to post here. What more "set up" can you possibly need?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
My origional comments in black
Mike's responses are in blue
My responses are between the dashes
Geometry works 100% for everybody everywhere in the universe. There isn't no problem with understanding knowing the formula for finding the area of a square or volume of a cube. They are stated very simply .THAT'S the key word, "simply." They are simple scalar numbers. Conversely, the parameters in the Law of Believing are not numerical but far more complicated than tensors.
------------------------------------
So what your saying is that God, who created a law that defines a human life (The just shall zoe by pistis, remember?) and in his infinite wisdom he made that same law that humans rely on for everything so complicated its beyond human comprehension. Heck, He made it even more complicated than gravity (fall too far you'll get hurt), intertia, or even changing matter to energy, as all that conversion requires is knowing E=MC-square.
In my book, after 42 years of experience, IF there was a law of believing, somebody would have studied it and know the physics of it.
However, interesting enough, PLAF doesn't provide anything buy the principles I outlines and everything else, by your words, is more complicated
----------------------------------------------
Believing isn't like that and therefore must be false .NO! and people use excuses to try and scoot it into the T column of the truth table. .So what's the difference? You scoot it into the F column simply because you wan tthe parameters to be as simple as stretching a tape measure. It's LIFE we're talking about, not simple geometry. Beef up your analogy a bit, and try again. Avoid the oversimplification.
-----------------------------------------------------
No, I scoot it into the F column based on 42 years of experience.
Yah, it's life, not geometry. Okay, does gravity work the same for everybody. How complicated is it? How hard is it to figure you fall too far you hurt yourself? Does it require a lot of complication?
Say I'm attempting to create a perpetual motion machine and I claim I know this one law in physics nobody else knows. After 42 years of failure, I have to re-evaluate whether that law I'm so sure of really exists.
Your also trying to deny the truths of God are simple. Let's take the big truth, the new birth: confess with your mouth, believe in your heart. Simple, no camera analogies, no clear and concerned, no Oh, but its more complicated than that. Confess, believe, poof. Now why would God once again, make a law so crucial to human life, as the law of believing, more complicated than that?
There's no oversimplification on my part, just recognition that somebody's trying to con me.
-------------------------------------------------------
What did Saint Vic tell us about the bible, in PLAF? Throw one thing out and you might as well throw the whole thing out, right? . NO! I answered that days ago. And since your claim is that PLAF replaces the bible...NO! Again: that's a WAY oversimplification. .So now, because the law of believing doesn't fit your purpose your trying to throw it out..NO! I throw out my juvenile understanding of it, that came from memorizing the film class words. I come back to written PFAL and re-study the Law of Believing. . You want to throw the rest of PLAF out or shall I? .By now I shouldn't have to say much.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A few post back you were claiming repitition was needed, now your claiming meh, I covered that. So, which is it?
It's also been noted in other posts by others that you have a way of claiming you address issues, yet you never did. So answer it again or tell me where you did answer it.
And Saint Vic never wrote throw one thing out you might as well throw the whole thing out, right? And he never wrote the truth or lie quote, right? I think you need to restudy your PLAF books. Or are you going to claim those sentences aren't God-breathe because they don't fit your purpose?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, as far as learning to SIT and see the dead are dead, they're both in the bible. Why would I need something else to tell me what the bible already does? .They are BURIED in the KJV to get the terminology more accurate. Buried BAD! None of us would have ever found them. The very few who could find them would never be able to pass on their findings very much. They'd STAY buried in the texts.
-------------------------------------------------------
Yah, they'd stay buried. Nobody has ever found them. Nobody like say the Jehovah Witnesses or any charasmatic group or BG Leonard or any of the authors Saint Vic stole the text from
--------------------------------------------------------
I'll also ask again, if the PLAF occupies so much of your life, why don't you ever quote from it or the bible?
