Goey

Aren't mules impotent?

Goey

"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"

Hills,

If you stay off of the girly Web Sites you probably would not get these popups. :D-->

I have Panicwares pop-up stopper and it works fine for me. If it is a real problem, try changing Panicware's control setting to "agressive" , but this will cause some sites (Like GS) not to work properly.

You may want to download Ad Aware by Lavasoft. It will clean up any "trackware" that was inadvertantly installed on your system. This may help.

Also all of the images in those pop-ups are stored on your system in the Temporary Internet folder. You may want to clear it out. Do this under the "Tools" > "Internet Options" for Internet Explorer.

Goey

What The Hay,

quote:

---

Although I am far from conluding, PFAL="THE GOD BREATHED WORD", PFAL contains tools to help one master the Word of God, which in turn gives one a greater mastery of life. I believe PFAL is still the greatest assemblage of those tools, even if VPW did take them from various sources.

---

What other works, if any, have you read or studied that lead you to conclude that PFAL is the greatest of these? I have heard this statement made by other PFAL fans before, but after a bit of probing, it was pretty clear that many had never ventured outside of PFAL and Bullinger to even know what was out there - much less study them. If you haven't studied other works then you have no way to make a fair and honest comparison. Maybe you have, but I kind of doubt it.

quote:

---

I think many people got lazy and allowed TWI/LEADERSHIP/PFAL to master them. The best thing they could have done was get tired of it and leave that brand of leadership. I think that is why many here are sick and tired of hearing what Mike has to say. Yep - I'd hate playing the piano too if someone kept forcing me into doing it. So unlike Mike, I ain't forcing anybody into mastering PFAL. It's their choice if they want to or not.

---

I think laziness has little to do with why folks are sick and tired of Mike's message. Mike is not trying to force anyone. He is just offering his opinion which he takes much too seriously. What Mike is also doing though, is exalting PFAL, the work of a man, above the real Word of God and then saying that "mastery" of PFAL is the "only" true way to know God.

Mastery of PFAL is not necessarily a bad thing, and mastery of certain parts of PFAL would in my opinion be time very well spent, but not because it is the Word of God, but rather because it teaches some pretty good remedial keys on how to come to a greater understanding of the real Word of God which is revealed through scripture.

Unfortunately, the very scriptures that PFAL itself refers to as the "Revealed Word of God", Mike refers to as "unreliable remnants". So it is very clear that what Mike refers to as "mastery of PFAL" really means something quite different than learning and skillfully applying the real information that PFAL tries to convey to those that study it.

What Mike says and what PFAL says are in many places - diametrically opposed. So, in a nutshell, what Mike is really saying is nothing more than "follow me".

Goey

Posted by Mike:

quote:

---

It's the IMPROPER implimentation of Dr's teachings that gave rise to the vast majority of the problems.

May I please have this opinion?

---

Mike, you can have any opinion you want, but that does not preclude folks from calling it hogwash - which is what this one is.

Goey

SeaSpew,

quote:

---

Are you saying the earth really is flat?

---

Really now SeaSpittle, if you can't figure out my point, maybe you should go back to remedial kindergarten.

quote:

---

Did you, or did you not switch your "religiously and superstitiously ignorant folks of the past" for my "greatest scientific and religious minds on the planet". A simple yes or no will suffice.

---

I already explained it. Go back and read again.

quote:

---

Is this not stirring the pot?

---

Depends upon your prospective SeasSpore. If pointing out the flaws in your twisted analogy is "stirring the pot" - then you decide.

quote:

---

You certainly are welcome to any opinion you choose, but why throw a temper tantrum whenever something is said you disagree with or don't like.

---

Temper trantrum? How presumptive and/or ignorant. Why try to make things up, SeaSpam. You have no real clue do you? Go back into your cave.

Goey

Seaspray,

Where did you go to school?

The greatest scientific minds figured out and knew that the earth was not flat but indeed round. It happened at different times and different places. It was the superstitiously ignorant scientific minds who claimed to be great that believed the earth was flat-not the great ones. In at least on era this was because of religious suppresion and denial of any true scholarship that suggested the earth was not the center of the universe.

