Mike

Goey,

You wrote: ?Is that the best you can do Mike? Another dodge. And quite insincere I think. See Mike, the truth is that I did indeed mix Todd up with another poster and I apologized for that.?

Not a dodge. I thought it was funny that you got on my case for making the same kind of mistake as you made two posts later. Honest! I thought you were tong-in-cheek showing favorites, so I played along.

I post so much and read so much things do get blurry at times. I?m still getting to know people here and I can only do that one at a time. It was a honest mistake. I don?t like al this attention. I?d rather have the focus on mastering and what we are all finding in the books. That?s MUCh more fun than having you scold me.

Yes. That one does affect the mind.

But you know how quickly a man can reset his mind after sexual release. This is one of the big ways men differ from women.

We were taught that devils can be run off with sommething as simple as an aspirin or some music.

After sexual release a man is pretty immune to that spirit for almost a whole day. ...sometimes many days.

Zixar,

We discussed cancer before here. I see a big difference between having some skin cells attacked, but not the mind. How well did you pick up the details of that Advanced Class teaching. There were very few to pick up. I?ve thought about this often. It?s occurred to me that all death may involve spirits. I also know that the hierarchy of the adversary is large, and that there a lot of VERY low level spirits, so low our culture may prohibit us from even recognizing them as spirits. Some are dumber that dirt.

For one ds to have the ability to dittle with a victim?s one skin cell?s DNA, and then run off to attack someone else, while the bio-chain reaction precedes to finish off the first victim was one idea I brought up.

The alarming idea of devil influence in Dr?s MIND is what you?re talking about. I don?t think a cancer spirit has that ability. For someone to have a ds influencing his skin is not what I?d want to wish on anybody, because it?s bad. But I don?t see it disqualifying them from doing God?s work.

I realize you bring this up to debunk what I?m saying. However, I?m just curious where you stand on this. Which situation are you rooting for? I see two:

(1a) Dr was correct in his Advanced Class teaching about ds and cancer, (1b) but his mind was influenced and had bad writings.

or

(2a) Dr was incorrect in his AC teaching, so his cancer was not a devilish influence.

I guess you go with (1a) to arrive at (1b), but (2a) would suit your purposes. I was just wondering.

It?s possible that he was simply mistaken in the Advanced Class, and that?s why the ?cancer = ds? thing didn?t get into writing. I don?t know. There?s very little detail in the Advanced Class on this topic to give us anything to go on.

The PURPOSE of him mentioning that in the AC is also important. I get the impression that when he told us that it was so that we could gear our believing to go beyond the culturally scientific medical approach to cancer. Other than that, I see no application to the cancer part of the AC. I did see many Corps use this deal as just one more way of putting people down and vaunting themselves up. I don?t believe that?s why Dr taught it. He didn?t tech this sop that we might have a low opinion of a cancer victim, or think of them as under an influence. That is sooooo much the way the Corps often thought and acted, but not Dr in his teachings. Ditto for turning it around and downing Dr because he was a victim of cancer too.

Now, I don?t know exactly how to break this, but I have some late breaking information that the teaching on cancer and ds was removed from the 1979 AC teaching. It may still be in the syllabus, but mine is from ?75. I?ll have to check into this more thoroughly. I know someone who has all the tapes.

Rafael 1969,

you wrote: ?I'm not talking about typos and ink blotches, I'm talking about flaws in its thesis and its conclusions. But we can NEVER get to those flaws, because you won't even admit that the black-and-white errors are errors.?

I agree that you?re going after substantial simple errors, not trivial. Part of what I?m trying to point out is that what looks like such an error may turn out to not be one. I have adopted the policy of placing in my margins a ??typo?? note with two question marks to remind me that it may not be an error. A few such typos are obviously unintentional, but some are not nearly so obvious.

I put something to this effect in my response to WordWolf.

There I wrote:

*************************************************

As far as what I?m pointing out, Dr was very up front that we should NOT think ?his every utterance was God's ultimate expression? and I have reflected that here. There are things he said that are in error, even on tape. On page 83 of PFAL, we have closely examined where Dr says even of his written materials, NOT ALL are God-breathed.

I do think the revelation he got was perfect. He didn?t always speak that revelation, nor always write it. I can even see the possibility of some rebels on his staff fudging a VERY SMALL number of passages, along with the normal printing and typesetting errors.

I once concluded that my wide margin KJV was CLOSE ENOUGH to get the results God wanted me to have in my life, and for the time (pre-1982) this was the correct attitude. Now, I?ve shifted my expectations to seeing the printed products that came with the class as CLOSE ENOUGH to that original revelation from God to Dr over that 40 years. I also see the ?close enough? fit in the PFAL materials as VASTLY better than my previous ?close enough? fit appreciation with the KJV.

*************************************************

If Dr were to mistakenly put something in a 4th draft, the one that gets printed, yet he had it right when the revelation comes through, and he gets it right every other time it?s taught, and nobody has a problem with such a mere administrative foul up, then I do not count that as disqualifying the book from having been God-breathed.

It?s very much the same with the original manuscripts. It didn?t take a superman to get it into written form that was going to do the trick for Paul?s contemporaries. If a copyist made a mistake, or put in his own added verse, then that copy is no longer perfect, yet it can still do a great job, especially if such an insertion was trivial. If it was not trivial, then Paul (and Dr in these later centuries) would have been alerted by God that there was a problem.

I think you?re not getting the heart of what Dr taught about the originals being perfect. You do seem to get the heart of how ?good enough? works for the KJV. For God to bless us MUCH better by teaching Dr what to write, the final printed product does not have to be up to the standard you insist on.

Plus, as you master the material with meekness, many of the AEs melt away.

**********

As far as the rushing question, I accept your answer.

But when you wrote: ?...your method of dodging and delaying made an honest discussion impossible? I had to disagree. I?ve been copious in my explaining how I don?t think you?re handling AEs properly. This is not a heart judgement of condemnation, just a practical calculation. I?ve simply learned to handle them differently. I used to take the perspective you have now, but dropped it when the time and conditions were right. I can understand how they are not yet right for you.

sirguessalot,

You?ve been patient in waiting for me. Thank you.

You mentioned to someone else ??spirit and flesh don't exist in different "realms", they both subsist within the same unitary cosmos.?

I can see that as ok, as long as the differences and the separation between them is remembered. They ARE vastly different, but both come from the same source, God. That which is born of flesh is flesh, and not a little spirit mixed in.

************

You then wrote: ?I understand how you are writing to a specific strata of grads (at least directly), and that your face is set like a flint in that, but where is the substance of your revelations??

In writing, in book and magazine form.

**********

You then wrote: ?What exactly ARE your proposed practices? So far, most of what I've read is the stale prose of regurgitated PFAL. With slight variations here and there, but same words, same nuances of language, same models, and same exclusive relationships of meanings.?

