WordWolf

Mike: Yes, I know that as far as you're concerned, you (you and Seaspray) are right and everyone else is wrong. I don't think it's fair for you to invoke people anonymously who've never posted here, who could easily be made-up or wildly misquoted. It's almost as unfair as rewriting the words of a dead man. Yes, as far as you're concerned, anything that displays an error in PFAL is a non-issue. Yes, as far as you're concerned, the frame of mind of the researcher determines, for example, whether or not the kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God are synonymous (as the Bible sasy, using them INTERCHANGEABLY as it does) or mean 2 different things (as we were taught in PFAL.) To the rest of us, these are not things that can be "poo-poohed" away...not if we want to claim any intellectual, Biblical or Godly integrity. Doesn't it strike you as ironic, then, that you can say the following? A) Unless you can find a place in the orange book that says (as the videotapes said) that VPW "took all his other Christian books down to the town gehenna, where the fires never go out, and that he just closeted himself off with God and the Bible, and that he almost wished he'd kept that roomful of books so that they could be used as a display piece, showing how many books he read BEFORE giving them up", I refuse to believe he said that. B) The PFAL orange book does not cite BG Leonard as the source of most of the material, and the white RTHST book does not cite JE Stiles as the source of most of the material. That does NOT mean he failed to acknowledge them. I know-you DON'T see that as a logical inconsistency-the books being the final authority in one place, and not in another- but the rest of US do. I know you think the plagiarism of the material means nothing to you. Your response is that we could have found out anytime. WHEN? Back when questioning him resulted in people mysteriously vanishing? Before we had access to BG Leonard and JE Stiles' work? We were told the contributions of all others were minor. Like a bunch of jerks, we accepted VPW at his word, since we thought he had integrity, and his word was reliable. That was the party line in TWI no matter WHEN you were in. BTW, Mike, I keep running into people who've read Bullinger's stuff, yet never heard of TWI, VPW or PFAL. Still think he didn't reach anyone? Frankly, whether or not the entirety of the material of PFAL was original, or NONE of it was means very little in my evaluation of things. The integrity issue, however, DOES count. I know this means NOTHING to you. It does to the REST of us, though. Also, your dogged insistence in ascribing new and "secret" meanings to things is one of YOUR major credibility issues.

Mike, A) The reason you keep coming up is that the issue here is your private interpretation of PFAL-secret messages only you've found, hidden meanings only you've seen, special revelation only you believe. When we addressed PFAL, you said you won't be sidetracked. Hours and hours of discussion of the less-than-perfection of the object of your adoration came up. You have recently admitted that you claim to be refused to be sidetracked, you refuse to entertain what disproves your claims, etc, etc. That was on this thread. Let me know if you need the citations. Since the PFAL materials have flopped on their own, we look to find where your private interpretations come from. They're not from the plain reading of PFAL, since, as, has already been shown on thread after thread, PFAL's own methods, applied to PFAL, demonstrate it does NOT hold up to PFAL's standard of Scripture. Since, to date, ONLY MIKE seems to think that's what it meant, this does not cause anyone else stress. MIKE has announced that VPW repeatedly said that his material was the results of VPW and God and various other people. This claim was already addressed on many threads. VPW very prominently proclaimed in PFAL it was just HIM and GOD. Since he never repudiates that claim IN PFAL, that claim remains in PFAL. Another question on this subject..... ..Mike has claimed that VPW claims that some of what VPW said (wrote) is of God directly, and some is of VPW. Supposedly, now, some was also of other people, yet also of VPW AND some of other people AND GOD. That's a tangled mess. If one must claim that PFAL was DIVINE, it swiftly becomes a scrambled mess concerning who wrote what. B) On the charge of plagiarism, if you've kept up on the GSC, you'd see that quotes from MANY sources over MANY years indicate that VPW did everything he could to "soft-peddle" the connection to BG Leonard's material and JE Stiles' material-that which the supposed "meat" of PFAL seems to match precisely and MIKE claims was not plagiarized. VPW NEVER indicated that RTHST would NEVER have happened without JE Stiles' book, which appears to precisely parallel VPW's book. VPW NEVER indicated that the PFAL class would NEVER have happened without BG Leonard's class, which seems to precisely parallel VPW's class, complete with the imaginary examples of Maggie Muggins and Johnny Jumpup and so on. It can clearly be shown VPW had taken BG Leonard's class before starting work on PFAL. It can be clearly shown that VPW had read JE Stiles' book before starting work on his own. Despite huge sections of both appearing to be photocopied to form VPW's work, he never said- not once! -THIS is the class I owe so much to, THIS is the book I owe so much to. Rather, both names seem almost nonexistent in VPW history. C) I was reading my orange book. Page 105 says the following, in a chapter making the SAME point: "I learned my unbelief in the schools I attended which taught that the Bible is full of errors, that the Word of God is full of myths, that it has a lot of forgeries in it. If a miniwster does not believe that the Bible is God's Word and if he thinks that it is full of myths and forgeries, what would be the man's actions if he followed what he believes? He would get out of the pulpit if he were honest with himself. I have very little respect for those who stand in the pulpits or stand behind podiums and declare, "This verse is all right, but that one is an interpolation, and that other one is a myth." " Now, Mike, you've claimed the Bible is full of "tattered remnants" and "unreliable fragements." VPW declared in PFAL (chapter 8 entire) is NOT. Mike, you've got a convoluted method of substitution that invalidates that entire chapter-that when VPW talks about the Bible, he is referring to HIS writings, OR he's referring to the one we all know, OR he's referring to the originals. Now, plain distinctions between the originals and moderns we understand-but they're connected, not truly different books. You wonder why we can't take your view seriously... D) Honesty and integrity COUNT to us. You can claim the ends justified the means, but that's not selling here-as you should have seen by now. E) I didn't say that studying was WRONG. YOU said that, Mike. You claimed that using the intellect to discern good and evil-thinking about whether Mike's thesis is legit or not- is wrong. I've been SAYING that THINKING is important all along, by implication AND direct statement. Don't pretend I said otherwise. Your claim was that thinking was a 5-senses approach and wrong. That means, by YOUR claim, Advanced class Key 4 is wrong. Is that part of the Advanced class that you don't consider canonical-like the "cancer is a devil spirit" part? E) You said you're not trying to present evidence. Goey already pointed out that's inconsistent with your posts. Also, you keep saying that blindly accepting your instructions will get us the results. Outside of religious cults, that kind of claim never works. "I refuse to prove I have anything to offer, but if you do things my way, you'll see it." F) Your latest appeal is one of loyalty. I'm supposed to obey VPW "because he taught you so much of God's Word." So, then, if I teach people a lot, they're supposed to do whatever I say? I've been in the wrong business all these years! I should have been teaching the Bible yesterday so I could invoke blind loyalty today! *runs off to start his own ministry*

Mike: A) Since you keep claiming I misrepresent your positions all the time, one might think my efforts to have our positions clearly spelled out in plain English would be applauded. I'm doing my best to get a clear, unambiguous summary of your position, or positions. On some subjects, you keep moving your position, so it is very difficult to get a single, clear view. So, when possible, I'm trying to get one. When possible, I also state my positions as plainly as possible. ---------------------------------------------- B) If thinking (having my senses exercised to discern good and evil) is a 5-senses approach to spiritual problems, then so is READING (taking in information by sight and thinking about it), no matter the subject matter. Either both are eeee-villl, or both are acceptable. (Especially since one is mentioned in the accepted canon of the Bible.) -------------------------------------------- C) I still haven't seen you present any "evidence" that vpw's writings were of surpassing quality, let alone of divine origin. Since you seem to be saying you've been providing data along those lines, please label it when you're doing so, so we know when you claim to be providing evidence vpw's work wasn't one man's work supplementing an agglomeration of the work of a handful of others. ---------------------------------------------- D) I'm still waiting on a clarification on Leonard and Stiles. Are you going to address it when you get a chance?