Actually it was you that used the "tactic" when you used an analogy that misrepresented and twisted historical fact in support of Mike's silly theories. You used the "bait and switch" in your analogy from the get go. I just turned it back around and presented it honestly.

According to your analogy, GSer's who disagree with Mike are like those who disagreed with Galileo. But are they really? Actually you have it reversed.

It is Mike that is resting upon superstition and unsupportable theories. It is Mike that sees "hidden messages" in Wiereille's tapes amd writings. It is Mike who refuses to use good logic and a scholarly approach. It is Mike that denies or glosses over facts presented to him.

But Seaspray, I think you know all of this. It is my guess that you are just here to stir the pot, because you seemed to have never offered anything of any substance here.

BTW, my nic is Goey not Goo. I would appreciate it if you used it correctly.

Goey

MIke,

quote:

---

I think we've reached that point here. When the rains end I'll have less time, the posting frequency won't be so breakneck, and we'll all have more of it to think up better things than "dumbass."

If you folks picked a spokesman, and you're reading on the sidelines, you could wait for a "time out" where no one's posting for a few days, before posting your two cents.

---

What? You seem to think that we all agree to the end that one spokesperson could fit the bill and that possibly we communicate behind the scenes concerning your posts - not so.

I for one, have absolutely no interest in picking a "spokesperson" and will continue to addrees your posts independantly.

-----------------------

Seaspray,

quote:

---

GSers in toto, seems at one time the greatest scientific and religious minds on the planet all agreed the earth was flat. What a coincidence!

---

Seapray, your analogy GSers with the religiously and superstitiously ignorant folks of the past is historically inaccurate and misses the mark by a long shot and is pretty ignorant of itself.

Mike is no Galileo. Galileo and others used good science. Mike, well I am not sure what he really uses but it is not good science.

By your analogy, anyone who comes up with a totally abusurd idea that is rejected by the status qo of religion and science must then be right.

Ok Seaspray, the moon is really just Swiss cheese. I must be right because no one believes it. What a coincidence! - Duh!

Goey

[This message was edited by Goey on May 01, 2003 at 11:11.]

Mike,

quote:

---

No. There's LOTS of other ways it's been confirmed! To us OLGs, that is.

I can see non-OLGs saying that there's little to none substantiation of the 1942 promise, other than Dr and his helpers saying it was so, that God contacted him. It would be a miracle to me if a non-OLG really took up with what I'm saying. Hey! Miracles do happen! But I'm not holding my breath waiting for one here.

---

Duh! Mike, wake up! This place is loaded with "OLG's". Do you see any agreeing with you, that there are "lots of other ways" that VPW's claim of the 1942 promise is confirmed? Not only are "non-OLG's" not taking up with what you are saying, neither are the "OLG's". It should tell you something.

Mike, If I claimed that God spoke directly to me and promised that He would teach me the Word if I would teach others. And then I went and studied the Bible and the works of some pretty good Bible scholars. And then I put in a book what I had studied, copying quite a bit of it from others and then began teaching it. And as a result of that teaching, thousands of folks learned about God and Christ and many got "blessed". But all the while, I was using my position as a respected teacher to trick and coerce women into having sex with me. And I taught that the loving thing to do was to cover it up and keep quite about it so no one get hurt and that the ministry is not blamed.

Does the fact that folks "got blessed" confirm my claim that God spoke to me and made me a promise? Of course it doesn't. Does the fact that some, if not a lot of what I taught was scripturally sound, mean that God gave it to me directly or that it is worthy of being canonized? Again, no. Neither do the facts that I copied much of what I taught from others and that I was a sex abuser necessarily mean that God did not speak to me, but it certainly would raise some very serious doubts. But the bottom line is that the claim is unsuportable and unprovable.

Your whole thing here is based on the unsupportable claims that God made a covenant with Wierwille in 1942 and that PFAL is God-breathed. Furthermore, you have offered nothing of substance either in the senses realm or in the spiritual to convince anyone to dedicate their life to the "mastery" of PFAL as you suggest. You have not mastered PFAL yourself. You yourself are not "doing all nine all the time." Even die hard Wierwille supporters reject your claim of the "God-breathedness" of PFAL and those collaterals that you deem worthy.