The proposed mastery practices are the same as how I answer WordWolf a little bit ago. It?s mostly reading with meekness. Looking at it as stale or regurgitated is NOT meekness. There are lots of reasons the stale association exists, but they?re not due to the material being stale. The image you retain in your mind may be stale, but that can be purged with work. Maybe some of the things I?m reporting will help you get a fresh view. It?s up to you to shake that association. Systematically separating the TVT from the text is a big help here.

**********

Then, you responded to my statement about using certain 5-senses techniques ?they?ve not gotten anyone to ?all nine all the time?? you wrote: ?No one? Really? Not now? Not since century 1? And you know this?

How??

It?s easy to see that no one has done all the things Jesus Christ did. There are spurts in some individual?s believing in that direction at times, but they always fizzle out, and never get taught to anyone else. There?s never been anyone consistently like him, yet God?s plan is for MANY to be like him.

I know that have been individuals who went pretty far at times, for instance, the men who taught Dr various facts, truths, and attitudes had to be walking with God. Others are Martin Luther, Tyndale, Wycliffe. and many, many more. It?s also the case that each one of these giants were doctrinally lacking in certain key areas. The thing that makes God?s project with Dr unique since the first century is that no one before Dr had put it all together in transmittable form. All the critical and disabling errors of churchianity that have hampered previous men?s ministries had been finally lifted with Dr?s ministry. Was he perfect, and his teachers not? NO! It?s God that is perfect. Dr had oodles of flaws, it?s just that in those critical areas where total defiance of long standing traditions was required, Dr was up to the challenge; he was tailor made for that job, being the contrarian he was.. Did he fully implement all that God taught him and he taught us? NO! He said he wished he had. I wish he had too, but the fact that he didn?t isn?t going to stop me from trying my best.

***********

And what about your operation of all 9 all the time?

Why do you want to know that? I?ve admitted my student status here before. I?ve seen that SIT can be pretty much ?all the time? and the same with prophesy as long as there is someone in earshot. Like I said on another thread about communion, it doesn?t take a ceremony or religious buzz words to do it. It can be done without anyone knowing that it is prophesy, as long as the third person is used. Few grads ever learned they could do second person.

I?m doing better then I was before I came back to PFAL, MUCH better.

*************

You then wrote: ?Are you then offering the formula to all 9 all the time??

No. God is. It?s PFAL. I see the books as the area for learning revelation and importation manifestations. The Advanced Class was an attempt to get us to look closer at PFAL, the foundational. It hasn?t yet worked too well, but that?s our fault.

*************

Then yiou wrote: ?Can you tell us what "all nine all the time" is supposed to be like in today's world?

2k years and counting, and things are as intense and confusing as ever.

C'mon. You offering meat or you offering milk??

First of all, at Seaspray?s suggestion, I have been recently looking into where ?all nine all the time comes from.? He asked me if it could be part of TVT, so I?m looking. I use the phrase because it briefly describes a situation that is totally Biblical, and it rings a lot of memory bells. If I have to change my use of it I will, but the idea is one of us arriving at what Jesus Christ arrived at when he finished preparing his mind with scripture mastery and then got spirit. I see ?all nine all the time? as how life is in the restored paradise. We?re at the end of time.

************

You asked: ?But are you promising that those biblishly potent signs and miracles will follow those OLGs who believe PFAL the way you prescribe (I hope so, for your sake)??

God promised it. Jesus promised it. I believe it.

***********

You asked: ?Can you really play SPIRITUAL HARDBALL to the point of instructing in the art of it? The art of living it? For sick people, for pregnant people, for dying people, for destroyed people, for proud people, for enslaved people, for cursed people, for the bewildered, the angry, the disturbed, the guilt-ridden, bored, the wild, and the numb??

The plan God had was that Isreal would be the teacher of the nations. I see those who master PFAL as a team of God?s helpers, servants. Once we get it, then we can teach and help all those you listed. Jesus was able to reach out to all these kinds of people, and so will we. We can almost do it now, as non-masters if we still have the heart to serve, but as Dr?s Last/Lost Teaching points out, it would only be a 5-senses service, and eventually the god who was given the 5-senses realm to control will see his weak spots and destroy. He did this to us already in 1987, and he did it to the first century church. If Paul had been more successful in getting a community of strong believers with Christ FORMED in them, then the first century church would have been impenetrable by the adversary. Ditto for us if we OLGs had obeyed and mastered back then as we were instructed..

**************

?Wierwillian one-liners gonna do all this? ?

No. God-breathed words, mastered in their rich contexts will do all this. By His Word God spoke light into existence.

***********

?PFAL -isms, lists, spread-sheets, formulas and diagrams gonna do it??

No text that is read and rightly divided will do it. It?s when these PFAL materials are put into the mind, with a heart of love, that they become fresh and powerful.

****************

You wrote: ?It seems to me that if the question is being asked, you might NEED to know, real soon.

One promising paths to certain holiness might want to provide some sort of enlightening and empowering destination for people to grab onto. Something with handles on it, ya know? Cliche notions of ?all nine all the time? don't really seem to communicate the excellence of empowerment.?

The first ?how? is read with meekness. Once people start that, the next step will become more clear. This first step will take some time. There?s a lot of material we either forgot or were never exposed to.

I?m planning to get farther than the abbreviated phrase ?All nine...? as we get more into the subject of the Return, Appearing, Seciond Coming, etc. There was a thread on the older GS or Waydale on people?s expectations on the return of Christ and paradise. I saved that thread, and will be bringing it out someday soon to address this issue.

Meeanwhile, I use ?all nine all the time? as a phrase to describe what SHOULD have happened had we stayed put on PFAL. What were your expectations of spiritual maturity when you first took the class? To the extent that you sculpted you expectations according to God?s Word, then that?s ?all nine all the time.?

**************

?But the spiritual application for people?s lives who are going to be MOST IN CHRIST should prepare them for some sort of a trail of signs, not just persecutions, right??

Yes, signs miracles and wonders follow believers confirming the Word. These can be also used to guide a non-believer to getting to believe, but it?s not signs that bring believing. It?s hearing the Word that brings believing. Outside of grace, signs come AFTER a person has bet his life.

*************

?Correct me if I am mistaken, but you also have seemed to imply a certain sense of urgency in your message. So, what "level" of priority should OLGs and the rest give your beseechings??

What else is there to do in a dying world? I see us as having dropped the ball for at least 17 years, more like 20. Yes this is urgent. People are hurting, and need relief NOW!

************

?Where does your message fit under the Kingdom of Heaven??

I don?t know. That subject I haven?t gotten to yet.

***********

?Are your/VP's PFAL methods the one-and-only route for JUST OLGs to reach that "Ephesians 6:10 lifestyle?" ?

It?s what God has provided against a backdrop of 2000 years of the adversary winning at the hoodwink game. People, especially freedom hungry Americans, often like to think of ?many roads to Chicago? but if NO ONE had ever really arrived at Chicago, then we might want to amend the potholes in that theory. As far as doing ALL the things Jesus Christ did, no one?s reached Chicago yet but him.

************

?Where do non-OLGs, non-PFAL grads and the rest of the world's non-TWI folk fit in?

Particularly spiritually??

I?m sure God?s not going to leave anyone out who really wants to be with Him.

