So_crates

4 minutes ago, WordWolf said:

I wish I could upvote the above post 30 times.

33 minutes ago, Mike said:

As to my victimization, it sounds like you don't read or take note of the large number of posts that are outrageously crude, even into the scatological.

Scatological? What? Because they say bull?

33 minutes ago, Mike said:

You seem to ignore the posts that are real attacks and have nothing to do with the exchange of opinions.

What? Because people say you're delusional? Dude, you come to a known anti-Way, anti-Saint Vic site and start insist on teaching former class grads, WOWs, and Corps members about PLAF. What is that?

33 minutes ago, Mike said:

 

Look at how I answered T-Bone on this.  If you cant see the overt attacks and mockery then you are blind or just not paying attention.

The mockery comes from your constant attempt to lecture us on things we already know. Get rid of the condensention and watch how it changes.

3 minutes ago, Mike said:

There are lots of reasons I came here; literally I was kidnapped here. Long story.

Nobody kidnapped you, you came of your own free will.

As you tell that long story, you felt you were being misrepresented.

So the guy always whining about being misrepresented misrepresents the truth. It has to make one wonder how many other "truths" you misrepresent.

See, I told the story and didn't need a 50 paragraph essay.

2 minutes ago, Mike said:

YES!  Staying silent on the false criticisms.  I really should get disciplined to just stamp "off topic" when another wants to merely talk about me.

And we'll use the off topic emoji when you try to derail a thread.

19 minutes ago, Mike said:

No, there are real personal attacks sprinkled in with the honest disagreements.  Go back and look. 

As I told you before:

Believing=Recieving

Expect people to make personal attacks and guess what happens.

You need to start applying your own bull.

19 minutes ago, Mike said:

Maybe you only read your own posts.

No, I don't have your titanic ego warping my perceptions. We both know what happened to the Titanic, don't we?

19 minutes ago, Mike said:

  I challenge you (along with you folks at home) to go back and read this whole thread and look for the personal attacks against me. 

I challenge you to go back and discover the REAL REASON those so called "personal attacks" occured. HINT: it has nothing to do with your "EVIL WERE WILL" fantasy.

19 minutes ago, Mike said:

Just look at the evidence instead of pulling it up from inattentive memory.

Like you look at the evidence about Saint Vic, yet you pull your information from inattentive memory?

13 minutes ago, Mike said:

No, you would have to denounce yourself as my judge.

You are off topic; the topic is not me.

You made the topic you when you answered Skyrider's post complaining about "personal attacks."

14 minutes ago, Mike said:

11. Stop long detailed personal attacks, that require tons of homework to read, defend, and show how stupidly inaccurate they are.

According to your beliefs, your believing is such that you view any disagreement or questioning as a personal attack.

8 minutes ago, Mike said:

Sorry I don't submit to everyone's desire put me through their mini-inquisitions

There goes your be!ieving again.

So, tell me, when a master's degree student has to defend their thesis are they put through a mini-inquisitions?

So, God has all knowedge, right?

Then why would He need JC present to intercede for us?

He is also everywhere, right?

So, why would JC have to be at his right hand to intercede?

56 minutes ago, Mike said:

It's mostly in the written works, but recorded teachings and personal appearances helped also.  My life was benefited greatly; still is.

 

So you're saying Saint Vic was most in fellowship when he was being a phony, being hypocritical, and when he was ripping off other people's work. SMH.

7 hours ago, Mike said:

TWI circa 1971-1982 was vastly different, and free of the Corps elitism that took over when Craig took over in 1982.  Oddly, there is much testimony here from Ralph D about this good phase of unsupervised witnessing of Jesus AND the class that happened on Long Island.  That testimony is scattered about, but I am collecting it as I find it in my history folder

So, during this period growth, what was the ministry promising the people?

I can't tell you how many times I heard, Wait until you see the life God has planned for you, and God will give you your heart's desire. Well, I'll be 68 in July (I got involved with the ministry when I was 28)  and I have yet to see that great life God planned or recieved my heart's desire.

I know of at least one wheelchair bound person who was told if he took the class he would walk. It turned out pretty much lie you would guess it would and the ministry was sued.

Saint Vic himself promised sign, miracles, and wonder. "Signs, miracles, and wonders follow the Man of God the way a tail foliws a dog," he said. What did we get instead?

If thing seem slow in the ministry, it's because romises are probably monitored to prevent lawsuits and people are a bit more jaded these days.

Promising is easy, producing--well, that's something else.

5 hours ago, Mike said:

No one who's life was changed for the better by his ministry believes he was a fake, because he delivered the goods.

Yah, all three of you on this forum as opposed to the 18,000 he failed.

5 hours ago, Mike said:

To those who expected him to be their perfect idea of a holy man, he was definitely NOT what they wanted.

But to those who received great truths and the ability to find more truths from PFAL are grateful to God for his walk, when he walked with God.