Mike: A) Based on the previous posts, and most prominently the post 6/19, 10:54am, then, I'd render your clarification of my statement, also quoted in that post, as follows: Based on that post and previous posts, you were saying that, as of 1982, the key revelation, our True Bible, the Written Word of God, was now VPW's PFAL class collaterals. This was not an official position of TWI, but it WAS the position of God Almighty. Ok, would you say THAT'S exactly what you meant? ----------------------------------------------- B) I think you glossed over my comments about the studies involving the collateral readings, the Advanced Class exam, and-oh! I didn't even mention the Home Studies! I finished those in record time, as well. THOSE were all based on the written material, and in each of those I rated notably high. (BTW, Mike, back then, I made a correction on a question in one of the Home Studies, since it seemed to incorrectly reflect the written orange book. I even cited the page in my correction. Have YOU found it?) Again, many of us have knowledge of vpw's books at least the equal of yours, yet, somehow, this has not required us to hold your position. --------------------------------------- C) You claimed VPW was an intellectual genius, and at the level of a professional athlete. Your claim has never been backed up by a single IQ test, nor an objective evaluation of him by a talent scout. Have you read all the stories of him playing basketball for hours with all the residents at headquarters throughout the years, into the early 80's? Amateur athletes can play into their early SEVENTIES, even. For fun, former professional, or professional-level athletes will continue to play the sports they excel at as a hobby. It's great fun for them and good exercise. No? Haven't read those accounts? Do you know why? IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. If it did, EVERYONE who was there would have either SEEN a game or PLAYED in a game. You can't tell me VPW would have been playing basketball or soccer or something and NOBODY would have wanted to watch. When he went hunting, they wanted to go along. When he drove around the ground slowly on motorcycle, they wanted to join or watch. When he went to sit and do NOTHING, they wanted to join him. According to VPW, that's how the original "nightowls" got started. If VPW was HALF the athlete you claim he was, EVERYONE would have known. You've made a claim that he was a genius without objective evidence, and a claim that he was physically-exceptional and an athlete capable of playing professionally without objective evidence. You claimed his was exceptional both physically, and mentally, with little more than a handful of overheard statements here and there. You DON'T think of that as idolatry. That's not how I see it, and it's not how an unbiased observer would see it. There's no convincing you on this, though. --------------------------------------------- D) You said "Recognizing that God appointed Dr as His spokesman is no more idolatrous than recognizing that God also appointed Paul 2000 years ago to a similar status? Why is this hard for you to see?" Mike...... IF such a thing were true, and IF evidence could be brought to support such a claim, and IF the logical conclusion, based on the evidence, was that it was true that God appointed vpw as His spokesman in 1942 or at any other time, THEN you would be facing a LOT less opposition to your idolatrous comments, and would find people who would agree with you who actually KNOW something about PFAL and/or the Bible. Your main strength seems to be in saying "Other people's conclusions don't matter-I'm right!" "My POV is the correct one despite the evidence brought against it!" "I don't HAVE to answer the evidence disproving my claims!" "If you accepted my POV without evidence and simply did everything I say, you'd soon agree with me!" For some reason, it surprises you that the more literate GS'ers and people who memorized the collaterals aren't buying what you're selling. ---------------------------------------------- E) I HAVE learned that trying to illustrate using analogies doesn't connect with you. So, I will try to remember not to use them. --------------------------------------------- F) When I asked "Are you saying that BG Leonard's work and JE Stile's work are "counterfeits" and "clones" of VPW's materials, just as ex-TWI splinter groups' classes are clones of VPW's materials?" You responded "No, they are counterfeits of what God wanted written in PFAL and distributed around the world and mastered What they wrote or taught long ago may have been totally accurate at times, but revelation can change as circumstances change. I also see those wonderful men as sometimes getting a point right and sometimes (bless their hearts) not getting it right, but close, and therefore a regrettable counterfeit, ON THAT ONE POINT." (Remembering not to use an analogy) I'm trying to understand EXACTLY what your position is regarding their work. A "counterfeit", remember, is not an "error". An "error" is a mistake-an attempt to do something correctly that failed in that aspect, which is identified as the error. A "counterfeit" is something which is based on an original which is being counterfeited, and attempting to pass itself off as that original upon which it is based. So, are you saying BG Leonard and JE Stiles intentionally (it is IMPOSSIBLE to ACCIDENTALLY forge something) produced work that was the COUNTERFEIT of something else? If that's what you're saying, what original were they working from, which they intended to pass off their work as? Or, on the other hand, are you saying their work was all ERRORS, and when you said the word "counterfeit", you merely misspoke? There is a big difference between an ERROR and a COUNTERFEIT. Which did you mean? ----------------------------------------------- G) By the way, Mike, don't think your claims that there are no authoritative rules for the English language was missed. I just see no point in trying to educate you on proper English form and grammar, since attempts to do so by people FAR more knowledgeable on the subject than either of us were unable to show you the truth of the matter.