As far as the WORK goes, though, God called out anyone who can be trained to serve. In a practical sense, this is primarily OLGs, but I see the non-OLG grads getting in on it pretty easy once the ball starts rolling. When we get to non-grads i gets a lot less practical to expect very many, but I?m ready for any pleasant surprises God has up His sleeve.

I see a lot of this OLG distinction (or the grad distinction) as practicality, and definitely not elitism. I had so much of that from the Corps I know exactly what to avoid. As long as we remember that PFAL mastery is training for service, then the elitism thing vanishes. That?s how Jesus didn?t get a big head, and it will work for us.

***********

?I think we all misunderstand the very character of Christ's presence when we think the most vital truths of him are hiding in some arcane place.?

I agree in this way: understanding Christ?s character is someone anyone can do. It?s DUPLICATING it that needs some very detailed and accurate information, due to the complications of the adversary?s snare and systematized error. The adversary is smarter that the unequipped believer in Christ. PFAL equips us, better that all attempt?s for 2000 years.

***********

?And I think our state gets worse whenever we think that we alone have been chosen by God to protect and preserve access to these greatest secrets in the world.?

This thought breaks down when we see in the Bible the many situations where a believer was all alone in believing God, and giving God entrance to undermine the adversary?s setup.

You?re reasoning from all the many frauds who say they are the only ones who got it right has led to think this is an impossible situation, yet it has genuinely happened, and lots of times.

**********

?Are any of us really supposed to hold these keys? ?

Do you mean: ?Are any of us SPIRITUALLY supposed to hold these keys??

Or do you mean: ?Are any of us NATURALLY supposed to hold these keys??

WordWolf,

You wrote: ?Actually,you'll want to read up on Harry Houdini before calling yourself an authority on him. (No, you didn't go that far yet-I'm going somewhere.)?

You?re right. I was mistaking him with Conan Doyle. I guess I should stick with what I have studied. HOWEVER, my points are still valid. Houdini was only one example I erroneously pulled up. Looks like I fell for the Tony Curtis version. I hope the people who accuse me of never admitting to a mistake are awake.

My points were:

(1) - Dr taught us to beware of this field, even though he didn?t go into the ratio of real spiritual phenomena and physical deceit and manipulation. That there is physical deceit found by some does not mean all of the field is fake. We shouldn?t be surprised that side by side with devilish phenomena would be lies.

(2) ? The similarity of Dr?s teaching to some hooky-pook artist does not automatically mean Dr is borrowing from the devil. The alternate interpretation, supported by vast data, is that the hooky-pookers got it from God, if you look back far enough.

Thanks for the history correction.

*****************************

You commented that certain people have an extreme dichotomy model in this area. You wrote of them: ?It's either natural, or spiritual. It's either 100% the Word of God, or 10 % dross. Either he never spoke anything of God, or his every utterance was God's ultimate expression.?

As far as what I?m pointing out, Dr was very up front that we should NOT think ?his every utterance was God's ultimate expression? and I have reflected that here. There are things he said that are in error, even on tape. On page 83 of PFAL, we have closely examined where Dr says even of his written materials, NOT ALL are God-breathed.

I do think the revelation he got was perfect. He didn?t always speak that revelation, nor always write it. I can even see the possibility of some rebels on his staff fudging a VERY SMALL number of passages, along with the normal printing and typesetting errors.

I once concluded that my wide margin KJV was CLOSE ENOUGH to get the results God wanted me to have in my life, and for the time (pre-1982) this was the correct attitude. Now, I?ve shifted my expectations to seeing the printed products that came with the class as CLOSE ENOUGH to that original revelation from God to Dr over that 40 years. I also see the ?close enough? fit in the PFAL materials as VASTLY better than my previous ?close enough? fit appreciation with the KJV.

It?s only when we get to page 34 of the Green Book that he delineates it as ?every word I have written TO YOU is true? (with my ALL CAPS). On page 116 his ?Thus Saith the Lord? statement there is in the second person as he addresses us, his class.

Wordwolf, you then lamented: ?No middle ground, ever. No room for dissent, either-only announcement and recitation. (Either I'm 100% right or 100% wrong.)?

Well, this certainly does happen in nature at times. Quantum mechanics is famous for the ?collapse of the wave function? where nature finishes ?hearing? all the votes of a system and then ?decides? to put all ?her? eggs into one basket. You might want to get used to such 100% polarities, because they extend farther out into the physical at times, and originate way back in the spiritual. ?God is light and in Him is no darkness, NO! none at all? is a proper rendering of that verse in I John 1.

***********

You then wrote: ?I was honestly surprised you addressed my question. You gave me 1/2 my answer, which is a lot more than I expected. You gave an outline on "how to master pfal". Well, that's part of what I was looking for, of course. My specific question was on a definition of some kind about what it means TO master. You gave guidelines to getting there, but still haven't provided a definition of the destination.?

Well the ultimate destination is the third heaven and earth. I see PFAL as God?s initialization of the Gathering Together.

But why were you so surprised I?d answer that? It may be the case that I didn?t register many of your posts as they appeared, but didn?t you see my efforts to answer most reasonable questions? And I still, I have a hard time thinking that your ?how? question was reasonable. I can?t help but think (maybe its something in the GS water supply) but that you were merely baiting me with the recursive objection.

I asked if the reason for your ?how? question was to trip me up or to actually sit down and start mastering. The reason I slightly discounted the later is because I DID lay out that lots of reading with meekness was the prime ingredient. If I?m wrong on this hunch, I?ll be MUCH more glad to find out than when you told me of my Houdini mistake.

*************

You then wrote:

(((BTW, in the last teaching you quoted, vpw said

"the only criticisms I've ever seen in God's

Word that Jesus Christ ever gave were to the

religionists."

That statement sure make the "religionists"

(whoever disagrees with us) look bad. However,

it sure leaves out a lot.

Jesus criticized Mary, his mother, at Cana.

"what do you wan't from me? It's not my turn!"

Jesus criticized Peter, a LOT.

"Get thee behind me, Satan". "No, you can't go

where I'm going."

Jesus criticized the Samaritan woman who came

for her daughter's healing.

"It's not meet to take children's bread, and to

cast it to the dogs.")))

If that?s your idea of criticism, I wish that GS levels of criticism would descend to that tame level soon. I see an ?awfully selective? criteria for ?bitching and cussing? there in your collection.

It could be argued that Mary, and certainly Peter, were ?religionists? meaning acting spiritual, yet contrary to the True God. Mary was well connected to the temple system, and even operated some manifestations. As far as the woman from Canaan Gentile woman in Matt.15 and the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4, I see the man of steel and velvet wearing his smoothest velvet hat. I see only gentle teaching there.

I don?t see Jesus spitting in anybody?s faces; I don?t see any public humiliation, or anything like that. I don?t see any personality conflict between Jesus and any of these people. He was justifiably tough at times, but with the Pharisees he was tough as nails.

You then wrote: ?However, it allowed vpw to dichotomize the Christian world-there was twi, and the

religionists. (No middle ground.) Just US and THEM.)?