.I used to do lots of quotes years ago. This time I've been TRYING to make it Mike-lite.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand, quoting the bible would take the spotlight off you and put it on God
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoting both KJV and PFAL is very powerful, but it's not exactly the softer tone I'd like to work in. It's pretty hard hitting on you folks, and it's energy intensive on me, retrieving and posting the right stuff. If there's some quote you'd like me to post, I'd be happy to oblige
-------------------------------------------------------
I would think if you studied PLAF as intensely as you claim you could quote it right off the top of your head, like I do.
I pitched all my PLAF books in the dumpster in the early '90s. My being able to quote it off the top of my head should tell you how much I studied PLAF, believed it, how committed i was and how much I attempted to apply it.
The results: nothing. That's why I can confidently say PLAF is a scam
And, before you pull the age card, remember I'm probably close to your age,
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi Twinky.
When you give up your Perry Mason approach maybe we can talk a little.
It’s so funny and ironic the way modcat5 slapped you down. Ten years ago he was in your role as prosecutor here. I mocked that approach then, and had a lot of fun with it. I would spin courtroom skit dialogs to drag us into, and I loved it. But it was too draining for us all and I had to quit. I’m not at all interested in any reprise performances.
But the irony was thick the other day as the judge came in and shut down your thread. It was too much for me to comment on; just savored it.
My respect for Raf rose in the later days of our encounters 10 years ago, and then it rose again as I returned here and we talked a bit. But this latest intervention of his was astounding!
It inspired me to want to aspire to higher standards of discourse myself.
I can relate better to how the rules in the Senate are noble. I see the atmosphere here as VASTLY improved over the mudfight it used to be 10 years ago.Pawtucket
So, if you play lawyer then I get tempted to play stand-up comic. I think the trial of theChicago
If you still want to play lawyer, remember that in this courtroom I have comparatively unlimited ability to dodge and confound your questioning, AND I have nearly unlimited ability to introduce any evidence I want. Also remember, I am not charged with a crime, just an outrageously unusual thesis.
I actually have been bringing up “one thing” at a time (low key) that anyone in an inquisitive, friendly mode can see, but like ethics and morality, it’s totally invisible to the lawyer-mode that can only see the manipulation of words for jury influence.
Hint: Christ formed. It’s a big deal.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I will read this later for detail. But need to go to work for a while.
I'm laughing at how my response (maybe in purple funny fonts) will make this post look to future cyber archeologists when the find it 5,000 years from now. It will be pretty difficult to decode IMO. LoL
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Hint: Christ formed is a big deal.
And , of course, your showing us an example of how well PLAF formed Christ in you by gloating, right?
Strange, I don't recall the love of god and renewed mind involving gloating.
Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
LOL.Mike, you got discredited and left here embarrassed with your tail between your legs, unable to successfully rebut a single point I had made.
I will not let rules be violated just because I don't like you, but I will also not permit you to lie and distort what happened here during your first attempt to promote your laughable thesis.
PFAL fails your thesis on its own terms.
That alone should embarrass you into silence. That it hasn't is just evidence of how shameless you are in your devotion to a degenerate, perverted xerox machine who was no more a follower of Christ in his day than I am today.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Raf,
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Isn't there something in PFLAP about changing a word? I didn't say (and I didn't mean) "people like a story." Humans (and humanity) NEED stories.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
1) Nobody's forcing you to do ANYthing.
2) You seriously mischaracterize belief as hope.
3) "because if I'm lucid..." seems to take the form of an argument, but is FAR from a legitimate argument.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Strange, I don't recall gloating.
Did you know the reason for smiley faces and emojis is because it's so easy for humans to mis-write and mis-read emotions into a text that are not intended to be there.
If you can point out a massive context of mine that supports this impression of yours, then I'd seriously consider re-writing it due to my accidentally writing it in a way that suggests gloating. You might also re-think how you read that same context to see if you are injecting that gloating in that I can't remember doing.
Part of the love of God is to assume a miscommunication took place before jumping on the sin possibility.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Please do.
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.