Mike: A) on 6/19/03, 2:22am (unless otherwise noted, all quotes date from this post) you wrote: "In 1982 Dr's announcements of the big changeover dramatically increased (so far few posted), culminating in a revelation that it was time to switch over from the abstract "only rule" to the concrete, freshly written "only rule"." Based on that post and previous posts, you were saying that, as of 1982, the key revelation, our True Bible, the Written Word of God, was now (officially or inofficially) VPW's PFAL class and its collaterals. Just wanted to make sure that didn't get lost in the shuffle. That IS what you said and meant. (Albeit posted in a convoluted way.) I'm not going to address that at present. ------------------------------------------ B) You also posted: "I'll bet that the degree of memorization you did of PFAL less than the degree of your KJV retemorization. I'll bet your degree of mastering the points of PFAL was less than how you looked for points in KJV." You'd LOSE BOTH BETS. Mike, I don't give you a lot of my time and attention. My INCIDENTAL attention is enough to quote you extensively. Back then, I memorized PFAL AND the KJV with EQUAL fervor. Due to the ability to sit in class after class of PFAL, session after session, I was able to quote extensively from the taped version. I sat in once on a taped version missing a segment from Session 6. I basically recited the missing section, complete with the verse references. Before taking the Advanced class, you're supposed to take an exam and demonstrate your understanding of the materials of the Foundational and Intermediate classes. I studied MORE before taking it. As it turns out, the material I studied was NOT on the exam. I STILL blazed through the questions in record time. Section one was on the PFAL foundational class itself. Allotted time for this section? Ninety minutes. Time WordWolf took to complete this section, and check his answers TWICE? Twenty-seven minutes. The last 6 of them were basically fooling around. Ever sat in a twig where trivia questions were thrown from the home studies or the PFAL materials? I've been asked-repeatedly-to stop answering for awhile and give the others a chance. Ever attend a PFAL study group? By mutual consent of me and the study group leader, it was agreed that I did not NEED the study group-I had the material down cold. My memory is as sharp as it ever was, and if I was handed a KJV, concordance, and an Advanced class exam at this moment, I'd bet I'd get the exact same score I did last time. So, when it comes to ability to spit back the answers swallowed whole from PFAL, I'd compare well with anyone I was stacked against-down to the way vpw pronounced which words. If I am not CURRENTLY at the level of "recite it backwards and forwards", I am not far shy of it. Your opinion that this level of memorization & understanding is synonymous with YOUR POV produces a blind spot. That is, NOBODY can know the material that well, unless they agree PFAL's God current Bible. If they did memorize it, you think, and they STILL didn't hold your POV, they are an "unjust steward" and an "unfit student" and all sorts of derogatory things. --------------------------------------------- C) You also wrote "I don't think he taught we should think of him as infallible, so you may have been led wrong. I know this happened, and in spite of all my other failures in life, I didn't get sucked into hero worship of VPW ever." You also suggested I might have idolized VPW. I didn't. At the time, I might have been said to idolize his writings-which is right where you are NOW, Mike. However, I'd like to point out a few things about the quote. YOU don't think VPW put forth himself as infallible. That's a minority opinion, Mike. We've discussed this at the GSC. He called HIMSELF "THE TEACHER", AND ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED OTHERS TO DO SO. He defined the office of an apostle specifically in a way that all but names him the only living one. Even now, you're claiming he spoke for God (prophet), and claiming HE said the same. That's 3 out of 5 gift ministries, all of them claiming an ELITE position above others who might possibly claim "teacher" "apostle" or "prophet". This has already been hashed out on other threads. Mike? You're claiming you've never idoliZed VPW. Have you READ your posts here? Besides all your claims of his special status, you've also posted that he was an intellectual genius (posted it, not simply implied it), and stated that you firmly believe he was of excellent athletic ability, and was at least of pro-college level in college. A veritable paragon, one might say, since you've claimed both his mind and body were exceptional. Do you vaguely recall the discussion on another thread about this? It came up in TWO threads, actually. You DEFENDED this position, saying you didn't think this was an unreasonable assumption, and concluded by saying you didn't think this made you a fanatic (I forget the exact term-you may not have said 'fanatic'.) I also don't hate VPW. I didn't have enough of an emotional attachment to him to hate him. You'll have to talk to some of the other posters (rape survivors and others) to find that. They have much more to say on the subject than I do. I do NOT have a fanaticism about VPW either way. I DO have a fanaticism about TRUTH, and THAT'S why we keep butting heads. You claim certain events never happened, you claim other events DID happen. For good or ill, I always seek the truth, no matter HOW ugly or unpleasant it is. --------------------------------------------- D) You asked why I didn't include comments about the "David" thing under my comments about the "ERRORS" thread. It was unnecessary. The discussion of the removal of it as an indisputable error took up over a page. ANYONE who reads that thread can EASILY see the issue was resolved-at least for the rules of that thread. What that showed was that the other posters on that thread were intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that THEY are not infallible, and they are diligent enough to find places THEY are in error, and are capable of improvement. The resolution of that one item was NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, a demonstration of YOUR position, nor your position's ability to withstand scrutiny. Out of a tall stack of errors, ONE was resolved. Statistically, it should have been expected that at least ONE would be found. As you interpret that, it means that the ENTIRE list is also invalid. That's an unwarranted assumption. It's like watching someone reach into a refrigerator, take out a can of soda, and generalizing that the entire contents of the refrigerator was cans of soda. The others can clearly read the thread for themselves. Your posts can be largely characterized by evasions and obfuscations-but let's let THEM read it for themselves and decide that, shall we? If the thread HAD been "spotty at best", you would have been able to make a MUCH better showing, mowing down unwarranted assumptions and introducing evidence on each item. It WOULD have been very impressive, and earned you much respect. ----------------------------------------------- E) You called the Bible "unreliable fragments" and "tattered remants." You also said that it can be used by some people. You STILL don't see the logical contradiction between the two statements. Here's one last try to illustrate it. We go to a junkyard. We look over a wrecked car. There's nothing left of it but fragments, and those are not intact. The frame is partially crushed, the interior is gutted, the engine's completely missing. A salesman comes over and tries to convince you that, in its current condition, it can be of some use to you to travel, even if it's only a LITTLE use. Not MUCH use, just a little. --------------------------------------------- F) In answering my question about the contents of BG Leonard and JE Stiles' work, you gave the following answer: "The counterfeit is always CLOSE to the genuine. The 1942 promise was to Dr and Dr only. It was completed. I would NOT try to convince anyone but a PFAL grad of this. I would not be confused by the correct knowledge a BG Leonard student has any more than by the correct knowledge a PFAL splinter group puts into their clone classes." Although you didn't say what you'd tell a student of BG Leonard or JE Stiles, that WAS an attempt at an answer. I'm not 100% sure I got one point, though, so I want to make sure I'm not mischaracterizing your position. Are you saying that BG Leonard's work and JE Stiles' work are "counterfeits" and "clones" of VPW's materials, just as ex-TWI splinter groups' classes are clones of VPW's materials? It appears that's what you're saying, and I want to be certain that's what you MEANT to say. --------------------------------------------- BTW, don't feel required to make a summary or a timeline. I'd like to see it, but I may be the only one, and it's hardly a critical issue. ---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- Steve, I didn't mean to imply that your followup question, the more IMPORTANT question, was addressed at all. I don't expect it to be addressed any more than you do. You had initially posed a more general question, to which Mike had posted a more general answer. In all fairness, THAT question was answered. Mike will NEVER believe it of me, but I require intellectual honesty of myself no matter WHO disbelieves it.

For those of you cool cats who arrived after the movie started, here's something a bunch of us discussed a while back.....