Here I think you?re drifting into the TVT and away from the written materials. There may have been times when Dr contributed vocally or by his actions to the TVT. On this particular issue, I remember it was the Way Corps that was especially negative about all that was non-Way, and NOT Dr at all. He may have done it, but I was not a witness. What I do witness in the written record, is that Dr gave the Mormons a lot of credit for having properly worked and practiced giving according to God?s Word. He also gave the Janes of India a lot of credit for their discipline and dedication. I NEVER saw the Corps magnify these statements, or generalize them. We must work hard to avoid selective memory. That?s what the record is for.

******************

You then wrote: ?...in your reply to me, you said you try to judge only in a nice way. You said you were

"assistance-judging". So, do you finally admit that you actually DO judge, no matter how pretty the judging seems to you? Sounds like you did, 4/13, 1:46pm, this thread.?

Have you ever heard of ?form based theology?? That?s where people try to get all the words to line up like

mathematical symbols. It?s one of those unbalanced 100% right/wrong deals you seemed to complain about above, where decisions are made based on how the symbols or words look on paper. It?s like juggling words as if they were algebraic symbols. Form based theology misses the heart in the matter. They can come up with all sorts of proof that some person or action is a sure fire way to hell, and they forget all about mercy, and love, and God?s power. Jesus criticized the Pharisees for being real on top of the form of the commandments, but totally missing the heart behind them.

I get the feeling you hear the word ?judgement? and religious bells go off to prohibit it or label it as wrong. Am I wrong? Several times we went over this. What if I went back and used a slightly different word for judgement? discernment, calculation, assessment, evaluation, .... Would that then stop the bells from going off?

I have admitted a lack of knowledge as to the exact Greek words involved here. I know there are lots of different kinds of ?judgements? we all have to make every day. Yes, of course I judge, discern, evaluate...etc.

The Bible does indeed show us that some kinds of judgements are not so cool. Condemnation, public humiliation, character scolding, and things like these are not God?s style, nor Jesus?, unless absolutely necessary. Both are well practiced at accurately discerning this need. What Dr was teaching is that we, at that time as well as now, are not so practiced.

Wordwolf, the tolerance level of criticism needed here at GS is so high, that I may have been jaded by it enough to expect unwarranted criticism or judgement from you, and I may have been a little heavy handed in my handling of your (or others?) post, especially when I pressed you with questions loaded with my expected answers as to why you wanted the ?how? to mastering. If you really did want that ?how? so that you can obey Dr?s final instructions, then I owe you an apology. Please let me know. We can alert my error counting crew.

On this subject you wrote:

?You claimed I never answered your question about

what I'd do if you answered me.

Go back. I thought I was very unambiguous.

I said I was going to pay attention to it,

and, primarily, THINK.

(There's a longer answer earlier in this

thread.) ("Algorithm"? Well, your answer

WAS "sequential"...)?

I can?t argue with that. This is all I?m asking people here to do: think about the lost data that?s been found.

I can argue (but I?ll give up easy) that in earlier posts you displayed an attitude of already having thunk it out, so you were in the ?shoot down? mode. When there are so many people here overtly doing just that, please excuse me if I lumped you in that category.

**********

You also wrote: ?You also seemed to have completely dodged my "B" point about promoting a man. (Nice dodge, though. Quite skillful.)?

What? If I didn?t roll over dead and admit you?re right I?m dodging? I gave you a lot of my heart in NOT magnifying the man. If I want to dodge something I can do it much more skillful that that! I don?t magnify Dr any more than God magnified him when He selected him to bring us the Word. If I were into the man I?d not be caring about the God Who gave him revelations.

Do you ever get accused of ?magnifying? Paul because he got such an abundance of revelations? I do. I reject these accusations.

**********

You also wrote: ? You completely misread my "D" point... ... ... You then made a quick strawman by claiming that the evidence should show vpw is a lot nicer than the rogues gallery I cited?

I saw an negative association that needed to be pointed out as not so valid. If you didn?t intend to imply that, it could easily be inferred by a reader, so I addressed that.

You then wrote:

?My point was that, having never met them, we

nontheless all have a consistent opinion of

each of them. In the case of vpw, we have a

lot of first-hand source material to work from.

I made NO reference to what KIND of opinion

anyone should form about him. I was saying

there is PLENTY of material to form an opinion

about him...?

When you originally wrote your ?D? point, you said: ?Mike, You also said ?You never met Dr, yet you condemn him.?? I think I said that to Rafael, because I have no knowledge if your having never met Dr. Maybe this was a miscommunication. It?s possible I MEANT to address Rafael there and things got merged.

My main point there, as in many posts, is that we can?t rely on fading memories of partial exposures to what we were taught over 20 years ago. What we THINK we know of Dr form those weak memories with much added in post-meltdown junk is often inaccurate, and I often urge that we come back to PFAL to review and master.

*****************

Your last comment was:

?It doesn't matter WHEN they send the next

space shuttle off. Could be months, years,

or decades. No rush.

However, BEFORE they try to use the thing in

space for extended periods, and launch and

re-enter the atmosphere, they will need to

overhaul all the parts and insure they aren't

faulty and will blow up upon use.

I think that's the same point he was making

with you.?

I think this is an EXCELLENT point you?ve brought out here. I agree that people are ?gun shy? with what seemed to blow up in our faces. My point is that we didn?t properly read the instructions. It was pilot error on our part, using your shuttle analogy, and not mechanical failure. As this becomes more clear, THEN people will feel safe to launch out into the heavens (spiritual) from earth (natural) , and our point of departure is rightly dividing PFAL.

There are a lot of subjects going on a the same time here. One that has come up a few times is our relationship with Jesus Christ being one of becoming him, in a sense. This idea can be seen in segment #1 of the 1979 Advanced Class.

In that first hour Dr hits this theme several times. Below are 7 quotes from that Advanced Class.

1. You and I, class, become Christ-like to the degree the Word lives within us.

2. We all with open face, changed into the same image -- the glass is a mirror -- changed into the same image. What you look at, class, you become. If you look at the negatives in life, you manifest the negatives. If you look at God and His Word, class, you become the embodiment of that Word, you begin to manifest the Word, the open face is nothing hidden.

3. And you?re in the Advanced Class to not only learn that Word but to commit yourself, by the freedom of your will, to the great integrity and accuracy of that Word and then you speak it -- everywhere. You, people, have to become that Word. You have to become this Word of God -- YOU have to become that Word.

4. Now, I would like to believe that, in this Advanced Class, you will become and be a maximum believer.

5. You have to work the Word in your mind, people, until your attitude to the Word is changed to the end that whatever your attitude is the same attitude the Word has.

6. ...you work the Word in your mind, until your attitude is changed that you have the attitude of the Word in your mind.... ?Til you have the attitude of the Word in your mind. Then you are The Word -- speaking it forth with all the power, every time you speak. Every time you open your mouth, you?re talkin? the Word.

7. Class, it?s the Word that produces results, all else produces consequences. You and I become Christ-like to the extent, class, and to the degree that the Word lives in you and lives in me.