So tell me, when he was roofing the ministry's women, the sheep in his flock which God entrusted to him, was he walking with God?

5 hours ago, Mike said:

I think his old-man nature was completely contrary to what he really was and what he did when he was in fellowship.  When he was in fellowship he did great things for us.  THAT is what I prefer to focus on and magnify.

And Hitler took a bankrupt, failed state and took it within a whisker of world domination. Think of the jobs he created; the prosperity the people experienced. However, there was that Holocaust thing. But he did so much good...

5 hours ago, Mike said:

Focus on his old man nature and he was a failure.
Focus on his new man nature and he was a success.

Saint Vic was a failure either way, as he never showed his new man nature.

5 hours ago, Mike said:

The same holds for you and me. 

When we walk in fellowship we are able to do wonderful things for people. When we walk out of fellowship, God covers for us the best He can, and waits for us to walk with Him again.

So tell me, when you idolize Saint Vic are you walking in your new man nature? Really?! Who gets the glory? You? Or God?

4 hours ago, Mike said:

It is good to keep diligent track of what you know for sure from what you don't know for sure.

If there is an abundance of items in the "Sure" bin, that in itself should be cause for self-examination.

It is also good to monitor what really thrills you, what occupies a major part of your life's focus.  If it isn't in Paul's list of suggestions, another check-up from the neck up might be in order.

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.

I don't think that includes building and maintaining an anti-idol.
 

38 minutes ago, Mike said:

 

 

Well, I found the thread and went through pages 12,12,22,23,25  and then finally saw the "torn apart line by line and word by word and exposed for how unobjective it really is" part.

What a JOKE !

No the joke is the lengths you'll go to to protect a lying rake.

38 minutes ago, Mike said:

All you did was act skeptical of each line.  That was not debunked at all. You just did a little temper tantrum at each line.   ...not even knowing that Research Geek was on your team and reluctant reporting the facts.  You have no idea how strong a GreaseSpot poster he and his wife were here.  You are busted, Buddy! 

Quelle surprise!

Like you'd admit it was debunked. I notice you're still speaking in the abstract. Notice the debunking link speaks in specifics. Have you got any specifics for your rebuttal?

If you were any more transparent, you'd disappear. Your attempt to minimize the debunking here is so obvious it's sad.

38 minutes ago, Mike said:

You read Research Geek and responded to him as if he were me.  It was a typical desperate debunking.  You lose.

 

 

 

Luckily, I wasn't doing it for you. I would encourage your "read only audience" to follow the links, read the posts, and decide for themselves whether or not the Research Geek's paper has been debunked.

5 minutes ago, Mike said:

No, it BECAME that after VPW was gone.

And it sounds like you don't know who Research Geek was here. 

He and his wife was on your side here with the heavy research tools. The reason I quoted him is because they both had great credibility here at GreaseSpot.  

I suspect that, like Raf, he somewhat reluctantly sided with me in reporting that the bad stories about Pike's Peak were not fully accurate.

His attitude was that there are better criticisms of VPW that the Pike's Peak rumors.

 

As far as you're concerned, anybody that agrees with you has great credibility 

On 12/30/2022 at 2:17 PM, So_crates said:

Mike seems to think we've forgotten that five years ago, this paper was torn apart line by line and word by word and exposed for how unobjective it really is.

For those interested here's a blast from the past, presenting that critique.

The fun starts here:

 

 

Continue reading the thread to get the scoop on all the errors in the paper.

This is the second time in this thread I've provided you this link

11 minutes ago, Mike said:

I don't think you gave me a link; just the idea of Princeton baiting.

Where are the less glaring in Research Geek's paper errors noted here?

 

As I said in the post, the link is in the post below:

5 hours ago, So_crates said:

 

15 minutes ago, Mike said:

Not so!  I come from a nearby State and was familiar with New Jersey and Princeton since mid-High School when I got into Relativity and Godel.  I knew that Einstein and Godel were at Princeton.

But not Princeton University!!!   It was the The Institute for Advanced Study where they were at.

There were 3 FAMOUS schools from there.

The Princeton Theological Seminary was the third.  Long before taking the class I was aware of these things. 

Then, a few years later I went on a field trip to the Advanced Study Institute there in college to meet with Thomas Kuhn.

When I first heard Princeton with VPW the most obvious association was Princeton Theological Seminary. 

Joe Sixpack wouldn't, he'd hear Princeton and think Princeton University.

15 minutes ago, Mike said:

I consider Research Geek's Report on Pikes Peak intact and even strengthened by this puny attempt of a debunking.

 

You apparently didn't check the link.

I only stated one of the most glaring errors.

The errors in Research Geek's paper are far from puny, they border on deceptive.

43 minutes ago, Mike said:

You may not remember him.  He was a heavy poster with copious info in the early years here, like WW and T-Bone are now.