Mike: A) Thank you for using somewhat shorter, more straightforward posts. Now I can go back to being annoyed only on the content, since the form of the posts is easier on the eyes, and the language is direct. (Yes, that makes a BIG difference, all joking aside.) B) You just said that "If you look hard at the books and forget about the past, you'll see MORE goodness in them than you did the first time, and you DID genuinely see some genuine goodness the first time. We can ALL agree that mucho stinkyness went on, but the books are pure. That's a reality your accusations of me won't wither." Ok, let me address this a little. 1) The first time I read the books, I was NOT examining them with a "critical" (discerning) eye. I was trying to MEMORIZE information. At NO point were we supposed to actually FORM OUR OWN OPINION on the subject. These were books vpw wrote, for vpw's class, he was THE TEACHER, and had papal infallibility. As such, his books were "infallible", and any errors in them were to be ignored. That was the case then, and that's the case you're making now. Further, I knew that I knew a LOT less then than I do now, and was not in a strong position to evaluate much. Since then, my knowledge, experience and ability to evaluate have all increased dramatically (or not so dramatically, since that was over many years). Therefore, more recent evaluations of said material pack more punch than that of a new student of pfal, taught to accept everything without question. Back then, I-and virtually EVERY SINGLE NEW PFAL student-would have seen much goodness in the class, no matter WHAT the content was. That's NOT an honest evaluation. We may have "seen" goodness, but that's hardly "genuine" goodness. Further, most of us-including me-have NOT made any claims that the content of pfal was useless. Our main objection-as always-is your characterization of the contents as PERFECT and WITHOUT ERROR. Like anything else, it can be of benefit without being divinely authored or divinely inspired. I learned many things in college that were useful, and THEY were rarely perfect or divinely inspired. I can say the same of books, television, radio or the internet. 2) You claimed "the books are pure. That's a reality your accusations of me won't wither." For those posters arriving late to the game, several months back, an extensive list of ERRORS taken DIRECTLY FROM THE BODY OF MATERIAL OF PFAL were posted. Despite his best efforts, Mike was NOT able to make any of them go away. I've forgotten how many were on the list when we stopped discussing it-28? 32? Something around there. The Books have ERRORS. A number we CAUGHT were listed. (That is no guarantee we caught them all-we weren't going for completion). That the books have ERRORS is a REALITY all of Mike's ignoring of them won't wither. --------------------------------------------- C) Thank you for a clear, concise statement of your position. (6/17/03, 2:14pm) "For a special group of people that God called out for a special job, PFAL grads that is, God has also provided the perfect arena for learning revelation and importation manifestations. This arena is the PFAL writings. As we master those special writings of PFAL with our 5-senses, God will teach us HIS perspective and HE will filter out the adversary's. So, you might not like the answer, but there it is. Master PFAL and you can hear the TRUE GOD's direct voice better (and filter out Satan's) than anyone's been able to do since the first century." I'm just going to leave that direct quote, and not comment on it for the time being. -------------------------------------------------------- D) This may come as a surprise to you, but your followup statements about what uses the Bible CAN be put to in modern times is diammetricall opposed to your original position, much discussed, that the modern versions are "tattered remnants" and "unreliable fragments". Either they are useless or they can be used. Either they are profitless, or they can profit. That type of inconsistency occasionally surfaces in some of your posts, and I'd be surprised if you were aware of it. For example, you keep alternating between claiming a scientific background and claiming you don't have one. Perhaps YOU may not see it that way, but you MAY have noticed that a variety of posters have commented on it. It's NOT like we're in communication with each other or anything. I tend to object MORE to the inconsistency of your positions than anything else. If we can't trust you to have a consistent position on either the Bible or your own background, how can we POSSIBLY trust that your assertions about pfal are correct? (No, I'm not expecting an answer. I'm pointing out some of the reasons these ARE hurting your "message".) --------------------------------------------------- E) on 6/17/03 , 3:41am, I summarized your answer to Steve as follows: "Steve, in case you missed it, Mike's answer to how you can tell what kind of spirit you're hearing from is by studying God's Word. Since Mike's stance is that pfal is the most accurate version of "God's Word" extant, his answer is you'll know by studying the pfal materials." That's the SAME message you posted further down-which I quoted in this very post. Rather than misrepresent your statements, as you regularly claim I do, that appears to indicate that I am both ABLE and WILLING to present your statements and positions FAIRLY, despite disagreeing with them. It also indicates I am capable of understanding and explaining your positions in my own words. So, although I expect you'll NEVER issue me one for it, it looks to me you owe me an apology for unfairly characterizing MY posts. On the other hand, it seems you completely missed Def59's last post completely, since your objection to it in no way addressed what he/she said. ------------------------------------------------------- Out of curiousity, Mike, I'd like to ask something. Feel free to answer it whenever you get a chance-it WON'T require research. If you encountered one, what would you tell a Christian who memorized BG Leonard's classes, but never heard of pfal? What would you tell someone who memorized JE Stile's book, but never heard of pfal? Let me make sure my question is specific enough.... Would you say that the material they learned, despite paralleling the material YOU learned, is LESSER because it wasn't written by vpw's pen, and taught in vpw's class? Would you characterize THEIR understanding of spiritual matters as lesser, despite being able to recite answers nearly identical to yours, since they didn't learn from vpw? Also, just for fun, I'm curious how you perceive the events so far. We saw my summary. You claimed mine was so off-target that it was incapable of being corrected. Just for fun, how about posting YOUR quick take on things? Feel free to label it as not-definitive, and not an official account, and all that. Please cover the same timeframe I did. I started in the 1st-century AD, and spent most of my time in the 20th century. Feel free to use the exact same events I did, phrasing them how you see them. I'd be very curious to see how you perceive each. Keep in mind that I offer NO guarantees that your post won't anger the posters here, though. For example, if you spend time on how vpw claimed the holocaust was vastly overstated and so on, or how the modern Jews are unrelated to the historical Jews (both positions have been discredited scientifically, and evidence HAS been posted and discussed HERE), you WILL anger some people. I'm very curious, though.

Vickles, when you say Mike usually casts the first stone, are you talking about like when he made the blanket accusation that every single person on the threads where we examined pfal doctrine and its errors were all "unfit stewards", and claimed we couldn't read? I wasn't sure most people had noticed that.... Funny, we posted simultaneously, and brushed the same subjects. :)-->

Steve, in case you missed it, Mike's answer to how you can tell what kind of spirit you're hearing from is by studying God's Word. Since Mike's stance is that pfal is the most accurate version of "God's Word" extant, his answer is you'll know by studying the pfal materials. ------------------------------------------- Mike, I'm not sure you're aware of it, but your stated position on "the Bible" is inconsistent. On the one hand, you called it "tattered remnants", and said that over time, it's been tampered with too often to be trusted as reliable and accurate. On the other hand, y0u're also claiming that it IS useful to people, albeit non-pfal'ers. That's a lot like saying "it's full of lies and errors, except where it's true." "It's burning hot, except when it's cold." You get the idea. If it's useful to anyone in regards to the things of God, then, by definition, it is NOT the "tattered remnants" you vilified it as early on. Pick a position, Mike. Inconsistency ill behooves you. BTW, Mike.... Vickles had a perfectly legitimate question. Your claim since your arrival is that pfal is far superior than anything any other Christian can offer out there. If it's REALLY that much better, then surely the "performance" test will show something, right? If it REALLY is the keys to power, revelation, etc, and YOU'RE the only one who gets it so far, then you should be getting, at the very LEAST, revelation and miracles and things to match the top non-pfal Christians. Look- If I came out and announced that I was producing a new car, faster than any currently on the market, we could go to the track or the "proving grounds" and put it to the test. We could compare its performance to those of other cars on the market. If the other cars outperformed it, we'd know I was full of hot air. If my car outperformed all the others, it would be proven to at least be of excellent quality, and among the best on the market. That's easy to test. One of the reasons PFAL was an easy sell is that it promised results in the physical realm: red curtains, financial prosperity, all needs met fairly easily, and signs, miracles and wonders when you got to the Advanced class. So, this is an old question that's been discussed on different subjects. It's a simple question, and, as you can see, an honest one. In fact, it was inevitable that someone ask it. Frankly, I'm surprised you didn't expect it before now. No need to 'blame' Vickles because she asked for proof of one of your claims. ---------------------------------------------- No, I'm not particularly interested in that answer-that was Vickles. I just call your reaction an unfair one. ------------------------------------------- PS. Please stop throwing around scientific and technical terms unless you're prepared to discuss them in their proper context. You're latest reference to "quantum physics" (6/17/03, 2:24am) had no relevance to its post, and only served to "name-drop". It DOESN'T make you look smarter because you know how to use it in a sentence. It DOESN'T have any relevance to the message you're trying to peddle here. It DOESN'T enhance your posts. ---------------------------------------------

