WordWolf

Tom, please put Linda out of her misery.... Never mind, wasway posted it.

[untrue in general, and grossly exaggerated in the specifics. However, if not for this convenient fiction, this tail to wag the dog, there'd be no excuse for rewriting the Bible, and thus, no "pfal is the new Bible" Mikean doctrine.] [This is another exaggeration.When reading Machiavelli, one frequently funds names of places and historical figures interrupting explanations. One can choose to go to an encyclopedia and look them up, (or a history textbook.) One can also simply continue to read, and let the context make the main points clear. I've never had to look up the figures to understand the points made. And Machiavelli's LOADED with names compared to most of the Bible.] [None of the former make any difference on the basic understanding, the basic meanings, a basic reading of Scripture. Not one figure of speech is needed to be identified to receive Jesus as one's Lord, know that God is Love, and so on. As to administrations/dispensations vs covenant theology and other stuff, the jury's out as to whether they even apply at all. Please also correct your numbers. vpw quoted 212 figures of speech, but he was quoting Bullinger, and doing so incorrectly. (Or perhaps misread his notes.) Bullinger identified 217 figures, not 212.] [Also misrepresentative, but it's an excuse to dragout the "I'm thankful vpw failed to footnote any of his sources!" excuse for vpw's failure to cite sources.] [if a plain read of a plain version is opaque to you, then the Orange Book will be equally cryptic. The Bible's not a laundry list of names and places.] [And there we have the "footnotes are evil! Citing sources is evil!" sneaking in the back door as promised. Please note that a simple NEW King James Version is clearer for the average person to read than the old KJV, and vpw insisted on the OLD version despite the availability of the new. Making this easy on the readers was NOT high on the list. Nowadays, the New American Standard is even easier on the modern reader AND retains the italics, so-to be consistent-a pfal fan should recommend the Bible student switch to THAT rather than the KJV. I like Elizabethan English, but most people aren't big fans of Shakespeare. To refuse to do so is to be wedded to TRADITION ("vpw used the outdated KJV, so I will use it too!") rather than adjusting for superior performance (the NASB is superior to the KJV in everything but popularity.)]

"How do you think the Yankees will do against the Redskins this year?" "The Yankees are a baseball team. The Redskins are a football team. Personally, I think the Redskins would kick the sh* out of them."

That's from "STRIPES", when they're in the recruitment office.

IIRC, that should be the relevant issue. Full-time employment and part-time employment have different rules for eligibility for health insurance, dental, etc. Probably only when retirement slaps them in the face, and they have to "work until they die", as Howard Allen's been quoted as saying.

Mark Wahlberg Three Kings Jamie Kennedy

"And you may ask yourself 'How do I work this?' And you may ask yourself 'Where is that large automobile?'"

Pink Floyd, "Wish You Were Here", but everybody knew that....

New song. "She don't need to understand And I might find her if I'm looking like I can"

Fine. I'll toss it, then. That was all from Fiona Apple's "Criminal".

Hm. Tom came to a similar conclusion as I did. This will be quick. PFAL, page 4, pfal on what pfal is good for. "This is a book containing Biblical keys. The contents herein do not teach the Scriptures from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21; rather, it is designed to set before the reader the basic keys in the Word of God so that Genesis to Revelation will unfold and so that the abundant life which Jesus Christ came to make available will become evident to those who want to appropriate His abundance to their lives." According to pfal, pfal is a tool. According to Mike, pfal is more than a tool. Who you gonna believe?