Mike, why should anyone believe anything that you say, much less act upon it? Why do you suppose that you are probably the only person in the entire world, out of billions of people, that sees what you see concerning VPW and PFAL? What makes you so special Mike?

Goey

Mike,

Wait for an answer? Don't be silly. Why would I consider waiting for any kind of legitimate or lucid answer from you? You have already proven that to be an effort in futility.

Until I get tired of it, I'll just continue to address the absurdity of what you post here and point out a few of more ridiculous and obvious flaws when I see them.

But don't kid yourself Mike - I am not waiting for an answer - at least not an understandable or cogent one. But then maybe you could surprise me.

Goey

Mike,

You posted:

quote:

---

After Goey has a word with you, and after you put it all together, can you please explain to Goey how it is I can in good conscience subscribe to posting as to how Kenyon, VPW, God, whoever... had some real good wisdom in advising us in a certain context of ?The Love Way,? that in MOST cases silence (or as much silence AS POSSIBLE) is a loving balance that promotes better family peace. It?s better than the two imbalanced extremes, ranging from tortured inappropriate silence, and extending to indiscriminant publication of hurt and hurtful messages

---

Mike, I am not interested in saving you time. You are posting this stuff, so it is your responsibility to explain it. This is another dodge that does not adequately address the point of my post - that is Wierwille's error or lie about Young's "translation" and the self serving hipocracy of Wierwille's interpretation of 1 Cor 13:7.

So Mike, would it then be "real good wisdom" for a family to be silent about sex abuse within itself - if dad is abusing the children - to keep the peace ? Or if the neighbors found out that the the man next door was abusing his children - that they should shut up about it because it might disturb the "family peace" next door? Or does this only apply to your hero Wierwille?

Goey

Wierwille on "Charity" ( in reagards to 1 Corinthians 13:7)

quote:

---

You see, one of the translators translates the seventh verse, which really startled me, he translates it "covereth all things." The King James reads "beareth all things." Young translates it "covering closely," and someone else translated it "cover with silence." I like that. Covers over with silence. What are they talking about? Oh, it's scandal for instance. It's something that has happened that is unseemly. Something that if it were known would injure perhaps a lot of people, might cause a division in the body of believers, might break up a family. What do we do if we have the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation?

---

Interestingly, Wierwille does not say who these translators are except for Young. Wierwille quotes Young as translating this part of verse 7 as "covering closely". Well. let's see what Young's translation really says.

1 Cor 13:7 (Young's Literal Translation)

quote:

---

7 all things it beareth, all it believeth, all it hopeth, all it endureth.

---

Well, what Wierwille says he does is not even close to how Young translates "beareth" in verse 7. - And what other "translator" is he talking about? No translation that I could find, translates this verse anything like "covers with silence".

So where does Wierwille get this from? He get's it from Strong's. But it is not from a "translation" as he eroneously states.

The word in question is the Greek "stegei" - a form of "stego" . Here is how Strong handles this word.

1) deck, thatch, to cover

a) to protect or keep by covering, to preserve

2) to cover over with silence

a) to keep secret

b) to hide, conceal

1) of the errors and faults of others

3) by covering to keep off something which threatens, to bear up against, hold out against, and so endure, bear, forbear

Wierwille, in his quest to keep scandal, and errors/faults in TWI silenced and covered-up, jumps on Strong's # 2A-1,2 in spite of the other more common usages, which he makes no mention of. Clearly to VPW, and probably to Mike, this mostly refers to covering up and silencing Wierwille's faults and Wierwille's scandalous behavior (and those of his trusted lackeys). Also take note that Wierwille himself had no problem whatsoever uncovering the faults of others. This is hipocracy in it's highest form. - foisting an interpretation of scripture in order to effect the silencing and coverering up of own's own scandalous and harmful behavior.

Wierwille even says, " We cover it closely with silence, we never mention it, and the thing dies there and no one is injured." - the Lock Box explained.