Mike, A) I made it clear by its label that it was a chronology as I see it. I did NOT label it a DEFINITIVE chronology. Unlike you, I make no claims about my position being the ONE and ONLY one with merit. B) Actually, that list was off-the-cuff. Wait until you see me actually post something after I research. :)--> That was NOT me putting a lot into it. It only took me the time to type it. I've been paying attention all along. C) Actually, there were a LOT of things I could have said that would have been a LOT more negative. I confined negativity based on its relative germaine-ness to the thread. I also confined my comments about you strictly to things you've posted here, without adding any commentary at all. If that looks negative, guess what? That's hardly how I alone see it, that IS how the majority of your "subscribers" view you. (Example of things I left out in the chronology-Mike wearing out his welcome at all the OTHER ex-twi survivor sites.) D) I knew you weren't going to try to address any points I made. These same points had been made on plenty of other threads in open discussion. You declined to play along with the other kids when you had a chance to offer alternative viewpoints. Of course, to date, the few times you've chosen to address those points have revealed a POV so virulent it invited comment from all over the GSC. (Example-your attempt to paint molestation and abuse as "run of the mill" for men in authority; remember the responses you got to THAT little gem?) So, refusal to address these points reflects more a desire to do "damage control" than anything else. If you truly COULD address them in a satisfactory manner, you'd get a LOT more postive feedback, and occasionally someone AGREEING with you. E) Actually, I summarized your message in an amazingly short space, and refrained from adding commentary. F) My generalization of the thread so far was obviously subjective, but DID give a summary of the action so far. Just because you don't LIKE the summary doesn't mean it was misrepresentative. Likewise, I didn't puff up a description about the posts contrary to your position. G) You had no need to post that it was "off the mark." I had saved you the trouble by ending it with commentary that you'd consider it incorrect. :)--> H) Someone asked for a summary of the action to date. I provided the best summary I could of that. It was NOT meant as a definitive statement of ANY position. Trust me, a REAL refutation would pack a LOT more punch than that. I) My summary was hardly "disjoined"-I find, for an "off-the-cuff" posting, it hangs together remarkably well, maintaining grammar and sticking to its subject matter as some posts do not. Then again, since you don't LIKE my post, and are not given to "discussion" of a literary type, I'd expect you to disapprove of it categorically. You COULD at least appreciate it on its artistic merits, after all. J) If that was an attempt at "summary of Mike's message", it would have been less effective communication than it was. Part of that would be that it would be IMPROPERLY LABELLED. It's CLEARLY LABELLED. There was no "hidden message" in it-it's labelled what it's supposed to be. If I opened a technical manual for some computer hardware, and it clearly was labelled a manual for setting up a network, and, instead, it was really a manual for installing a modem, it would certainly be less useful for its incorrect label. (Out of practice reading in a linear fashion, or just responding out of emotion? Either way, it's not a good thing.) K) I've been in discussions on journalistic integrity before, with professional jounalists with journalistic integrity. If they looked at a journalistic work of mine and declared it not up to specs, I'd be concerned. They are trained and experienced in attempting to minimize journalistic bias in writing and in reviewing such writings. Granted, my OWN journalistic experience and training is far short of that-I'm NOT a professional journalist-I HAVE benefitted from their tutelage. L) If I HAD claimed it was a "summary of Mike's message", it would be subject to criticism on both its content and its framing. I confined the content germane to your position to things you directly posted. I set the structure to list a simple chronology. IF I HAD claimed it was a journalistic representation, it would have been passable at both, but fail due to lack of documentation. Mike, it takes more than a grasp of the language to make a decent journalist, but it does NOT require he push an agenda. He lets the facts speak for themselves. If I HAD claimed such, I'd stake MY ability to perform as a journalist against YOURS in any fair contest, in any unbiased venue. Since I did NOT claim that's what I was doing here, your complaints were not relevant. They also fall short of a professional critique. This MAY come as a surprise to you, but twi survivors do NOT automatically excel in all fields. That was a fiction certain people held (hold?) forth. You lack journalistic training, journalistic experience, and journalistic credentials. Forgive me if I take your "journalistic critique" lightly as a result, on my "journalistic" piece on the "summary of Mike's message". ----------------------------------------------- In short, your objections were unable to address even ONE point of my post, demonstrated an inability to READ THE LABEL, and claimed the authority to speak on yet ANOTHER subject you know less about than the person you're addressing. On a Mike thread, that's typical. ----------------------------------------------- P.S. -Again, if you look closely, I did NOT descend to mudslinging in this post-I kept my comments confined to your own. To disagree with you is NOT to demonstrate intellectual dishonesty.

Fortunateone, Ok, I'm going to try to summarize everything for the latecomers. WORDWOLF'S SUMMARY OF THE ACTION SO FAR: ======================================== ======================================== ======================================== (Going in chronological order) God issues Bible Several centuries later, various men of God challenge the established positions of traditional Christianity. Also, several men announce they have special revelation from God and they are the sole source of knowledge from God. Various men of God continue to do what God wants thru the ages. In the 19th century, EW Bullinger comes along, writing many books on Bible research. In the 20th century, EW Kenyon writes several books on God's love and our relationship to Him. JE Stiles teaches on the holy spirit field, writing his book "Gifts of the SPirit". BG Leonard writes many books and teaches many classes on God and the Bible. Victor Paul Wierwille goes thru various schools in his education, some of questionable pedigree. Victor Paul Wierwille encounters the writings of EW Bullinger. VPW encounters JE Stiles, and is taught by him personally. VPW takes BG Leonard's class. VPW begins teaching his classes, where he claims he cast aside all other theology books and outside sources, and consulted privately with God and God only, the results of which included his PFAL class. The body of the materials entirely matches information seen in BG Leonard's class which VPW took, with some additions from Stiles and Bullinger. The collateral book "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" seems to be a rewriting of Stiles book. VPW also write the "Studies in Abundant Living", which also seem to mirror some of Kenyon's books. VPW claims that in 1942, God promised him that if he would teach God's Word like it hadn't been known since the First Century, if he would teach it to others. VPW builds TWI, a ministry claiming to be the only Christians to truly understand and teach the Bible in the 20th century like they did in the first century. (Their lack of resemblance to the first century church is never brought up.) The key engine of this group is the PFAL classes, which claim to be classes on KEYS to understanding the Bible, "the revealed Word and Will of God", to quote the cornerstone of Session One. Time progresses. The organization, under VPW, steadily organizes all its activities so that headquarters controls everything. VPW organizes headquartes so that his POV entirely prevails at headquarters. According to many women, during this time period, VPW, while the absolute temporal leader of TWI, committed various acts of rape, molestation, sodomy, etc. on them and other women. These charges are buried until the internet makes communication easy. During this time, various leaders point out various sins and errors in leadership. These leaders are kicked out and buried until the internet makes communication easy. In the early 1980s, VPW hand-picks LCM to succeed him as absolute leader of TWI. In the mid 1980's VPW dies. In the remainder of the 1980's and 1990s, various problems and issues escalate in TWI. In the 1990's, the internet makes it easy for hushed ex-members to compare notes and see what was hidden from them. First Waydale and then the GreaseSpotCafe are founded, allowing increased communication and providing information and a place to recover and get closure for ex-twi survivors. In the early 2000's, Mike arrives at GSC. Mike announces that, due to the Bible being now useless due to corruptions over 2000 years, God gave entirely NEW revelation to VPW in the 20th century. PFAL and the collateral readings are the vehicle for the new revelation, which entirely supercedes the Bible. In 1942, God promised it would be so. Mike says that if we "master" those materials, we will reach the mystical plateau some of us thought TWI would provide, seeing amazing revelation from God and demonstrations of His power. This will be dependent on memorization of those books, the refusal to consider any evidence of error in them, and the seeking out and finding of "hidden messages" from God larded thru the books all these years. According to Mike, VPW was a genius mentally, and physically, an incredible specimen. VPW was not actually perfect, but most claims of his sins are bogus, and those that ARE real should be disregarded, as the end (super-God revelation for the 20th century!) justifies the means (molestations, abuses, etc.). Besides, any other Christian leader would have left a similar trail of abuses, rapes, etc., so we should be thankful we at least got God's amazing superrevelation in the process. ALL Christians outside of TWI are essentially no-nothings, perhaps well-meaning, but, lacking the special documents of pfal, vpw and twi, they just can't measure up. They only have the Bible to rely on, which is error-ridden and mere tattered fragments of what God meant to tell us. ---------------------------------------------- On this thread, posts have largely alternated between Mike proselytizing his message, rebuttals, responses, and outrage from the respondents, and Mike's responses that anyone who doesn't fall in line with his theology is rejecting God, and being intellectually dishonest, and seeking to set themselves against the declared revelation of God Almighty. This includes his own disapproval of the various "summaries" and "updates" by WordWolf, who, according to Mike, keeps misrepresenting Mike's message, and is an unfit steward of God, and is incapable of reading vpw's books with understanding. That will certainly include THIS update. :)--> That's the shortest summary of Mike I can give, but many others here will certainly point out the things I've left out. ============================================== ============================================== ==============================================

