Steve Lortz

The school where Anthony Buzzard teaches holds a unitarian get together one weekend each spring. I went to one of them a few years ago, and I wouldn't mind going back again if I can ever get things in order again that time of the year. There were Biblical Unitarians (as opposed to Unitarian Universalists), ex-World Wide Church of God, ex-Wafers, ex-Jehovah's Witnesses and Christadelphians as well as Church of God, Abrahamic Faith, along with one athiest scholar who has specialized in the history of unitarianism. It was one of the most cordual get-togethers I've experienced, much thanks to Anthony's amicability. It certainly wasn't the old TWI "speak the same things" group-think. I learned that the Biblical Unitarians call Ralph Waldo Emerson "the Great Destroyer". And that the Biblical Unitarians still associate with the Unitarian Universalists because the UUs got control of the pension funds when the groups went their different theological ways. The World Wide Choggers have been through as much acrimony and upheaval as the ex-Wafers have, only over different issues. All for now. Love, Steve P.S. - The phrase "the Trinity has finally met its match" strikes me as the kind of hyperbole the leaders of CES love so much. Unfortunately, all too often, they believe their own hype.

I am conflicted. I like good old western flicks, but Costner has turned my stomach over ever since his character abandoned the little girl at the end of "Water World". What a heel! Love, Steve P.S. - His PC "Robin Hood" was pretty stoopid, especially his failure to use an English accent, but his rendition of Wyatt Earp was watchable. Couldn't hold a match to "Tombstone", though IMNSHO.

When my oldest sister used to go to the drive-in with a boy our mother didn't trust, our mom would make me go along. Oh, the memories! Love, Steve

Speaking of Orson Wells... My favorite version of "Treasure Island" is the Wallace Beery, Jackie Cooper version from the '30s. My next favorite version is the Disney one with Robert Newton, the quintessential pirate, playing Long John Silver. After that, it's the Charleton Heston version, and then the "Muppet Treasure Island". The Orson Wells rendition of "Treasure Island is by far my least favorite version. It seems to consist almost entirely of shots of Orson Wells sitting somewhere or other rambling on and on. I didn't like it. Love, Steve

I like the "Columbo" TV shows for several reasons. 1. The writing stands up well enough that I can enjoy watching them over and over, even when I know how they're going to turn out. 2. They've been around so long, and Columbo has always taken such an interest in the latest technology, that the shows make an interesting historical document about the late 20th century. Many of the cutting-edge, high-tech gadgets that plot points turn on are already as obsolete as buggy whips. Yet the shows are still fun. Love, Steve

I enjoyed this one too. It struck me as having a slightly different flavor from the comic books, but what the heck, a comic book is a comic book, and a movie is a movie. At first, I wondered why Dorien Gray was there, but the reason became apparent as the movie unfolded. I liked how they handled Dr. Jeckyl/Mr. Hyde. I liked their interpretation of the "Nautilus". It seems that turn of the twentieth-century bad guy minions aren't any better shots than the Imperial Storm Troopers of Star Wars, but what spectacular pyrotechnics! I liked Sean connery's interpretation of Quartermain better than the comic book's. I'd like to see Connery play King Conan in his later years. Love, Steve

Jerry - There are a number of different words in the New Testament that emphasize different aspects of time, such as "kairos", "genea", "hemara", "chronos", etc. I haven't made an exhaustive study of all of them. "Oikonomia" NEVER indicates "a period of time" as used in the Bible. It always means "stewardship", or as we might say, "management". "Aion" is the word that means "age" as "a period of time". The phrase "last time" in I John is "eschatos hora". "Hora" is the word that we get "hour" from. Without having studied it more deeply at present, I'd guess the phrase means something like our "the eleventh hour". I hope this helps. (I also *hope* I'm right! :-) Love, Steve

Jerry - I'll look into it. Thanks! Love, Steve

WordWolf - Interesting question. I'll have to take some time to give it the consideration it deserves. Cynic - Thanks for the info about Carson's book. Love, Steve