Do you mean Research Geek's report on he and his wife (another heavy GSC poster in those early years) traveling to the Pikes Peak seminary?

I am unaware it was debunked.  Got a link?  

The link is in the post below;

On 12/30/2022 at 2:17 PM, So_crates said:

Mike seems to think we've forgotten that five years ago, this paper was torn apart line by line and word by word and exposed for how unobjective it really is.

For those interested here's a blast from the past, presenting that critique.

The fun starts here:

 

 

Continue reading the thread to get the scoop on all the errors in the paper.

43 minutes ago, Mike said:

Did Research Geek get a chance to respond to the debunk to de-debunk it?

It would be hard him to respond, as when the debunking occured he hadn't been posting for a while.

What does he need to respond to? When you write Saint Vic went to Princeton, rather than the factual Saint Vic went to Princeton Theological Seminary, you're either sloppy in your research or attempting to be deceptive.

16 minutes ago, Mike said:

Oops!  You have a point.
I thought I did answer at the very end.
But I see now, it was only a vague implication I put there.

I wrote: "I didn’t even hear about “literals” until at least a year later.
I did not care where VPW got the literals from."

I spent the introduction building to the "I did not care" about who wrote them.

I really didn't care.

My early mind pictures of TWI were VPW surrounded by a fairly large (and growing) team of wonderful teachers and researchers.  I would eat up every article in each Way Magazine, listen to SNT tapes no matter who taught, and travel to see live teachings by anyone on the team.

I came into the ministry pre-disposed to not care about
who came up with what idea,
compared to how much I cared about the ideas.

The literals only appeared to me very gradually.  SO gradually that I have no idea when they started. They were "Top Secret - Classified Corps Documents" to second-class Wayfers like me.  My earliest clear memory of the Literals is 1981-ish, just as VPW was clearly stepping out of the picture, and Craig was named to step in soon.  I remember asking to get copies of the literals before VPW died, but was refused.  Somehow I had gotten a copy of Ephesians, and heard there were more, so that was why I was asking. 

I think I finally got a complete set after the collapse of the ministry in 1986, and all kinds of refugees streaming out of TWI brought with them all sorts of materials that they considered good, and worth protecting and preserving from TWI clutches. 

I also remember in those days, grads who were angry at VPW, were giving away their entire Home Way Library, or selling them in pieces at a garage sale.  I got tons of stuff that way, over the course of 10 years or so.  Somewhere in there the Literals became mine, in very poor Xerox form.

My ONLY impression of the source of the Literals gradually formed to be:  they came from "the team" surrounding VPW. 

It wasn't until recent years, here, that I heard reports that some of the literals came from here or there. 

I never heard any rumor or report, nor seen anything in writing saying that VPW wrote them. 

When I said I didn't care, I meant I REALLY did not care all these years who wrote them or how. As a result my mind was pretty much a blank slate with a faint watermark saying "by The Team." 

You didn't care where they came from?!

So what your trying to tell me is Saint Vic could have lied about what the literals stated, you'd have no way of probing it one way or the other, and you're okay with that. 

10 hours ago, Mike said:

This old thread was before my time here, by a few months.

There are interesting contributions from Research Geek and socks.

 

You mean Research Geek, the guy that did the Saint Vic credential paper you tried posting in every active thread at that time until you were reminded it had been debunked five years earlier? Yah, Research Geek, a real credible source.

12 minutes ago, waysider said:

And yet, we all thought grammar was of utmost importance regarding the comma placement in Luke 23:43.

Not to mention Acts 21:14.

10 minutes ago, Mike said:

Jesus never laughed is not very enlightened working of the Word.
Neither is expecting Jesus to label everything.

This is apparently a definition of "enlightened" I'm not familiar with.

I call it adding to the text.

Everybody, add to the word of God and...

Johnny Jumpup, Maggie Muggins, Snowball Pete, Palooka Joe, and Joe Sixpack (all at once)

...you no longer have the word of God!

1 minute ago, Mike said:

RIGHT.  This is a perfect example of the self direct mis-application of the law of believing.  This would be the witchcraft counterfeit if attempted.

Also note, this would be in the power believing category, and not in the everyday believing category, as I have pointed out in my post above, and in other posts lately.

 

I don't think we're having trouble distinguishing between the two types of believing.

I think you failed to clearly tell us you were referring to the manifestation. Hence my questions. Hence OldScool's reaction.

3 hours ago, Mike said:

I saw MANY who failed to make sure of the link between what they were “believing for” and the promises of God.  I did this, but started realizing my error when I’d run across verses, like in James, where he talks about “asking amiss” and improper applications of believing in prayer.  This manifestation of believing was not easy to get the first several times around.

Too many of us forgot that the power was for helping others, and we tried to apply it to ourselves.  Yes, problems arose from this.

*/*/

So what about the sinner in the Law of Believing works for Saint and sinner alike? Are they manifesting to help others? Or are they applying it to themselves?