WHAT A CROCK OF CRAP ! VPW was not concerned with the injury to those on the receiving end of his faults and scandalous behavior. His notion was that if the scandal was covered up and silenced that no one was really hurt. Meaning him. Problem is that the "thing" did not die, because after being covered up, and after folks were silenced, the scandalous behavior continued and repeated - again and again and again - as was the plan.

Where Strong got #2A-1 from beats the heck out of me. There is nothing in the context in 1 Cor 13, to suggest that "stegei" in verse 7 means to cover up and hush up scandalous behavior within the church. That is not the context here at all.

A roof is put on a house, not to secretly keep rotten contents in and covered up, but rather to keep outside elements from damaging the good contents it holds.

Mike, how in good conscience can you subscribe to this crap?

Goey

[This message was edited by Goey on April 29, 2003 at 0:54.]

quote:

---

This data was not ignored, but it's not been totally accepted either. Just because someone states something on my computer screen, I don't immediately accept it as proved. Even seeing printed in a book or three isn't the final word on a subject.

I take years sifting through these things. This one has been filed away in the appropriate place for future work.

---

Mike, what a crock. Even if 100 of the best Greek scholars in the world presonally showed you how that "agape" was in use prior to Pentecost, you would not accept it, because it disagrees with what Wierwille taught.

But, you did indeed showed how is "could" be handled - with intellectual dishonesty.

Sadly, it is Wierwille and your own interpretation of his works that is your only standard for truth. This is the only "final word" that you accept. Not good Mike - not good at all. It is the epitomy of intellectual dishonesty.

Goey

Zix.

quote:

---

Goey: Um, okay, help me out here. If the Bible is just unreliable remnants, why would the Holy Blessed Doctor (praise be unto him) even bother with using them to fill the Holy Orange Testament (praise be unto it)? Surely the words of the Holy Blessed Doctor (praise be unto him) are pure unto themselves and need no support from lesser non-present truth?

---

Good question Zix. But we must trust that the Good Doctor knew what he was doing when he included and "seemed" to rely upon these unreliable remnants in all of his writings. The keyword here is "seemed." This is only an aparant dichotomy - AD. (a figure of speech) FOS. which only "appears" to be highlight what is important. Besides this AD/FOS is in the senses realm of our understanding and as such is insignicficant. We really need not ask this question.

quote:

---

Someone has put one of Holy Blessed Doctor's (praise be unto him) handwritten manuscripts up on eBay. How much should I pay for the Holy Blessed Grocery List (grapes be upon it)???

---

I think that a buck, two ninety-eight would be a steal at any price.

Goey

quote:

---

I have a question. I've forgotten twi's answer on this. How in the world did they get the fruit of the garden and eating the apple that eve was masturbating? Now if that is a change of words I don't know what is!!!! Just my opinion anyways.

---

Vickles. This was of course an error on Wierwilles part. Craig straigtend it all out for us out when he taught that Eve had lesbian sex with the serpent. What Adam did is still somewhat unclear but he most likely just joined in with Eve and the serpent because he said "I did eat." We all know what that means. --- Context people! - Context!

Craig's was the "fresher" revelation.

Goey

Zix,

Very good. John 10:10 is from an unreliable remnant. Wierwille's revelation is "fresher" and therefore cannot be construed as changing a word. It is a modern day "original".

But, according to Mike, only folks who can understand Wierwillian English have any chance at mastery of the Word of God. Translating PFAL into another language would, according to Mike, render it void of authority and no longer the Word of God. Word changing only applies to PFAL - the true Word. Who cares about those unreliable remnants?

Goey

[This message was edited by Goey on April 25, 2003 at 13:15.]

quote:

---

Remember, if one word is changed, then it?s no longer God?s Word, at least not in that area. In a translation almost ALL the words are changed.

---

Horse feathers! It does not matter how many words are changed as long as the concept. precept or idea is communicated as it was intended.

The Word of God is not the paper and ink, which btw is in the realm of the 5 senses. It is rather the idea or concept which is able to live in the heart. Dumbass.