Part of the difficulty Wierwille had in handling the word "aionios" comes from the truth that he bought into the erroneous doctrine of dispensations, or as he called them, "administrations". The Greek word translated "dispensation" is "oikonomia", which means "stewardship". The Bible never uses it to refer to "a period of time". It uses "oikonomia" the way we might use "management". The Bible does, however, distinguish two different periods of time, using the word "aion", which actually *does* mean "a period of time". The two Biblical ages are "this age", or as Paul calls it, "this present evil age", and "the age to come". The adjective "aionios" simply means "of age" or "of the age" and often refers to "the age to come". Biblically, I think the phrases translated "eternal life" and "life everlasting" most often refer to "resurrection life in the age to come". Love, Steve

Oakspear - I looked "godhead" up in the Oxford unabriged dictionary one time when I was analysing a paper Dale Sides wrote on the subject. "Godhead" is an antique variant English spelling of the English word "godhood". The Greek words could have been as easily translated "divinity" or "godness" or "diety" or something else like that. In the verses where the KJV has "godhead", there isn't anything in the Greek that corresponds to the English idea of being "head" or "chief". Love, Steve

Mike - If a reader didn't know that you were being deliberately evasive, he could only conclude that you are very stupid. But we know that is not the case. I'll repeat the question. It's not going to go away. Pro gratia argumentum, I am working this paragraph from page 83 of PFAL when two spiritual voices begin whispering different things to me. Spiritual voice "A" whispers, "Wierwille meant exactly what Wierwille wrote." Spiritual voice "B" whispers, "We just don't KNOW exactly what Wierwille wrote. The spiritual meaning of this passage is that SOME of what Wierwille writes will NECESSARILY be God-breathed." According to your own stated criteria, Mike, is whispering spiritual voice "B" God's voice or the adversary's? Love, Steve

By the way, Zix, I've got a set of home-brewed miniature rules and a scenario I call "Scurvey Dawrgs". Captain Errol Hawkblood and Major Smothers of the Royal Marines are both out to rescue the governor's daughter, who has been kidnapped by the evil French pirate, Pierre l'Strange. Two crews of pirates, led by Long John Silver and Yellowbeard, are out to find Flint's gold, buried under a heathen idol. The cannibal king and his boys are out to get an appropriate human sacrifice so their gods will chase the white men off. And Ben Gunn is running around with a band of stuff-slinging monkeys. Now I'm figuring out how to work zombie pirates into the game. Diplomacy and back-stabbin' all the way around. Too much fun! Love, Steve

One thumb and one hook, one big toe and one peg-leg UP! Arrrrgh! Love, Steve P.S. - Them that dies'll be the lucky 'uns!