Ok, then..... Approximately HOW do you determine WHICH verses, Mike, are "unreliable fragments" and "tattered remants", and WHICH are given by God and accurate? Is it merely which ones agree with you? Which ones vpw quoted? (And anything he didn't quote is a "tattered remnant"?) This is a much, much more important question than any others I have on the table. I'm sure LOTS of us would love to hear this answer. I can stand to wait significant amounts of time on the other questions-so long as I know the answers ARE coming. Please- We've just GOT to hear your criteria. (There ARE criteria, right?)

Mike: Thanks for replying (somewhat). Concerning Steve's question, yes. I followed the discussion, and the points you and Steve made. At last I looked, Steve's last point seems to have illustrated that yours was an invalid statement. You said vpw said something, and Steve pointed out it seems to go nowhere. Therefore, either 1) Prove it goes somewhere 2) Admit it goes nowhere I'm interested in seeing either possibility. (Not to be confused with PRETENDING either possibility.) So, yes, pending further data, it looks like that quote was a statement that, when someone actually examines it rather than blindly assuming it's correct, goes nowhere. ---------------------------------------------- Regarding the other points (C,D,E, or the rape issue, the 1942 promise and plagiarism), I didn't list the possibility you felt they'd been discussed sufficiently, true. I also didn't list the possibility that you're afraid a REAL objective discussion of shame would show that reverence of vpw and pfal is building a house on sinking sand. I made no speculations on that either way. We DID discuss "the 1942 promise" on several threads, which you avoided, covering different aspects. Whether or not it was actual snow or a vision of snow was the least of all the matters discussed. Your complete silence on those threads was rather conspicuous. ------------------------------------------- "Hebrews was written by an AUthor Who had complete foreknowledge of these times we live in now." Make up your mind, Mike. Is Hebrews 4:12 completely unreliable, or isn't it? It's always funny to see you say the Bible's worthless, then quote a verse you like later. Another thing I'd like to ask is if you're aware that your last statement basically said that all of vpw's writings are referred to retroactively as the Word of God, since you've declared vpw's writings as such, and that, as such, Hebrews 4:12 refers to them. --------------------------------- You may like to post "presentations or announcements" here. However, this is STILL a discussion board. Anything you post here, is, by definition, open to discussion. (As is everything I post.) Your preferred format is to control the discussion and talk AT, rather than discuss, prove, disprove. Your decision. That's suited to your own website, or your own book. If you run your own show, you can declare a monopoly on authority, as you prefer. So long as you post on GSC, EVERYTHING is an "argument" (in both senses of the term.)

For those of you wondering if the tally I was doing the other day has changed, here's the latest... A) Concerning Steve's question, it became a "dishonest" question again. Mike suggested that an answer to that one question should be sufficient to convince people to wildly embrace his viewpoint. He asked what Steve would do with an answer- "Drop your present line of research and start mastering PFAL?" B) Mike seems to be less insulting, although his trademark hubris will never change. Still, that's an improvement of sorts. C) Concerning vpw's numerous accounts of rape, he suggested anyone else would have done the same. After saying vpw said people put in top positions were done so regardless of whether or not they were qualified, he said "He often said this of himself, even... God often had a limited number of flawed men He could install as leaders: King Saul and Balaam are two extreme examples discussed here before....All God selected, all got it screwed up royally. You and I'd done the same in one category or other had we been tapped to serve God's people." This, BTW, is on-subject because Mike is convinced that God appointed vpw in a manner similar to King Saul, and, apparently, with the similar level of authority. So, he's still saying anyone else would have done it, and that, since vpw was "Doctor" and "The Teacher", ruining people's lives should be overlooked. D) Concerning the 1942 promise, a stony silence. E) Concerning the pfal class being a photocopying of the work of a handful of others, a stony silence. F) Concerning the "mastering PFAL" "secrets", nothing. He requoted that thing about memorizing pfal, but won't say this is supposed to be 1/2 the task. About the abject refusal to read or consider anything NOT pfal, in a pitiful attempt to hide from anything that could show up pfal as a scam, or show that OTHER Christians can and do exceed vpw's level of skill. ----------------------------------------------------------- Oh, and if anyone is wondering if I'll be adding anything of substance to the discussion, other than pointing out when Mike refuses to do so, the answer is "yes."