Goey

Mike,

No, the words are not simply "similar". My source is the Septuagint as posted by ccel.org

Jesus was not speaking in a "flash forward" in the verse I quoted. He was speaking in "real time" as is evidenced by the Greek morpohology. It is Greek 101 and not arguable.

quote:

---

I don?t know if the word agape, or something like it, was floating around prior to Paul.

---

Well you do now Mike. Unless you choose to reject the "data" that I have just given you.

I could care less what the "Love Way" has in it's opening sentences unless it lines up with scripture.

What Penecost made "available" was the holy spirit.

Goey

The Septuagint uses the word "agape" a bunch of times in it's translation of the Hebrew OT into Greek. Here is only one of many examples:

Exodus 20:6

Exd 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love [agaposin] me, and keep my commandments.

It is clear that the word "agape" was in common use some 300 or so years before Penetcost. Agape "love" was not absent before Penetcost.

Wiewille states: "The word agapao literally means that it becomes yours when you're born again of God's spirit, when that eternal life which is Christ in you comes in at the time of the new birth."

Wierwille is inventing definitions again. There is no evidence to suggest that agapao changed meanings from one thing on the day before Pentecost and to another on the day after. Prior to Pentecost, Jesus used the word agapao quite a few times.

John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth [agapôn] me: and he that loveth [agapôn ] shall be loved [agapêthêsetai] my Father, and I will love[agapêsô] him, and will manifest myself to him.

The tense is clearly in the present at the time that Jesus said these words. It was indeed possible to agapao love prior to the day of Pentecost. There are many examples of folks loving - agapeo proir to Pentecost.

The notion that folks cannot "agape love" without being born again and renewing their mind is unbiblical and nonsensical.

Goey

quote:

---

However, if there is not a concerted effort to the contrary, this material will be treated AS IF it were sexually salacious.

---

"Concerted Effort"? Don't be silly Mike. There will be no "concerted effort" one way or the other. It is not like GSers shoot emails back and forth to each other to collectively decide how to react to your "data". Each person will respond as he/she sees fit. There is no backroom concensus here. I don't know about anyone else, but I have never discussed with anyone beforehand as to what a particular response to your "data" should be.

quote:

---

I don?t think this learned association and its associated behavior, are proper but they are ingrained by now. I think it?s a bad habit, especially if it distracts the participants from the more subtle issues I want to point out.

Maybe I should just post the stimulating buzz words as a preview that will help acclimatize readers, and then they?ll be more able to resist the reflex.

---

Don't be rediculous Mike. I do not think that we need any "acclimation". By hem-hawing around about what you are gonna post (but haven't), and predictiong beforehand about how folks are gonna imnproperly react, you are probably just making it worse.

"Stimulating buzz words", Give me a break Mike. Do you really think you can post some "buzz words" and effect some kind of mind control so that folks will react in the way you think they ought to. Don't be silly.

What are you afraid of Mike? Stop making excuses and just post your stuff. Explain the "more subtle issues" and be done with it.

Goey

Mike Posted:

quote:

---

I'm just asking that the audience TEMPORARILY suspend their knee jerk urge to magnify the sex end of my next post, rather that the much more subtle spiritual end.

It's just not fair to readers who are trying to concentrate on the sublime, to be hit with lemons.

---

Now Mike wants to tell us how to react or not to react to something he says he is gonna post -something which he knows is liable to raise some ire here.

Grow up Mike. Folks are going to react based on the content and implications of what you post. You have no power over that. Stop trying to be a control freak.

Mike, if you would spend as much effort posting your "data" as you do telling us that you are gonna post it and teling uu how we ought not to react to it, you could have been done here by now.

Just post your damn stuff and move on.

Goey

quote:

---

No, that?s NOT my thesis.

---

Sure it is Mike. The proposition of PFAL being God-breathed is indeed a thesis and it is indeed yours. And whatever else you propose rests upon it.

quote:

---

First I build my case for mastery from the record and out obedience to Dr, and recognition that these final instructions were very well squelched by strong spiritual forces.