Mike, how soon you seem to forget things. In your response to Oakspear you brought up your old chestnut about Wierwille's paragraph on page 83 of PFAL. Ginger Tea also brought up some questions about how you use your 5-senses to scrutinize PFAL. So let's review. You wrote, "As we master and learn the 5-senses messages in these books, with repeated and thorough readings, we can turn our attention to hear God whisper to us the hidden messages HE, GOD, put in there that our 5-senses would never pick up. Also the 5-senses readings help us build protection against devilish doctrines that are all around out there. Our adversary can and will attempt to whisper wrong meanings to us as we work the Word." On page 83 of PFAL, this is exactly what Wierwille wrote,"The Bible was written so that you as a believer need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine or theory or theology. This Word of God does not change. Men change, ideologies change, opinions change; but this Word of God lives and abides forever. It endures, it stands. Let's see this from John 5:39. "Search the scriptures..." It does not say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P. Wierwille's writings or the writings of a denomination. No, it says, "Search the scriptures..." because all Scripture is God-breathed. Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed." The 5-senses meaning of this paragraph, according to all the laws of grammar, is as follows: Wierwille's words fall into the same category as the words of Shakespeare, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Graham, Roberts and denominational writings; the words in this category are different from the words in the category called "Scripture" because ALL the words of Scripture are God-breathed, while NOT ALL the words of the other category will necessarily be God-breathed. The context of the whole chapter clearly indicates that the "not all" of Wierwille's last sentence is a contrasting allusion to the "all" of II Timothy 3:16. For all your specious appeals to fictional "local contra-contexts" and "tiny islands of contracontextual meanings", you can't negate the truth of the grammar. You can only ignore it. So... say I am working this paragraph from page 83 of PFAL, when two spiritual voices begin whispering different things to me. Spiritual voice "A" whispers, "Wierwille meant exactly what Wierwille wrote." Spiritual voice "B" whispers, "We just don't KNOW exactly what Wierwille wrote. The spiritual meaning of this passage is that SOME of what Wierwille writes will NECESSARILY be God-breathed." According to your own written criteria, Mike, is whispering spiritual voice "B" God or the adversary? Remember, you also wrote, "To rob us of the power the adversary has employed VERY SUBTLE changes and corruptions in the texts and in our understand [sic]. One word twisted here in the text... all adding up to a text that can't help the reader... We were taught that just ONE word added, subtracted or changed and the results be [sic] catastrophic. Change just ONE word and you no longer have God's Word." No matter how many times you pretend you've already answered this question, no matter how many times you quibble about "fine" points of your idiosyncratic "grammar", this question isn't going to go away before you give and defend a categorical answer. According to your own written criteria, Mike, is whispering spiritual voice "B" God or the adversary? Love, Steve

I also sense the air of a desperate man. But let me assure you, WordWolf, you are not the desperate one. Love, Steve

WordWolf - You wrote, ***** "...Mike holds to his POV even when it's obvious that vpw taught the opposite, and, according to Mike, it's vpw's writings that are the greatest way to understand what God said. "I mentioned this in passing, but I didn't think about the implications of it until Steve mentioned it as well. "Mike does not know the content of the Bible, and Mike does not know the contents of vpw's books. Personally, I'm curious if he even has a copy of them at present, or if he's relying on his memory of what he thinks the pfal books said." ***** I have no doubt that Mike has copies of the PFAL books, or that he reads them religiously. His problem is not one of faulty memory. On June 11, 2003, 14:46, about half way down page 21 of this thread, I wrote, ***** "I am really beginning to like *you*, Mike. I just don't care for the spiritual company you are presently keeping. Not only do the meanings of the words they feed you contradict what God had written in His Word, they also contradict the meanings of the words Wierwille actually wrote in PFAL." ***** To which Mike replied, ***** "Steve, "It's my contention that 'the meanings of the words ...written in His Word' have eluded our exact awareness, due to the fact that 'the meanings of the words Wierwille actually wrote in PFAL' have not been carefully mastered. "We just don't KNOW exactly what Wierwille wrote because so much has slipped past us, so much has leaked out, and so much other stuff has been allowed in. "The prupose [sic] of this thread is to raise the level of awareness to Dr's specialized vocabulary SO THAT we can finally see what God taught him by various sense knowledge methods and spiritual revelation, and that he taught us in written form." ***** According to Mike, the meanings of the words Wierwille actually wrote in PFAL have not been "carefully mastered". We know from Mike's posts in other places that his method for "mastering" PFAL is to read the books over and over again, mindlessly ("anoetos" = "foolish" in Galatians 3:1) considering every word to be God-breathed. He switches off his critical faculties and listens for "God" to whisper "spiritual understandings" to him by way of the "advanced Christ formed within" spirit that Mike has allowed to lodge in his hair. Mike has been so schooled to revere the knowledge that comes to him by way of his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit that he no longer has ANY confidence in his God-given ability to perceive accurately, or to reason accurately from his perceptions. He looks at the words actually written in the PFAL books, but he doesn't see them. He sees the meanings fed to him by the "advanced Christ formed within" spirit. Seeing, he does not see. Hearing, he does not hear. It isn't a matter of a "decoding ring", it is a matter of a deceiving spirit. And it's purpose here is to trick as many other people as possible into falling into the same snare Mike is held by. Love, Steve