This teaching of Christ Formed In You? is very important. After this 1974 teaching, Dr did it twice again and then Walter did it in 1988. It may have been repeated even more often this. Here are the details:

?Christ Formed In You? SNS #732 11-24-1974

Seventh Corps Graduation - Summer 1979

?Forming Christ In You? SNS # 1040 10-19-1980

?Christ Formed In You? SNS #1407 around 1988

The first listed is the only one we have in written form.

So far we?re seeing some applications of this thread?s use in looking deeper into Dr?s rich teachings on the lordship of Jesus Christ and our fellowship with him. Soon we?ll get to work an AE, the one about ?God can only give that which He is...spirit? by utilizing this thread?s perspectives.

But right now, I want to doubly emphasize that THIS ?Christ in? is NOT the same one we learned in Session Five of the class.

That Session Five ?Christ in? is created spirit, pneuma hagion, and it DOES NOT AFFECT THE MIND. That ?Christ in? is the HOPE of glory.

The mind is in the soul category, across that gap between the natural and the spiritual.

This ?Christ in? is NOT in the spirit category, but in the mind, the soul. It DOES affect the mind in that it reckons dead the old man, and it itself, the new man grows, as it feeds on The Word. This ?Christ in? is the GLORY!

Realizing the difference will open up very great understanding later, as more teachings on this are referred to.

Goey,

You wrote: ?Mike, I did not say that I think that the "handed down remnants of

the Bible" ARE the Word of God. Boy, you really missed that one. You are reading between the lines. Go back and look again, then get back to me when you read and try to comprehend what I actually wrote. Need a hint? - I used the word contained.?

And then a very short time later you wrote: ?Todd, My sincere apologies. For some reason I thought I recalled a post of yours a while back that was admittedly agnostic. It must have been someone else. Again, my apologies.?

Gosh! Goey, you sure made my response easy. I?ll just paste in a modified version of what you said to Todd.

Goey, My sincere apologies. For some reason I thought I recalled a post of yours a while back that was admittedly believing that ?the ?handed down remnants of the Bible? ARE the Word of God.? It must have been someone else. Again, my apologies.

WOW! That was fun. I got to quote you quoting me there!

Actually it was fun answering you the way I did, even though incorrectly addressed, because this is one of the things Pawtucket?s Principle applies to the most. So, others can still benefit from my comment to you, and maybe even down the road you will too.

*****************

mj412,

You wrote: ?I do not think your understanding.?

Ok, maybe so. But at least I?m trying?

*****************

Golfie,

You wrote: ?Many TWI people got so much "in alignmnet" that they were convinced

that what ever they thought was God's will. They could rationaize any sin they wanted to do to agree with god's word.?

Yes. This certainly happened in the TVT, and with greater ferocity as time went by. It also happens in about half the denominations the adversary successfully moves into the licensee style of religious abuse. The other half goes into law and condemnation. I was there as an RC in the 50?s and 60?s. This is normal churchianity.

The absent Christ teaching is evident in Acts 1 when a cloud hid him from their sight. God had a reason for this, and it?s revealed in the epistles.

*********************

Steve Lortz,

You wrote: ?The Word of God never asserts that there is a "dichotomy of

realms".?

The word dichotomy is mine. I use it for brevity.

The ideas of this thread are in the Word in lots of places. Try I Cor.!5 for one, but look at the scripture list I provided, also early in this thread.

The Biblical teaching on this dichotomy is quite simple, but it is NOT this thread?s topic.

This thread is on HOW Dr incorporated this dichotomy into many vocabulary words, again for brevity in REFERRING to or EMPHASIZING this dichotomy. The value in this thread is in understanding more of what Dr is communicating than we got the first time around.

You then wrote: ?The idea that there are two realms, the material and the spiritual, was first put forward in western thinking by Pythagoras...?

But the Bible is an Eastern book, and it was in the stars even earlier than Moses. Plus, where did the Greeks get it from? They put it into survivable form, but they got it from somewhere. This dichotomy?s IDEAS go back very far, and is quite ubiquitous beyond Dr?s teachings. The terminology used in describing it varies from culture to culture and language to language.

God is allowed to use ?words of earth? and purify them in an oven seven times. That include Western culture, with its Western languages. God chose to put things that way with Paul and with Victor Paul.

If you think you have escaped the ?Western putrifications? and found a greater enlightenment good luck raising the dead with it.

You then wrote: ?The truth that Ford used deceitful tricks to hoax his audiences has been exposed. I remember hearing about "apports" and "psychic surgery" in the advanced class. Both of these things have also been exposed as clever tricks.?

Now, I don?t want to seem pedantic, but don?t you meant to open that passage up

with ?The FACT that Ford used deceitful tricks...? ???

I believe that in addition to Houdini?s use of physical tricks, he also really believed in supernatural power. The Tony Curtis movie probably exaggerates this, but in real life... er uh.. I mean... in factual life... or in actual life Houdini was a very strong believer.

Like Houdini, I can see a guy like Ford starting out with pretense, and gradually coming to believe it, like a compulsive liar. The factual investigations into Ford may have only revealed his physical ?back up? methods. Lots of mediums know that things can be draining and arduous, and some days they may not feel like going through all the head trips to get the spirit.

Long ago a friend got into hypnotism, and he told me part of the deal is to get the hypnoee to "fake it" or "go along with it" until it "really" takes effect. This also happens in some healing services.

I remember in the 60?s it took a lot of work to open up to simple hallucinatory spirits, even with acid. It took relaxing, yet holding perfectly still for a long time. Sometimes it didn?t work, even if all the factors seemed right. I can see a medium keeping a backup system, especially if there are paying customers on the calendar, EVEN if the gradual transition from deception to real phenomena I outlined above was not the case.

Ditto for Tony in the Philippines.

You then wrote: ?I find it more and more difficult to conceive that Wierwille

actually believed the strange amalgam that constitutes PFAL.?

That?s because you?ve been hangout with less and less of what he taught you, and have been doing it for a long time, like since 1985 maybe? You?ve probably spend very little time with anyone who still greatly and aggressively respects Dr, so you get a more and more slanted side of the story.

If you try coming back, returning to PFAL and reading the material again, then it?ll start fitting again.

You?ll find MANY, MANY places in there where Dr tells we have to come back, and start again. I have many in file, and will someday post them.

Another thing wou wrote was: ?The evidence suggests that Wierwille picked up his view of the spirit "realm" from some pretty questionable sources.?

I?m glad you used the word ?suggest? instead of ?proves.? Unlike your scenario where Dr ?picked up? from Ford, the evidence also suggests that they both got it from the same source, or ultimately from that source. If this is God, then it?s true. The adversary is aware of lots of the details of God?s creation of the realms seen in Genesis 1:1, heaven and earth. It?s often in the adversary?s interest to utilize truth.

So God gave the realm info to Lucifer first, and later to the prophets. It all filters down through ages on both sides of the spiritual war, and both Ford and VPW become aware of it, Ford by devils and Dr from his 1942 curriculum with the True God and whatever 5-senses sources God sent him to.