For those who missed it, Mike accused others on this thread of being "logic-starved". I thought that was too funny to miss. -------------- Mike, I asked a simple question before. You seemed to say earlier that you were going to address Steve's question soon. I asked if that was true, and if so, roughly, when. About 24 hours later, you were attacking Steve's character and accusing him of different things. (I don't mean a few hours ago.) Looked like you were now saying you WEREN'T going to answer his question. Please declare in plain English. Will you be addressing Steve's question about realms superceding each other? If so, roughly when? ----------------------------- BTW, Mike, for someone who claims to have "no hatred to people here", you have felt very free to toss around insults the entire time you've been here. Those who've disagreed with you, and presented LOGICAL, REASONABLE positions, you've called unfit reasearchers, you've all but called us all charlatans, you've claimed, sight unseen, that only YOU have done sufficient amounts of research on a variety of subjects, mostly vpw's writings, pfal, Bible research, and surprise forays into various hard sciences. You've basically said we're all unable to read, and that all conclusions we've reached that do NOT agree with yours are invalid. You've lumped all disagreements with you, including logical discourse, into the category of "personal attacks". Perhaps some were-but so were many of yours, and you feel yours were perfectly justified. It's so much easier to simply claim "you can agree with me, or you can be WRONG!" and claim all disagreements with you are parts of some demonic conspiracy (go back a page- you DID imply that, buried in a lengthy quote), since it absolves you of all responsibility to be intellectually honest. Since you arrived, you've CLAIMED you examined everything we object to for "5 years" before even showing up here. That's a good trick- especially since much of the evidence has come out in the past YEAR-including right under your nose. You closed your investigation before all the facts were in. However, your answers to all the objections that have been raised have largely been evasions. Here's a summary of your responses to the "rape" issue. A) I don't believe he did it. B) Whatever he did wasn't a big deal because we needed him since he's "The Teacher", and we can excuse him of indiscretions since he was indispensable. C) Any other guy would have done the same in his position. D) I refuse to let myself be distracted on this issue. Here's a summary of your responses to date on the issue of whether or not vpw got special revelation in 1942: A) vpw said he did, so he did. B) You can't prove he didn't. C) The proof is that we got results from his writings-that could not happen if he had not been assigned the special God-dude. D) The current proof he did is somewhere in vpw's writings. E) I refuse to let myself be sidetracked with this issue. On the subject of the pfal class being largely a re-editing of BG Leonard's class, with whole sections of JE Stiles' book on the Holy Spirit and EW Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible" added, and NOT, as he stated so unambigiously during that same class, the result of countless hours between himself and God with ONLY a Bible as reference, and only AFTER taking all his other reference books out to the "town gehenna, where the fires never go out", and dumping them in the city dump, where they could NOT be used as references for the pfal class, you've been singularly silent. Whole sentences and paragraphs seem to have been lifted, word-for-word, out of their works and EW Kenyon's works. As far as you're concerned, God dictated the entire thing to vpw, with no regard to what the other authors wrote. Frankly, if I wanted to master pfal in it's REALLY pure form, I'd do the best job by memorizing BG Leonard's class, Stiles and Bullinger's books, and rounding out with EW Kenyon. Also, I think it's about time you came clean about the process of "mastering pfal" you keep mentioning from time to time. I asked you about it before, and didn't expect a straight answer. I got a partial answer, which surprised me. Your answer was that to reach mastery, one step was to memorize the pfal books. OK, not a shocker, but you actually addressed my question, sort of. (The real question was not how to get there, but what the target-goal WAS, what can a "Master of PFAL" expect?) The other part of your answer slipped out when you were addressing Schwaigers. You took Schwaigers to task about actually using other materials besides pfal as source material. You said they should dismiss all other source material. (Not for a short time, as advocated in pfal, but for an indefinite period.) So, putting the 2 halves together, here's what the picture looks like. A person seeking "mastery of PFAL" must memorize vpw's PFAL books. They must read them backwards and forwards, and be able to recite them whole from memory, able to quote them page-by-page on any subject they address. A person seeking "mastery of PFAL" must absolutely eliminate all other sources of input other than the PFAL books. NO other Christian writer is to be trusted, no Bible is to ever be cited-or sighted. Once those 2 tasks have been accomplished, the acolyte has now reached a state where he has discarded ALL information that could possibly interfere with total devotion to PFAL, and possibly discredit it at any point. Having now ruthlessly eliminated any contradicting data, the acolyte is now ready to dogmatically assert that PFAL is the be-all and end-all of things. It's certainly the be-all and end-all of his life, since he's discarded everything else. To those of us glad to be thinking for ourselves, such a process seems remarkably similar to brainwashing, and indoctrination into a cult. But, Mike, go ahead. If I've misrepresented the process to "mastering PFAL", please clarify EXACTLY what I said wrong about it. Does it NOT involve wholesale memorization? (That's essentially the answer you gave me previously.) Does it NOT involve discarding and dismissing any and all materials not directly relating to PFAL, especially anything refuting it? (That's essentially the answer you gave Schwaigers before.) Go ahead-declare it plainly. Is this exactly what you meant to say? If not, EXACTLY what's the difference? No, don't tell me, let me guess... "You've misrepresented me. You do not wish to honestly present my side, and so you distort it. I refuse to address your questions, since they're intellectually dishonest. I have other matters, more important, to address, and I'm too busy. I refuse to discuss this in the discussion forums I post in." Well, Mike? Are you going to invoke the same old cop-outs (see the previous paragraph), or will you level with your readers? Those are simple questions, and I KNOW you're online. This won't require a lot of research, just a statement of your position. Are you going to answer, or run away?

Exactly. I figure "the Architect" (white lab coat guy) was lying thru his teeth. As you pointed out, he was already wrong. He has proved unable to accurately predict Neo's actions in the rest of the movie. My prediction for Part 3? Neo and that traitor, in taction with the Matrix at the nexus point of the master control program, fighting it out for whose vision will determine the destiny of the matrix. Yes, as I saw it, the other mentioned were all programs. That includes the Merovingian and Persephone (the guy in the restaurant and his 'wife'), and their minions. Somebody HAD already pointed out that previous programs were the origin of legends like vampires, werewolves, and ghosts. (I think it was Smith.) BTW, Smith seems to have some basic upgrades besides the 'virus' ability, doesn't he? Anybody else caught the "bowling" sound during that cool fight scene with 100 Smiths? Ok, back to the "legends". Persephone points out the Keymaker's guards were unreliable, but hard to destroy. "After all, who carries silver bullets?" (That is, they were werewolves. Slow-reacting werewolves, at that, with lousy, un-wolflike instincts.) We also see those 2 albinos turn insubstantial and pass thru things like some sort of spectre. (That is, they were ghosts.) I think the Oracle and Keymaker, among others, are free programs NOT under the auspices nor the agenda of the main control program. (Like Tron in the movie "Tron".)

Goey, unless you're quoting from something I never read here, Mike called the modern version "unreliable fragments AND tattered remnants." (Then again, the overall meaning was preserved in your quote.) --------------------------------------- Hold everything...... ...Mike, did you say you were currently working on an answer to Steve's question, and would present it soon? "I will produce more references. I've been culling through the 80 I mentioned last month. I've whittled it down to 50, and will soon pick out the best 10 or 20." (6/03/03, 1:49am.) That was in response to Steve's reminder that "It's *your responsibility to bring in 'those many other passages'. If you can't just say so." (6/02/03 1:43pm) I may not be an expert in Mike-idioms, but, by golly, sounds like that's what you said. So, is that what you meant? If not, please explain what you DID mean. If so, give us a ballpark. Will we see this list sometime before, say, 6/15? 7/4? End of summer? (I, for one, can refrain from asking beforetime if I have an estimate to work from.)

True. Mike's very good at doing his best to try to draw attention to that which he is UNABLE to defend. You remember when he stated OUTRIGHT what his policy was, some time ago- distract, deflect, evade-but never admit an error is an error. Since he is unable to answer Steve's question, Steve's question is "unimportant". Since Goey pointed out that he violated vpw's own rules of taking the CONTEXT into account when trying to make a theology out of the placement of the word "necessarily" in one sentence, Goey's guilty of disregarding a "local contra-context." What IS a "local contra-context", BTW? Must be a new term made up to obfuscate the fact that Mike's own vocabulary of legitimate terms isn't up to keeping pace with Goey's own assertions. Mike's been pretty consistent in disregarding ANY part of PFAL (which, according to Mike, is God-breathed) which invalidates his position. ------------------------------------------ Any chance we'll see him actually address Steve's perfectly legitimate question about realms superceding each other, and their use as an analogy? Doubtful. It's either "umimportant" or a "dishonest question" or some other vague accusation.