[And everyone else can see that this is a "job" that was never claimed even by a man with an inflated view of himself, and is a concept ADDED LATER by someone.] [Of course you count your deficiencies as strengths. You weren't privy to his private meetings, his private thoughts, his private councils, his corps, even. All your hidden messages disregard what all those who WERE there said. They said vpw said his books weren't God-breathed. Now, your speculation contradicts their eyewitness account. Then the editors said their work was editing, not God-breathed, just the best effort they could do. Now, your speculation contradicts THEIR first-person account of what they actually DID. And you don't count this as a deficiency in your method.] [Well, YOU brought it up. Interesting how YOUR eyewitness account is valid, but everyone ELSE'S is invalid...] [Then this side-trip into what the locals did-the people you accuse of forgetting things, of adding things, of getting them wrong- is a NON-ISSUE and a SMOKESCREEN. I notice how your "proof" suddenly took a hard turn into LOCAL events all of a sudden...] *** [And you'd be wrong. "Skipping some formalities of politeness" means RUDENESS, and there's no excuse for it. Furthermore, you don't have a roomful of "eager learners." You have a bunch of people who you walked in on and announced you were an authority. When honest questions were asked, you accused people of being ignorant. When honest criticism was raised, you spewed insults. "They are behind in their studies and shouldn't complain." This is not Mike University. They are adults who are engaging you in dialogue, NOT your students. You PUSHED your way in. They did not seek you out. You STILL don't understand this simple concept. If they sought you out, then perhaps you could make judgements and they would accept them. Since none of them has, these delusionary tales of other posters being "less mature" (especially with YOU spewing the insults) and "FAR DEFICIENT" understanding (when they quote directly) undermine your message even further than the content does.] [Actually, you were claiming your rudeness was analogous to Paul and Hebrews, and that you were superior to the other posters here. So, my commentary "translation" was correct. Of course, you can't see it, even when it's pointed out. Then again, I've gotten the impression already that whatever we post is filtered HEAVILY before it reaches your comprehension, like English translated to Spanish, then to French, then to Italian, then back to English.] *** [True-you believe that. vpw never taught it, but you believe it. That's one of the problems. Of course, your inability to demonstrate your position is supposedly concealed by your "I am the professor" rants and "you are all lazy students" rants. I sometimes wonder now if you hallucinate a lecture hall and podium when you post.] [That you can't tell the self-evident difference between mathematical equations and Bible doctrine speaks poorly of your own skills of discernment. Unless you CAN tell the difference but are too intellectually DIShonest to speak it-and deliberately MISused it to smokescreen the absence of your doctrines in Scripture AND the pfal books.] *** [You made claims about God. You failed to substantiate those claims. You were told to do so, as required in intelligent dialogue. You REFUSED to do so, and threw up an elaborate obfuscation to draw attention to your failure to back up your own claims. Unless you're now claiming your claims are "trivially self-evident concepts". I'll agree on the "trivial", but pronouncing them "self-evident" no more makes them so than pronouncing myself the Prince of Wales would entitle me to the royal treatment in England.] *** [so you're admitting your doctrine is "trivial" and not in Scripture. Ok, just so we're clear on that.] [i haven't been reading the thread, but we HAVE discussed that concept before. You and a few others had expressed some surprise that this subject has been rather intelligently discussed by Christians for CENTURIES, and have been demonstrated FROM Scripture. If you're still claiming they're not, then not only are you deficient, you're a poor learner, because we saw this movie before.] [i'd get into this with you, but it's obvious that you- Mr "You're Drawing Attention from pfal"- does NOT want to know this, but is using this as another smokescreen, as if whatever Mike comes up with is equal to the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus.] [so you're saying that Christians IN the Gathering Together will need "written instructions?"] *** [it is on this discussion board. We're communicating on this discussion board. This is the GSC.] [Wrong. You are a poster. They are posters. Common courtesy is expected.] [Hallucinations aside, this is not a calculus class, you are not a professor, we are not your class nor your students. You showed up and announced you were teaching us. It is grossly impolite for you to insist WE cater to YOU.] ***

Mike, I'll explain this yet again, although you've been hearing this for years now. You showed up and have spent years making assertions, and have consistently showed pride in REFUSING to support them. "Dodge", "distract", or spew insults in every direction. Any suggestion that this is not your private podium-or that DISCUSSION goes BOTH WAYS- seems repulsive to you. You're free to feel that way. Lots of self-appointed teachers feel that way-and don't post their doctrines here. (You'll notice I don't push MY doctrines here, for that matter.) HOWEVER, when you post here, you have de facto accepted that you will be engaging in a DISCUSSION. (In fact, given the introduction to the forums, I'd say it's a de jure acceptance as well.) That means that YOU YOURSELF are REQUIRED to support YOUR CLAIMS. What it does NOT mean is that you can make claims with no or little or insufficient evidence, and when someone calls for more evidence, you are entitled to respond "that's your job." However, that's PRECISELY what you're doing here. You're also not our teacher, instructor, or anything along those lines. You are STILL not entitled to assign homework or anything else.

I recognized the obvious typo and disregarded it, so my post took that into consideration-in case you were wondering.

The concept of personal experience-as viewed by twi- is simple. Experience before twi leading you TO twi is of God. Experience before twi leading you AWAY FROM twi is of God. Once in twi, ALL experience that you experience must be interpreted BY twi or ignored. Furthermore, twi will IMPOSE experience-and THIS experience is to be embraced without question. Experience from a twi event is supposed to be embraced. After all, the whole point of forbidding people to cover "speaking in tongues" before Session 12 (or interpretation or prophecy before the Intermediate) was to inculcate a common experience into the lives of all the students. Furthermore, experience from the mog was to be embraced without question as well. vpw was entitled to go anywhere and do anything, and we were to be thankful he did. Racetracks, porn shops, wherever.

If the concepts you purport are of God, then-according to vpw-they will be documented in Scripture. The exception was The Great Mystery-and that was revealed 2 millenia ago. If you're putting forth a concept as GODly, then where did GOD say it was so? You claimed they were "self-evident." This is a poor, poor answer from someone supposedly following techniques in pfal of understanding and applying Scripture. You-of course-were challenged on this. NOBODY gets an exemption on this. JESUS CHRIST didn't get an exemption on this one. So, make your case. "Think about it some more" is tantamount to admitting you can't find it in Scripture. And claiming others can't "keep up" is not a valid discussion tool-it's an insult. (Ad hominem attack, for those keeping up.)