This kind of evidence you cite is not enough to discern if this is true about Dr?s 1942 curriculum. By mastering the material, this can be seen well.

[This message was edited by Mike on April 14, 2003 at 2:31.]

Hi mj412,

When you ask: " who do you think your talking to ?" I can only say it's to people who missed or are missing some things in the record, and who want to hear it.

It's your decision if that includes you. If you decide to tune out, I'll understand.

Rafael,

Here you say I "never" get to the points you want me to get to (or bogged down in), yet before you assured me that there is no rush and I can take my time.

Which is it?

Afakat,

I do try to only post things I've checked out pretty well. I still do make mistakes, and I do admit to them. Read more thoroughly and you may find such admissions.

I do my best to listen to God's voice, and He picked Dr as His spokesman to us, especially us OLGs.

Wordwolf,

A) - I think I already did answer this.

B) ? His connection with God was the same as ours pneuma hagion. He had some 5-senses characteristics that were useful, others that were not. God new how to tell the difference. Dr often stated that ?this ministry HAS to be of grace...? because he knew and admitted that he did not deserve it. The man is dead. When he was alive I chose to not stay at HQ, preferring the action on the field. I was often offended or embarrassed by his flesh. I?ve learned that as we go from his private words and actions, to his tapes, to his writings, we get less and less the man, and more and more God. God was working in many others besides Dr to pull this off. I often place Dr?s team in the spotlight with him, not as worth worshipping, but as worth being thankful to God that He chose them to work in their lives so that He could bless us with His pure written word originally given in English..

C) ? A person?s spiritual stage of growth can be discerned when applying agape love. Decisions must be made to give milk or meat. In that I assume their hearts are receptive, and try to not judge there. It takes a lot of outward evidence before I go to God for His ?OK? to stop wasting His time on someone who?s heart seems non-receptive. Look how I keep on sharing here! I do have to make practical external judgements regarding my environment and how I move about in it. I actually like a lot of you in spite of the jabs I get. I?m not down-judging you all (that?s condemnation) but rather I?m ?assistance judging.? I?m trying to help, not put down.

D) ? You wrote : ?Based on the evidence, including videotapes he made, audiotapes he made, and books he wrote, I'll say 'yes, I never met him, but I have very definite opinions about him.? To that I?d say based on the evidence, most people base their opinions on Dr not his tapes and books, but on fading MEMORIES of his tapes and books, plus a lot of garbage that?s happened and that?s been said about him in the last 20 years, some factual, some not. If you?re an exception, congratulations. I think if you took a neutral third party (a highly theoretical proposition) and asked them to compare the villains you mentioned with Dr, based SOLELY on films and writings of the defendants, then I am confident Dr will be declared not guilty. His books are pure. This has been discussed before here in great detail.

E) ? Did you like the sequential algorithm for mastery I provided? You still didn?t answer MY question as to what you will do with the non-recursive definition.

WordWolf,

I took the time to reformat your post. I?m pasting it here and will remove it if you paste it back into your original post.

Here?s your post with the CRs removed:

*****************************************************

Ok, addressing points in the order I saw them...

A) Mike, I did read your "many many words posted on mastery." I noticed that at no point in ANY of the posts is a definition given that is not reflexive. My junior-high school history teacher refused to let us use a word in its definition. (This came up when we could not use the word "fur" in explaining what a fur trapper was, since we had not explained what a fur WAS.) That was a legitimate lesson, and AFAIK, a proper rule in teaching. You've posted that we're supposed to master, that we are supposed to master until we reach certain goals, but not once did you explain what it means to master. I can't perform an action I have no idea how to perform. You're saying we failed to master something, but, without any explanation of what "mastering" is, I just have your say-so I didn't do it. Not good enough. Plain English, please. I'm not asking for a perfect definition, or an explanation of cold fusion. What will I do with this definition? THINK. I can then evaluate what I've done to date, what you're saying should have been done, and what you're saying should be done in the present and future. Without a simple (or semi-simple) answer, you provide no tools for doing so. Don't worry your answer can get too technical for me-I can keep up at any level you take it, when I choose. For someone who wants me to perform an action, you sure are impeding the process for doing it.

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

B) Mike, You said "In no way have I promoted the human author."

Hm. Let's see. You've stated that his writings are of superior canonicity than any Bible extant, including critical Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew texts, including the Masoretic text, which doesn't change. You claim that his connection with God was so surpassing excellence that any sin of character would be unable to alter one word of his writing's canonicity. You claim that, since the "first century Christian church", no one in the intervening 18 centuries and change has had such a connection to God, and received revelation from God. (I'm stopping there.) You know, to everyone except you two, that looks like you're promoting that human.

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

C) Mike, You also said "...nor do I post my judgements on other people's hearts." In the same post, you used the term "spiritual babies", and implied all your detractors at GSC (or possibly just the ones on this thread) are the "spiritual babies" you mentioned. You've called those who disagree with you "unfit workmen" based on how you view their hearts. You've claimed-repeatedly-that those who are not "old-school" are incapable of reading vpw's writings and REALLY understanding them the same way a semi-literate, mildly-retarded man who took pfal in 1975-76 can. You know, to everyone except you two, that looks like you're judging people's hearts, and posting on those judgements.

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

D) Mike, You also said "You never met Dr, yet you condemn him." Based on the evidence, including videotapes he made, audiotapes he made, and books he wrote, I'll say 'yes, I never met him, but I have very definite opinions about him.' I would say the same of YOU, and I have NOT seen videotapes nor heard audiotapes from you.

Further, I never met Charles Manson, David Berkowitz, John Wayne Gacy, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Caligua, Lucrezia Borgia, Ivan the Terrible, nor the guys who ran the ovens at Auschwitz, but, you know, even WITHOUT having seen video or heard audio, I think I can make a conclusion based on the evidence at hand. I'm silly that way.

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

E) Mike, a footnote. BTW, I'm fairly confident, although not certain, that you will NEVER provide an explanation about "mastering". That's because I'm convinced the lack of an explanation will allow you to play the old twi "shell game". That's the game that, no matter what tragedy befalls you, it's always your fault, and it's never twi's fault. Refusing to explain allows you to change the meaning whenever you want, to keep "mastering" forever out of people's grasp, and thus vulnerable to the charge of "well, if you'd REALLY mastered, this would never have happened.

As you can see, I DON'T have some secret agenda-all my cards are on the table. How about putting down a few of yours? posted April 12, 2003 01:14

****************************************************

Rafael,

I want to clear up another possible miscommunication regarding your AE thread. I don?t try to judge the hearts of the people there, I judge the atmosphere. I prefer an atmosphere of learning, and I find that thread?s ASCII atmosphere has an air of arrogance. I?m talking about the text that gets splayed on my monitor.

I do criticize the quality of opinions and apparant backgrounds and qualifications for AE research of some posters there as they are perceived by me as I read.

To me, the opinions expressed are fire breathing distractions from what I set out to do in my life personally, and what I set out to do here at GS, which is data delivery.

