If some pinhead came in here and not only thought Mein Kampf had some good points in it, but was actually straight from God's mouth, I'd have absolutely no qualms about calling him an evil son of a bitch, either.
Yeah, of course Solomon, too. Sorry about that. Late night, spotted too many gymnasts... I goofed.
Mike,
You're saying that "ye shall know them by their fruits" (Matt. 7:16) refers to the fruit produced in YOU? Doesn't look to me like what that verse is saying. A tree produces its OWN fruit. And VPW's was fairly rotten.
In fact, that whole last paragraph seems quite worthless and destructive.
Todd, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. And I am certanly entitled to blow it off as "worthless" if I choose. In this particular case I choose to. Nothing personal.
But understand that I am comming from a prospective that espouses the authority of scripture and the message that it brings to mankind. Whereas your prospective most likely does not.
If I am not mistaken your prospective does not even acknowledge the existence of God or salvation through Christ. So how can you call it an "evil thing to say". I would not think that evil exists in your world except possibliy in a secular or humanistic kind of way. So it seems pretty clear that your view of evil and mine are most likely not on the same page - at least not in reagards to Mike. My view of evil is based upon scripture, your is based on ... well who really knows.
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.]
Sure you didn't mean wrong? Because you can sharply disagree with someone...believe they are totally wrong...and still have respect for them and their opinions. I go through it a lot each spring and summer in an example I will spare you..for now.
But to consider someone's opinion worthless is to toss any small measure of respect IMO...and hardly goes with "nothing personal".
Goey, for the record, I believe in God, Jesus Christ, and that the Bible is the Word of God. I study and pray every day. Your presumptions of my beliefs could not be farther from the truth.
IMO, your statement was counterproductive and lacked value because it declared that anyone who does not agree with YOUR evaluation of Mike's obvious evil nature does not have a lick of sense.
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??
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
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.
Mike, you have become unbelievably tedious--you are NEVER wrong, you never reconsider, we ALL need your info, yada, Yada, YADA, YADA....cmon, you have been listening to the sound of your own voice Way too long!!!
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.
Mike, when we try to discuss the so-called "purity" of the books, you attack our integrity. When we try to discuss errors in the books, you attack the Bible. When we show inconsistencies in the book, you tell us we have to adopt your position in order to see things your way (well, DUHHH).
Your reasonings are circular, your methods dishonest, and your canon impure and riddled with errors FAR more significant than those we've listed. It took you 32 years to come to us with this thesis, and I know you want us to take a fraction of that time to come to agree with you. But it takes far less time, and far more reason, to show that your thesis is flawed - and to see what those flaws are. But we can't argue with you. We can't even get you to admit that the book has mistakes introduced by the fact that their author was imperfect. 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.
It's pathetic. Why should I trust your analysis on important matters when your analysis on simpler matters are so filled with deception, when indeed your very modus operandi is to dodge, evade and refuse to admit the black-and-white truth before you?
Wierwille's works are less than perfect. They are NOT the God-breathed Word, even if they did help point many people to it. Your house is built on sinking sand. Keep the door open if you want, but don't expect me to walk through it anytime soon. And it's not because I'm not an "older grad." It's because I have enough sense in my head to see just how pathetically erroneous your thesis is.
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.
the thing that galls me is you claims to love vpw and be thankful for his writings then twist and turn to make it into your own agenda with a sly thinking no one will notice this is your own fantasy and you use his name and books to promote it.
not in denfense of what pfal is or isnt I think the tacts are evil in and of themself.
I have said it before at least vpw started his own cult with his own writing , you use his and put your own in on a morbid twist that makes it worse playing off his fame or damage .
In your last post you agin speak for the people who have the same problems and your ability to "show" them how to handle it by your "book mastery"!!!!!
You imply you have mastered the books in your last sentence, with an holier than tho arrogrant attitude (except for those who have problems with those who disagree with you as well they are still ok in your eyes of course)then of course your job is to "show them how it is done...
what you show them is by methods that are low down and evil ...but most of all stupid .
you are just like vpw when you cant even use your own material to make any sense of anything you must use someone eles and put your own spin on it to work for you .
who do you think your talking to ? then your discrimination about only certin grads can get this new information,, please that is just elitism to the max. they are the "special called of grads .. oh it is endless your problems.
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.
You asked:"...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?"
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.
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.
The transcript of it was interesting...like eating fish...swallow the meat, but spit out the bones, or else you will choke.
Here are some fish bones:
"you that you can so get in alignment and harmony with God's Word that that Word so lives within you and you live within that Word that you can absolutely take anything your mind has done previously and make it agree with God's Word, change it around, and you can so walk ...