WordWolf - You've done a brilliant job of exposing the truth, that Mike's disrespect and disregard for what's actually written in PFAL is just as monumental as his disrespect and disregard for what's actually written in God's Word! Mike is hooked on his ACFW spirit. The only things that count are the things it whispers to him. Mike has lost his ability to tell the difference between true and false. He has lost his ability to tell the difference between reason and rationalization. The "wonderfulness" of "coming back to PFAL" doesn't reside in the occurance of godly signs, miracles and wonders, but rather in the counterfeit jollies Mike's ACFW spirit induces in his mind. I agree with Tom Strange that meds can ameliorate the symptoms, but Mike won't recover until he comes back to truth, and renounces the lie that PFAL is God-breathed. Love, Steve

Mike - Thank you for your response to my questions about the social dimensions of the "God-breathed PFAL" phenomenon. You gave me all the information I asked for. I didn't want to find out about any other people's personal involvement. I just wanted to be sure my memory of the bits and pieces you've posted here and there was accurate. Thanks again. I've got a few other questions about your beliefs that I'll ask later. Love, Steve

WordWolf, Goey, EWB, et al. - GOOD STUFF! Love, Steve

I've got a lot of catching up to do, because of my absence. Hey, Mike - How come you gripe about mj412's punctuation when you continually type "Dr" instead of "Dr."? Love, Steve

Mike - Sometimes posters write that you are alone in what you believe. If my memory is correct, you have written that there was a group of people working on these ideas at least seven years ago, and that you became committed to this doctrine only five years ago. I believe I also remember you writing that there is a group that meets fairly regularly about an hour's travel from where you live, and that there are tens of other people around the country. Is it safe to say that there was a loose-knit group organized around the "God-breathed PFAL" doctrine before you came to it, and that loose-knit group is still in existance? To what degree have the group's various members received (developed ?) the ACFW (Advanced Christ Formed Within) spirit? Is it a uniform thing, or are some members farther along than others? Do various members contribute what their ACFW spirits are teaching them to the body of knowledge amassed by the group? If so, how are their contributions judged? How can the group as a whole tell whether some new data is really revelation, or just one person's 5-senses reasoning? I know you are concerned with my motivation in asking these questions. You wrote, "Instead of trying to definitely shoot it [your message] down immediately, why not play with it and see where THAT line of logic takes you." Before "playing" with your line of logic, I would like to know more about where it has taken YOU. Love, Steve

Mike - You wrote, "...you say I didn't present the stakes, when I did present them. I said that the stakes are the same for NOT experimenting and staying with current traditional paradigms and later finding out that THIS was the wrong course to take." No, Mike, the stakes are not the same. When a person invites an alien spirit to take up residence in his mind, that person has anteed his SANITY into the pot. I know. I've been there. I tried it. I didn't like it. You wrote, "...you are in the role of one of the types who bewitched the Galatians..." Galatians 3:1a reads, "O foolish ["anoetos" = "unthinking"] Galatians, who hath bewitched you..." The Galatians were bewitched because they didn't use their critical faculties to consider what they were being told. They weren't exercising their 5-senses through practice to discern both good and evil. Which of us is encouraging people to think, and which is advocating turning that function over to an alien spirit, Mike? You wrote, "I notice that after 'your' people heed your warning, then you have little planned for their continued growth..." How revealing that YOU refer to people in terms of ownership. I don't own any people here. I don't pretend to. What is the agenda YOU have prepared for those who ante up their sanity? ACFWAs (Advanced Christ Formed Within Ambassadors)? An ACFW Leadership Training Program? No thanks... double no thanks... too much of an OLG to fall for all that crap again. Love, Steve