---

Mike, why should Wierwille's instructions be obeyed? And what gives the "record" any authority? Just because you say so? That is absurd. You are presuming that Wierwille spoke "ex cathedra" when he gave these instructions. Mike, how do you know that these instructions were "squelched by strong spiritual forces". Another presumption.

quote:

---

So, you got me backwards! I?m NOT ADDRESSING the unbeliever, just like the Bible is not addressed to the unbeliever. I therefore don?t expect it to be first proved on cyber paper to you, and then you?ll do the mastery. I only expect those who take me up on this challenge of obedience to Dr will see this proof.

---

Mike, I know who your are adressing. But why in the world would you think that anyone would take you up on this challenge of yours? You have offered no good reasons. By you own admission you have not mastered PFAL, so you could not possibly know the results of such mastery. From what I can see all you have mastered is the art of illogic. Again you are presuming PFAL to be God-breathed and Wierwille's instructions to be of some authority.

Tell you what. Go and master PFAL. And when you have mastered it come back and tell me what the results are. At least then you can give a personal testimony as to the results of this "mastery" that no one has ever attained to and that Satan is trying to squelch.

quote:

---

How can my thesis be washed up if it isn?t all presented yet?

---

It's easy Mike. Precept upon precept. If precept B is based upon the veracity of precept A, and precept A is eroneous, then precept B will be eroneous also, as well as any other precepts that rest upon either A or B. The entire thesis does not have to be presented if the first few precepts are in error - the rest will be in error as well.

Goey

Mike,

Your thesis is riddled with logical fallacy. You have simply declared VPW's works to be God- breathed by fiat. Then based upon this presumption you attempt to build your case for mastery. The argument you present is circular and therefore invailid.

There is not one shread of evidence that what VPW wrote in PFAL was given by revelation. Even VPW did not make that claim. PFAL itself does not make that claim. Only you.

The record of Balaam shows that God can indeed intervene into the wicked plans of evil men for his purposes, if He so chooses. Yet if offers us no more than the simple "possibility" that God could have given PFAL by revealtion through VPW ( a modern Balaam of sorts) This proves nothing. It is just as possible and even more probable that he did not. God's use of Balaam is the exception rather than the norm. We have a reliable and time - honored record of God bringing forth the Word from the mouth of Balaam - the scripture itself.

In contrast, we have no reliable record of PFAL being God-breathed and worthy of "mastery". The only "record" that seems to exist is your claim that it is so. There is no evidence . No evidence that God spoke to VPW in 1942 other than VPW's tesitmony. No evidence that there was a snowstorm - only VPW's testimony. There is no evidence of a "new covenant" where PFAL/collaterals supersede the NT scriptures. Your whole thesis rests upon the presumption that VPW was telling the truth in most everything he said and wrote, yet there is much evidence that VPW was less than honest in many areas. Telling the truth was not one of VPW's endearing qualities, yet your thesis rests upon it.

Mike, your thesis is washed up. It is hogwash and has no merit. It is based upon presumtpion, false logic and God knows what else.

Goey

Mike,

You posted to me:

quote:

---

Your disapproval of God?s sneak attack on the adversary is as solid as Lindbergh?s pacifism. I suppose you tore Balaam?s prophecy out of your Bible, because he was dishonest. If not, please explain this double standard.

---

Let's examine your statement here. I disaprove of your contrived and imagined scenario which you declare by fiat and claim to be "God's sneak attack upon the adversary. I disapprove of your claiming to know what God told to VPW. Your tactic of trying to make me seem in opposition to God is obvious.

Now about Baalam. I doubt you have studied the record of Balaam very much if you are using Balaam as an example to prove Wierwille's fitness as a man of God and as the messenger of a new convenant from God to mankind. First, Balaam was not a prophet of Israel. He was no man of God . He may possibly have been a "prophet at large" at one time, but it is clear that he was a conjurer similar to Simon Magus at the time of the record in Numbers. He was in the curse for hire business. God told Balaam, that "thy way is perverse before me." God had no respect for Balaam's ways.

Anyway, Balaam disregards God's charge to him and goes with the princes of Moab, yet they had not called him first - as was God's requirement. So we have a pretty wicked, disobedient, conjurer here in Balaam.