******

I think it?s worth thinking through very carefully what I said about ?know them by their fruits.? Yes, I admit, as expressed by someone earlier, that AT FIRST when exposed to a Bible teacher, we can?t know them by our own internal fruits. We haven?t had time to grow them.

In these early stages of Biblically ?checking out? a ministers veracity, there?s no other way to do it but by the statements of others, and the fruit you see in their lives. When a friend of yours brings you to his church, you have to make some initial 5-senses judgements if you?re going to come back next week or not. This goes on for a while, and if the minister passes these initial, shallow, 5-senses educated guesses about the ministers qualifications, then you reach the next stage of growing some fruit in your own life.

It?s THIS fruit that is not NEARLY so subject to the foibles of the five... senses that is. When you hear about the fruit in someone else?s life, their reports are subject to all the human frailties everyone else?s are. People never say everything, there?s no way to even remember it all, let alone get it all out understandable. So reports are limited in displaying fruit. For someone very close this factor may be less.

Then there?s the difficulty of seeing the fruit in another based on watching their behavior. These observations of actions may be better than mere reports with words, IF IT?S AVAILABLE! That?s a big if. When you live with someone it?s likely this observation of fruit will be somewhat more accurate, but still limited.

But observing your own fruit, is very detailed and very intimate. However, like the application of Pawtucket?s Principle, many people avoid this kind of honest and detailed a self observation like the plague. To some it?s more fun to gossip about others than to self examine.

********

Speaking of Pawtucket?s Principle, did anyone have any thoughts about my suggested application of it to ?Why believe in the Bible??

.

.

Hi Sirguessalot,

You arrived just in the nick of time, dangeroulsly.

BTW, I've been trying to get back to your post a few pages ago. Would you mind pasting the pertinent passages here to facillitate my attempts?

Goey,

Thank you for that clarification. May I ask you how it is that you think the handed down remnants of the Bible are THE Word of God and not another gospel?

You seem to have placed your bet on the Bible. I'll assume for your sake you don't mean a modern version or translation, but the originals. But why? Why do you believe in the original Bible?

Pawtucket enunciated a very useful principle in my drivel case on April 05, 2003 at 19:34, and I want to invoke what he said here.

He said:

************************************************

************************************************

************************************************

?I, personally, like this type of debate. Why? It challenges your

belief system. You get to flesh out what you believe and why.?

************************************************

************************************************

************************************************

So, Goey, and any other shadowy figures here who know what evil lurks in the hearts of men...

WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE?

Notice I am not asking ?Why do you think modern Bibles are close enough?? which is also a very basic root belief of many worth questioning, but I already asked that opening this post.

I?m going even deeper with this question and asking about the originals. Many people believe in them for reasons unknown to them, and they often HATE to apply Pawucket?s Principle. It?s scary, and many would like to let others do the thinking in this category for them.

So why do people take the originals of the Bible (however they are reconstructed) as their only rule for faith and practice?

I?ve spent enough time analyzing this to know EXACTLY why I believe the originals are of God.

Have you?

.

[This message was edited by Mike on April 13, 2003 at 12:58.]

Rafael,

You wrote: ?All I'm saying is YOU HAVE NO RIGHT, Biblically or otherwise, to criticize or condemn someone else's decision to dismiss your thesis based on their assessment of VPW's character.?

I?ll buy that.

I was complaining about another matter, those criticizing MY heart, and my right to dismiss. I do often recognize the rights of others, especially non-OLGs, to not accept my thesis. It?s their attacks that I protest, and sometimes show to be wrong. It?s not that I feel the need to defend myself, but I know a lot of other readers face the same thoughts, so I am showing them how to handle them, based on book mastery.

Rafael,

I think you got me wrong somewhere several posts ago, or something.

I do judge in certain ways. We all do.

I never did get a handle on the different Greek words of judge and all the verses and things like that.

Because of that I've never thrown around a blanket "No Judgement" commandment. Maybe you assumed I did, because so many other people do. I?ve always admitted to these constricted judgements that are a part of life.

I do see a problem, from many scriptures, with one person thinking they can peer into another person?s heart, without revelation that is. My best understanding on judging is that when it comes to people?s hearts, and things like that, it?s very dicey to make any PUBLIC announcements, even if there is Word of Knowledge. Usually the Word of Wisdom is to keep quite. Usually.

When it comes to judging an other person?s eternal rewards, that seems totally off limits, not even any revelation should be expected.

For deciding who to spend a lot of time with and trust, then I think judgement of their external actions and words is unavoidable, as has been said earlier by someone else.

Rafael, if you can show me an ambiguous statement of mine that seems to say I never judge, I?ll edit it to be more clear.

I have better access to the knowledge of my own benefits. I can see MY whole picture in great detail.

I have very limited access to critics. I can't see much of anybody else's detailed big picture, nor am I expected to. I do my best to include them in the mix.

I also have to add the appreciators' testimonies to the mix along with the critics testimonies. The former are very few here at GS, but out there is a whole bunch of people in that category, in varying degrees. I happen to be at one extreme end of that spectrum, but there are many more with milder degrees of appreciation for Dr's writings, and I have to give them equal voice with the critics.

I cast the tie breaking vote, and it's not a close call at all, for me. I can see how others see the mix differently.

[This message was edited by Mike on April 12, 2003 at 19:08.]

Rafael,

You wrote: "Jesus said you'll know them by their fruit. Can you tell me how to know them by their fruit without exercising what you so derisively call "judgment"? "

By looking at the fruit that they helped you, yourself, grow. It's your internal fruit you judge.

I know VPW by his fruits in me, VERY WELL.

I know his fruit in others with less certitude, but I saw a lot of blessing there too. I also saw some hurt, but comparatively less for me than others. I mentioned long ago that I was very good at dodging, and that included the spiritually dark areas of the marble cake that the TVT was. It got much darker, and very quickly, after 1985.

[This message was edited by Mike on April 12, 2003 at 18:19.]

Rafael,

I?m done using my brain to decide this matter. I believe God was able to work with Dr in spite of Dr?s sin. I came to bet my life on this after 27 years of hard brain work. This story of Dr?s qualifications is done. I?m applying my brain to other things. Sooner or later I hope you do too.

Us OLGs had plenty of time to discern if Dr was deceptive. I?ve tested out the Word that God taught Dr and Dr taught us in written form, and my mind is made up on this matter.

Word Wolf,

And who ever told you that recursive definitions are illegal in English? I can see a High School teacher encouraging students to avoid that if possible, but later we learn there can be exceptions. English teachers don?t make up the rules of a language, they OBSERVE them, or the average of them. The rules (and definitions) change slightly from person to person, and from time to time.

A recursive definition can work for me if there?s a kernel of understanding already there. AN author may want to use a word in a specialized way, so he starts with the normal definition, and then adds on, or subtracts, or modifies it to suit his needs. What?s your problem with that?

Have you ever seen a recursive function definition in mathematics? I don?t know what your problem is with the definition of mastery. I?ll try to help, so that you can get busy and start mastering PFAL.