Danny - I sculpt original figures from which manufacturers make molds and sell reproductions. I've spent the last couple of years doing critters for the Glorantha universe. I picked up doing some of the Usagi Yojimbo figures this past year. I'm looking forward to seeing what's going to turn up next. It IS fun, but I'm a self-employed free-lancer, and just like every other field, I had to pay my dues to get where I'm at. If your son's got some serious interest, I'd be happy to share some of my experiences with him. Love, Steve

Now for the "try it, you'll like it!" business. The Word of God says we're supposed to try things, ***** I John 4:1 "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." ***** What does it mean to "try the spirits"? Does it mean we go, "Oh, look, there's a Jungian archtype. Let's invite it in and see how it treats us." "Wait, there's a shaman totem spirit over there. Let's see what it can do." "How about that ancient soul from Atlantis? I'll bet she can channel some really hot spiritual understanding!" Is that what it means to "try the spirits"? I don't think so. The word "try" is "dokimazo", which means to assay, to judge the quality of, to assess. The standard we are to use in assessing spirits is the Word of God. In John's specific situation, the false spirits were having their false prophets say that Jesus hadn't really come in the flesh. This contradicted John 1:14a, "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us..." Today, false spirits are promoting a thousand and one different perversions of the Word, but their tactics are still the same, and we still have the same standard to recognize their godawful twists. Not convoluted rationalizations, but the simplicity that is in Christ. Mike wrote, "...I'm well aware of the adversary's first tactic on Eve was to get her to question the integrity of God's Word... One difference is that Eve had a perfectly renewed mind and we don't. If Eve was to change her mind from what it was it would SURELY be bad. "But for us to change our minds, sometimes its bad because we're right, and sometimes it's good because we were wrong to begin with and now closer to or on the truth. "Because we don't start out perfect like Eve, we must experiment around and sometimes even to take risks to get to the truth or to more of the truth. "From what I've presented PFAL mastery should look like a reasonable risk." Soooo..... Eve's chances of being wrong in changing her mind were 100%, but my chances are only 50%/50%, because sometimes I'm right and sometimes I'm wrong already. From what you've presented PFAL mastery should look like a reasonable risk, eh? You may have presented some odds (very dubiously odds at that), Mike, but what you didn't present were the stakes. Nobody can make a reasonable risk assessment without knowing the stakes. I will give you the benefit of a doubt, and assume that you haven't yet crossed the will of your "advanced Christ formed within" spirit with your own will. If the time comes when you do, you'll find out the unspeakable profundity of the stakes you've anteed up. You've put your life in its hands. The risk you are asking people to take is NOT reasonable. I've taken those risks. I've been there. I HAVE tried it. I DIDN'T like it. If it weren't for the mercy and grace of God through Jesus Christ I'd be dead. "From what I've presented about KJV verses being on every page, encouragement of context reading in PFAL and many other checks and balances like the exclusion of TWI and other ogre-nizations, this 'try it, you'll like it' invitation should look pretty safe." But you've demonstrated that the voice of your "advanced Christ formed within" spirit trumps all KJV verses, all contexts, all checks and balances. There are NO checks and balances against your "advanced Christ formed within" spirit. There is NO safety in what you propose. You wrote, "...PFAL mastery should look like a reasonable risk... this 'try it, you'll like it' invitation should look pretty safe." You didn't write "should BE a reasonable risk" or "should BE pretty safe". You wrote "should LOOK like a reasonable risk" and "should LOOK pretty safe." Why are you more concerned with appearance than with substance, Mike? Could it be that you are crafting the appearance to conceal the substance? It wouldn't surprise me in the least, because your sole reason for being in these forums is to recruit people to your program of "mastering PFAL", a program that entails people inviting alien spirits into their minds. You wrote, "No, there's no OBVIOUS evil in what I purpose, yet you look away from the obvious evil all around you and go after an 'evil' that you must admit is in a very subtle and foundational area." I DO have to admit that the evil you purpose is in a very subtle and foundational area. You've done all you can to remove its OBVIOUSness. All the more reason to shine the brightest possible light on your evil. More when I get back from Origins. Love, Steve