So finally Balaam, knowing that he is not supposed to curse Israel goes up with Balak anyway hoping that somehow he can do it, but God prevents him and instead of a curse out comes a blessing. Not giving up and instead of telling Balak to take a hike, Balaam goes to another place with Balak, hoping that if he looks in a different direction that he can muster up a curse for Balak, but again God instead puts His words in Balaam's mouth. This happens once again and thus we have Balaam's Prophecy. It is a record of how God can, if He chooses, use evil and wicked people to further His ends. Is that your contention? If so then I agree. I also agree that inspite of Wierwille's wicked and perverse ways, that GOD was able to have some good come of his pathetic life. Just like with Balaam.

But Mike, God did not exalt Balaam to MOGFOT. Balaam was not made the king of Israel. Balaam did not write "scripture". Balaam was not entrusted with a new covenant. God did not make Balaam a teacher or apostle or entrust him with the spiritual nurturing of others. Everything that Balaam said was not mined for hidden messages. Balaam just went home - probably irked that he did not get the booty and status the he so desired. He was a minor player in a "ministry" most likely againt his will, that lasted for a few days. God intervened and constrained Balaam from doing his own will of cursing God's people for money and status, and then constrained Balaam to bring forth a blessing instead.

What I see here with Balaam is that wicked men, Balak and Balaam, conspired to do evil, and that God intervened and some good came of it. Arguably this is might be what happened with VPW.

So, Mike why would I want to tear this record of Balaam out of my Bible? It is a very poignant lesson. There is no double standard at all.

BTW , why are you appealing to OT scripture which according to you are "unreliable remnants." Now that does appear to be somewhat of a double standard.

Goey

Mike Posted:

quote:

---

"...God said look over at that book. ?Copy this set of paragraphs, but change this and that.? After that scenario, I?m satisfied..."

---

Oh, you there Mike? I should have known. It must be grand being privy to the conversations between God and VPW.

Now, according to Mike, we have God himself telling VPW to plaigerize the works of others. God told VPW to break the law ( plaigerism is illegal) and to despense with professional ethics (morals).

Then Mike adds:

quote:

---

After that scenario, I?m satisfied. You can take your morals and apply them any way you want, but I?m not buying it. He did the right thing. It helped thousands. Still does. I?m glad he did it. Your moralizing on this bores me, and I will not bee moved.

---

According to Mike, VPW's breaking of the the law is doing the right thing. VPW's casting aside of ethics and morals is doing the right thing. But let's not forget, God told VPW to do it - because it would help thousands.

I wonder what other laws or moral and ethical codes God told VPW to break? I suppose it must have been God who told VPW is was the "right thing to do" when he used his position of authority to sexually abuse women or to commit adultery. After all, if VPW could not get his needs met at home in his marriage, then adultery and other forms of illicit sex were the only possible way to get his sexual needs met. VPW certainly could not have "helped thousands" if his "sexual needs" were not met. So I suppose that we should be "glad he did it" eh Mike? It was the right thing to do, huh?

Mike, since you seem to know exactly what God told VPW about plaigerizing Stiles, Bullinger, and Leonard, why don't you tell us what God told VPW right before he commited sexual abuse, rape, or adultery?

Goey

quote:

---

"That is, an ex-corpse person, who was in "active rebellion"against twi's draconian statements in 1989, had said that during vpw's life, his believing, and his believing ALONE,acted like a huge net over the entire USA, thwarting the devil..".

---

Yea right, I must have heard a score of such claims. Wierwille dies and the whole world goes to pot. Well, maybe the "world" of those that worshipped him crumbled.

But these things are all myths. Even if true ( I think not), there is no way to validate them. These kind of myths only go to exalt the man and make him seem indespensible. The extreme logical extension of this kind of stuff is the canonization of everything a man said or wrote. This is why I think the scriptures are pretty clear about giving the glory to God.

It was TWI that caused the fall if the Soviet Union. If it had not been for Wierwille's stand on the Word countless countries would have fallen to communism, California would have slipped off into the Pacific Ocean, and we would all now be speaking Russian - That is, if the giant comet that was headed directly for the Earth has not been diverted by VPW's great believing.

Gosh, and I could not even believe for a good parking spot at the Mall more than half the time.

Goey