Here?s a sequential algorithm for mastering PFAL:

Read.

Read a lot. and apply it a lot.

Read with meekness, inspite of the pressures to argue and fight.

Keep reading and applying until it becomes YOUR master.

Keep reading and applying until you become it.

Read with the attitude that the real author is God.

Read with the conviction that your own old man mind needs to die.

Read with the expectation that you are building the Master Mind of Christ within.

WordWolf, I?ve answered more of your letter on the next page where I had pasted a re-formatting of your letter. I'm sure any readers encountering your edit paste above appreciates it, but doesn't know it.

[This message was edited by Mike on April 14, 2003 at 23:49.]

Rafael,

It is GOD Who decides if the minimum discernment requirement is met, not you.

***********

Shaz,

You?re right.

I think I confused you with previous posters, and even other threads maybe. All this talk that many of you do about me and Dr here is a huge distraction from the topic, it?s heated, and it?s easy to get things lost in the shuffle. I?d prefer we talk about the thread topic than me or Dr.

***********

Wordwolf,

The reason I don?t answer that is because it looks empty to me. It looks petty, because you?re ignoring the many, many words I?ve posted here on mastery.

Have you searched the sight? It?s everywhere.

I don?t know where you?re going with your question, and I see little I can do with it. I don?t see what you?re saying as substantive.

Let me ask you this about a definitive definition of ?mastery? OK?

What are you going to do with the answer? Start mastering, or look for ways to criticize it?

If it?s the later, would you like me to give you a LOT of details so you can do a LOT of criticizing? Or do you just want to do a little?

**********

Zixar,

You wrote: ?Any readers out there contemplating signing up and posting, please do so. However, if you are a rude, passive-aggressive control-freak who is hell-bent on canonizing PFAL and its human author as direct manifestations of God's will, then you deserve whatever you get.?

As far as the canon, I?ve written before here in greater detail, that since the KJV canon was good enough for Dr, then it?s good enough for me. God had him work within the standard canon.

I don?t want to bring Dr?s books into the Bible versions that get printed and distributed in bookstores.

I want to bring Dr?s books to the hearts of Older Leader Grads, mastered, so that we can resume the work God has for us. What God wants to do after that with Dr?s books I HAVE NO IDEA. However, I do know that OLGs desperately need these books mastered to get a spiritual millstone off their necks. I?m trying to help them.

*

Zixar, in no way have I promoted the human author. After 25 years of considering, I simply reject the VPW character distractions and focus on the written Word which God wrought in his ministry. All the ?human author? rejection rationalizations you demand me to re-consider, I refuse to re-consider. That matter is closed, and has been for 5 years.

I do not focus on the man, positive or negative.

Like all topics aimed at me, I seek to end all topics that deal with VPW the man. I deal with some items if I think it may help some of you free yourself from the bond of Bitterness.

I want to get back to focusing on the Word God taught the man and he taught us.

***********

Steve!,

You wrote: ?Well, whadda ya know, Mikey may actually be seeing the faintest glimmer of a hint that his ideas are about as well respected around here as dog doo on the bottom of your shoes.?

I read Waydale and GS for years before posting. On average it?s gone just as I predicted; with some individuals there?s been some surprises.

Funny you should use such scatological genius in your description. Coincidently, when I?m feeling non-the-less down about my expected receptions here by some individuals, I think of spiritual babies to raise my mood, and how SOMEONE?s got to change their stinky diapers. I take a lot of stink here because of the agape love that was shown me when I had similar tantrums.

***********

Rafael,

You wrote: ?By the way: David was a man after God's own heart. I presume that behavior to the contrary is going to be noted in God's Word.?

I don?t presume that at all. If I were God, just one big detailed splash in writing, for the teaching benefit to others, would be all I?d be able to stomach in revealing about the foibles of a man who?s heart was often the best I knew of.

God HAD to have cringed at having to put that Bathsheba-Uriah incident in there. Why would He bother putting a detailed list of the build up sins, or the relapse sins? Everybody knows that had to be involved anyway.

If I were his loving adoptive Father, I?d want to protect David?s privacy as much as possible. I love this loving God. I can see how He hates religion and the bickering and the hate and the ego and the fear.

****

I might have noted better that what I was criticizing in your judgements aimed at Dr not me.

Plenty of others jump in here and hit at me and you egg them on, unlike some of the better consciences here.

Yes, we make judgements as to who to associate with, but as for idolatry or evil hearts, I don?t go by info on the grapevine.

NOR do I post my judgements on other people?s hearts. I simply utilize the judgement in future actions that require interaction with those people. Besides, if I spot a dark heart in a PFAL grad, I want to think that can change. I don?t want to document it, I want to help heal it.

You never met Dr, yet you condemn him. I know he was a pain at times. I worked with him at times. I was with him and his family often. The kinds of controls in place in actual courtrooms ban the type proof commonly accepted here.

Surely you?ve perceived by now that my mind is made up on this: Dr?s heart qualifying for bringing forth God?s Word. Why bring it up all the time? I can see it if you find more evidence, but repeating the same points over and over. Why say them to me any more? Say them to others.

I just want to get on with the topic.

Rafael,

We have some God-breathed records of what happened to David?s heart. We don?t have the WHOLE story of David?s heart in God-breathed form, though. We know nothing of how many times David had relapses in his sex and power trips.

We do know that in normal human psychology, once a weakness exists in a man?s life, the devil will always try again to exploit that weakness, sooner or later. These cycles are utterly normal.

David didn?t suddenly flip out with Bathsheba, and then flip farther with Uriah. He had to jade his conscience for YEARS to get that far gone! It became habit, and he must have gone through many cycles of approach/avoidance in the early stages to achieve that jaded conscience.

We have NO God-breathed record of any of Dr?s flesh trip cycles, only anecdotal accounts that are already 20 years old. We also have no idea how many cycles God can tolerate. He does seem to suggest 770 for OUR tolerance level, out of the lips of the lord who died for all our sins, but I expect God can tolerate MUCH more than we.

I just wanted to remind and document the VASTLY differing surety levels here, in ?deciding? whether VPW repented to our satisfaction or not, like David did to God?s satisfaction. God is the final Judge here.

Rafael, if you or Shaz or any other Judges of hearts have any other GS members in you sights after me, I think it?s only fair to warn them.

Also, for any readers out there who are contemplating signing up and posting, it would be nice to them if you posted the modus operundi that goes into your Judgements. I?m thinking of what the rules are for collecting evidence and testimony (sworn or not) and so forth. That way they can better line up with the true doctrine(s) here and not run afoul of the law people can run into her like me and VP.

Rafael,

As for Saul, he IS relevant in that he was chosen to be a leader by God, and then he did poorly. God still inspired David to respect him, AFTER Saul?s great sins and not kill him when he had the chance.

The relevancy is that the esteemed panel of self appointed GS Character Judges here seem to have not educated themselves in the character judgements and precedents that God set in His Word, and then they accuse me of the evil of setting my heart against the same God and His righteous written judgements, which they are willingly ignorant of.