On other forums where younger teenagers post, I have occasionally had a specific comment. It was this. They felt very defensive that they posted what were seen as silly ideas, and were challenged on them. So, they reacted in a hostile and defensive fashion. My reply was to explain a basic rule of decorum in debate, which works on other boards. You put forth a statement, or advance a position. That position is then challenged by others. You now have three possible VALID responses. A) RETRACT your position- "I've seen the error of my ways!" B) REPHRASE your position- "I've been misunderstood, and here's how!" C) SUPPORT your position- "Here's why you should agree with me!" -------------------------------------------- Like many people here and elsewhere, I have found it necessary to rephrase myself from time to time. That's because I know what I meant, but somehow it didn't translate into a post that others could easily understand. That happens sometimes. We're human. Anyone here who's seen me start a post with the words "thank you for giving me another change to explain that", or "Yeah, THAT'S what I meant" has seen that in action. I DON'T think it's proper to immediately attack people for misunderstanding what I MEANT to say. I accept that I make imperfect posts, and that's not proof of a conspiracy. Some people might reconsider their approach to the INEVITABLE misunderstandings. Shazdancer has ALREADY pointed this out, with both eloquence and greater brevity than me. ----------------------------------------------- Further, it's BAD form to advance a position and then insist it's right without defending it. "My position is right! You disagree because you are too lazy to read up on it, and those of you who've read up and still disagree are wrong because you didn't read it correctly!" Steve Lortz addressed a specific issue. He asked a specific question. Steve pointed out the reasoning is circular and incomplete. Mike then had 3 valid possible responses- A) agree and RETRACT his position B) REPHRASE his position C) SUPPORT his position Mike's response? "..you're more interested in tripping me up in some statement that I made..." "I'm admitting that I am not paying much attention to the details of your demands." "My priorities are such that proving anything to you is very low in how much time and attention I'm willing to give it." That's NONE of the three approaches. That's an evasion. Further, it's a clear violation of Robert's Rules of Order, concerning decorum in debate. That is, you debate the POSITION, not the PERSON. Tossing around accusations and insults does NOT support one's position. Steve was approaching Mike's assertions in a respectful tone, and with honest discussion. Mike's response: I'm not answering that! You're obviously trying to trip me up! NO, MIKE-he's challenging your thesis! If your position is CORRECT, it can stand a little HONEST scrutiny in discussion. If it CAN'T stand up to scrutiny, then it's NOT correct, and you should sit down. (I'm not addressing comments that were not made between Mike and others that were more insult-slinging, just between honest attempts at discussion and Mike's responses.) ----------------------------------------- Further, Mike, "posing challenging questions" is not the same as "I told you to read everything VPW wrote!" That's not a question at all-that's a demand. Further, it's an evasion, and a refusal to support your position. If you're going to post at the GSC, you have accepted the climate here. That includes the reality that you will be engaged in REAL DEBATE. Either roll up your sleeves and prepare for some INTELLIGENT DISCOURSE, or be prepared to have the deficiency of your positions pointed out over...and over...and over...and over...... with your only response being "None of you can read correctly! You are all unfit researchers! You have all decided to misunderstand me! I'm the only honest one here! All of your challenges are invalid!" That's just going to look worse and worse as time rolls on. Tiresome, too. Well, you've got a choice. I figure I know what decision you'll make, but, hey, you might surprise me (and the rest of us who actually discuss things.)

Uh, No, Mike, it's NOT news. Many of us ARE quite capable of reading with comprehension, and have been doing so for years. (Even when material isn't quite up to scratch.)

Steve, I'm betting you catch what I saw in the last post, in answer to your question. Since it's your question, I'll let you address it, though. :)--> --------------------------------------------- Mike, for now, I'll drop the discussion of credentials, training, education and experience, mainly because, at present, it's not going to enhance the discussions. Keep in mind that I reserve the right to do so if it becomes germane to any thread. (Like someone claiming qualifications.) It's certainly not because I thought your answer addressed my question. For now, I can agree to "table" it.

So, without a degree in ANYTHING, you found a place willing to employ you doing "thirty years of research in quantum physics INCLUDING THE MATH". (Emphasis yours.) I openly challenge THAT happened, then. BTW, if you are under 45, that means that you started younger than age 15, and have just finished doing that research. If you are 50, you started at age 18 and stopped to years ago. (Or just stopped and started at age 20.) ---------------------------------------------- Unless you have your own special definition of "research" or "30 years". Was that it?

After seeing how you "handled" other scientific subjects, I openly challenge you having a degree in physics, qualifying you to do "30 years of research in quantum physics INCLUDING THE MATH". (Emphasis yours.) Furthermore, I'm just a little curious how someone with a veritable lifetime's worth of research in physics is not working in anything vaguely resembling academia, unless he can do better for himself (like, say, run a corporation.) Sorry, Mike, I just don't take anyone's word that they're well-researched, qualified, or "THE anything" anymore.

Being born again gives one considerable tools for doing the will of God. It does NOT make one immune to committing sinful behaviour, nor does it make one immune to devilish influence. What one is SUPPOSED to do is make the decision to "make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof." One is SUPPOSED to call on the power of God, not automatically assume He's zapping every devil that approaches you. The idea that leadership could provision places and times for sinful behaviour, inviting devilish influence, and expect God to force His protection on him despite his choices was profoundly silly, and practiced from the top.

seaspray, I'm glad you're tone has improved. I'm hoping we can disagree with fewer insults this time around. HOWEVER, you said "the greatest scientific and religious minds on the planet all agreed the earth was flat". This makes for a nifty song, and a fable exalting eurocentric colonialism, but in NO way reflects the historical accounts. Columbus' sailors and captains all knew the world was round. The REAL question on those ships was whether or not there would be time to reach the East Indies before they ran out of room. (Incidentally, if they did NOT bump into an entire other hemisphere, they WOULD have run out of food, returning to Europe or starving.) This was OLD NEWS. In the days of the GREEK EMPIRE (BC times), they knew the world was round. A few evidences of this included the round shadow the earth casts on the moon, how the horizon curves, etc. Sailors have plenty of evidence of this, so this was common knowledge. In fact, it was Eratosthenes who calculated out the circumference of the earth using calculus. His figure was correct, plus or minus a tiny fraction/margin of error. In fact, we've discussed this in the GSC before. (That was when someone pointed out that it was Eratosthenes who did the math, not Anaxander.) In case you are wondering, I learned this in college, I saw this on PBS, and I reread this in a book I bought fairly recently. This is NOT secret knowledge. The tendency to speak authoritatively on subjects in which one is not an authority was epidemic in twi, and is more common at the GSC than among most Christians. (From what I've seen.) -------------------------------------------------------- I DID want to address Mike's repeated insult of the rest of the GSC again. Coolwaters beat me to it, of course. Mike, this may come as a surprise to you, again. THE REST OF US CAN THINK. WE HAVE BEEN THINKING. WE ALL CAME TO CONCLUSIONS OTHER THAN YOU. That's not because we were "lazy". Lots of people here are equally determined as you, lots have equal or greater experience to you, lots are smarter than you. NONE OF THEM CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSIONS AS YOU. We don't need to "RE-THINK" anymore. The only things "significant" about your opposition are the huge blocks of time you give it, and the fact that Pawtucket hasn't canned your @$$ long ago. (BTW, I DID vote NOT to force you out. I would rather have had you moderate your tone and learn manners than you be dumped.) You owe Paw an inestimable thanks. Your insistence that you are the one voice crying in the wilderness is insulting and amazingly narrow-minded. "Ever want to obey God on this?" Well, if your definition of obeying God is your idolatrous worshipping of a man-especially THAT man-then I can pass. I'll stick with the Bible's definition of obeying God. I'll obey the things clearly written, and the things He tells me directly, NOT the things one man claims another man was told by God. You know, if your manner was a LOT less arrogant and insulting, you'd get a LOT less flak for your idiotic posts. (Idiotic being from "idios", meaning "one's own", as taught in pfal.) Actually, Coolwaters said it all better than me.