How strange he never actually MENTIONED any of this.... Of course, this "perception" allows you to cover 2 deficiencies:A) not interacting with vpw daily B) the disconnect between your doctrine and what vpw said/did daily, as reported by eyewitnesses How strange, then... If you review the ROA '79 tapes, you'll hear vpw bring up speaking in tongues, and doing it at one point. The syllables were not merely "familiar"-they're almost verbatim from the class. Odd how what can be CHECKED seems the opposite of what you've said.... ....and how you spent almost no time with vpw, but you supposedly have an opposite report with nothing to base it on but convictions. Where and when are these "frequent" incidents you'rereporting? You were not on staff. Translation: I am entitled to be insulting to the other posters. They deserve it and are not adults who reason. Their maturity level is less than mine. Their understanding is far deficient compared to mine. And even if I DID use manners, it wouldn't matter. And-in the long run-they'll be thankful I was rude and abusive with them. Translation: See how God endorses my rudeness with them? I'm the same as Paul here in Hebrews, and you all are the same as Timothy here. You should all be thankful I'm making the effort.

Yellowcard, AFAIK, is a VERY recent band. THIS song is from the middle-to-late 90s. I'm really hoping someone walks in and name this. I'd hate to consider this round fruitless. That wouldn't be a crime, but it would be up there.

Or maybe they were being polite, and thought it ACTUALLY was teh crap. "Fantastic"? Depends on what you drink beforehand, and how much.

"Don't you tell me to deny it. I've done wrong and I want to suffer for my sins. I've come to you 'cause I need guidance to be true And I just don't know where I can begin." "Heaven help me for the way I am. Save me from these evil deeds Before I get them done. I know tomorrow brings the consequence at hand, But I keep living this day like the next will never come." "Let me know the way before there's hell to pay. Give me room to lay the law and let me go. I've got to make a play to make my lover stay What would an angel say, the devil wants to know. What I need is a good defense, " "I need to be redeemed To the one I've sinned against Because he's all I ever knew of love."

The artist who did this song also released an album with the following title: "When the pawn hits the conflicts, he thinks like a king. What he knows throws the blows when he goes to the fight- and he'll win the whole thing before he enters the ring. There's no body to better when your mind is your might. So when you go solo, you hold your own hand, and remember that depth is the greatest of heights. And if you know where you stand, then you know where to land. And if you fall it won't matter, 'cause you'll know that you're right." ====== ("That's the TITLE? Then you must take a few weeks out sometime and sing it for us.") This artist is also supposedly the favourite musician of Officer Bar-Brady, on South Park. When Barbra Streistand was in the town, he didn't pay her any real attention because she wasn't this artist.

You are not qualified to judge me, and you are not my teacher. You are not qualified to issue me homework or exams. If that was your idea of an exam-let alone an incorrect answer- your exams are woefully deficient. You were doing some posturing about the so-called "law" of believing, which fails to perform as promised since it's not a "law" nor reliable. You harped on the "what is available" step of receiving anything from God, in Session One. I made a passing comment that-according to Session One- red drapes and killing your kid were available. You claimed it did not make such a claim. I then broke down-for those of you having difficulty understanding the ramifications of Session One- how it DOES make such a claim. Session One claims that receiving is dependent FIRST on what is available-which is the SAME point you YOURSELF were making. Therefore, to receive something, it must be available. If it is not available, you will not be able to receive it. That's stuff any 12-year old can easily follow. (Which seems to have eluded you anyway.) Right in Session One, two things that are mentioned as having been received are the red drapes, and the dead kid. Everybody ELSE remembers them-perhaps you've FORGOTTEN. "...she had a need. And her need was, they might as well be red drapes..." Sound familiar? According to vpw, the woman received "FIRE-ENGINE-RED" curtains. If she received it, it was-by definition-available TO be received. Since she received it, it was available. The same can be said of the woman who succeeded in killing her kid. (I can break this one down slowly if you need it, but it's exactly the same steps.) Now, that those were in the class were a matter of public record. If you dispute that these people received, you call vpw a liar-for he asserted that both most definitely DID receive. Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that the so-called "law" of believing is deficient and has errors, thus defending it leads to problems. That's how we ended up with the red drapes and dead kid "examples to begin with. So far, I understand you both better than you understandme and vpw. I got the ramifications of what he said as well as just the wording. Seems you're unable to see the concepts without the exact wording. Either that, or you wish to pretend it's not what he said. If so, it's intellectually dishonest, to begin with. That's how it "seems" to you. Oddly enough, the rest of us can see this quite clearly- and you and reality had a disconnect. There's a difference between "they don't understand" and "they see it differently than me", and until you can make that fundamental distinction, you'll forever MIScommunicate with "your audience." Only what I suggested above.

It's a cookbook! The tower? The tower? RAPUNZEL!!!! RAPUNZEL!!!!

Not even a little bit. MTV played the video for this song. As did VH1, I believe. The redemption was on a relationship-level.