People will never see Christ until they see you. He's seated in the heavenlies, waiting to get back. The only Christ they'll ever see is the walk within you, the Christ in you, the joy in you, the thanksgiving, the blessings, the effervescence, the enthusiasm, the smile, the dedication, the commitment. That's all they'll ever see of Christ. They're not going to open the Book. You know, they can buy one, put it in the house, they ain't going to open it. They're not going to read it. Not going to study it..." -- VPW
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.
The absent Christ teaching is evident here. The ego to think that Jesus could not reveal Himself and the Father to who ever hungers and thirsts for righteousness, there has to be a PFAL grad to show the way.
I read the Bible and enjoyed it BEFORE I took PFAL. VPW is sure negative about people's ability to read the Bible without TWI to badger them into it.
Give God and Jesus some credit for doing something without twi and vpw.
In his early postings on this thread Mike defined it's topic as Wierwille's ubiquitously hidden teaching, the idea that there is a "dichotomy of realms: the Natural/Factual Realm versus the Spiritual/True Realm".
I have entitled this post "The Ubiquitously Hidden *Error* of VPW". The idea that there is a "dichotomy of realms" *is* ubiquitous because it pervades just about all of Wierwille's thinking on spiritual matters. It is also hidden because it seems so obviously true that it is never questioned. It is never demonstrated from the Word of God. It's "truth" is simply taken for granted. It is also an error. The Word of God never asserts that there is a "dichotomy of realms".
The idea that there are two realms, the material and the spiritual, was first put forward in western thinking by Pythagoras in the early days of Greek philosophy. It was developed and championed by Plato. It was furthered in various schools of Platonic philosophy, but it didn't become dominant until Stoicism failed to satisfy questions raised by the terrible catastrophes that hit the Roman empire in the third century.
The writings that compose the Word of God are not Platonic, as can be seen by comparing them with the writings of Philo, an Alexandrian of the Jewish diaspora, who tried to reconcile the Jewish Scriptures with Platonism a few decades before Paul wrote. There is no hint in the Word of God that there are natural or spiritual "realms". "Spirit" is contrasted with "flesh", not "the senses"; and spirit and flesh don't exist in different "realms", they both subsist within the same unitary cosmos.
The phrases "sense-knowledge" and "senses-realm" do not appear in the Word of God. They *do* however appear in the writings of the neo-Platonists. Augustine was a neo-Platonist before he became a Christian, and Platonic dualism carried over into his theological writings. The idea of a material/spiritual, sense knowledge/true dichotomy is one of the greatest tatterations to which our understanding of the Word of God has been subjected.
The Church's view of the universe lost credibility during the Enlightenment. The Natural/Spiritual dichotomy was brought back into western thinking by the religious writings of Emmanuel Swedenborg in the mid-1700s. His writings inspired people like Ralph Waldo Emerson on the more scholarly side, and the pioneers of spiritualism on the "never give a sucker an even break" side.
The evidence suggests that Wierwille picked up his view of the spirit "realm" from some pretty questionable sources. In the PFAL class VPW mentioned "Mr. Fletcher". Mr. Fletcher was the supposed "spirit guide" of Arthur Ford, a popular spiritualistic medium of the early- to mid-20th century. 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. It seems Wierwille trusted the deceitfulness of his five senses to the detriment of his understanding of truly spiritual matters.
I find it more and more difficult to conceive that Wierwille actually believed the strange amalgam that constitutes PFAL.
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.]
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
82
119
656
81
Popular Days
Jun 15
86
Jul 3
73
Jul 12
50
Mar 31
49
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 82 posts
mj412 119 posts
Mike 656 posts
Steve Lortz 81 posts
Popular Days
Jun 15 2003
86 posts
Jul 3 2003
73 posts
Jul 12 2003
50 posts
Mar 31 2003
49 posts
Popular Posts
Yanagisawa
Did you say "get the ball rolling" or get the kaballa rolling...for it sounds like that's your current freak - some sort of hidden, mystical kaballa-esque gnostic esotericism. I'm fascinated with you
Zixar
If some pinhead came in here and not only thought Mein Kampf had some good points in it, but was actually straight from God's mouth, I'd have absolutely no qualms about calling him an evil son of a bitch, either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Dear Raph,
Yeah, of course Solomon, too. Sorry about that. Late night, spotted too many gymnasts... I goofed.
Mike,
You're saying that "ye shall know them by their fruits" (Matt. 7:16) refers to the fruit produced in YOU? Doesn't look to me like what that verse is saying. A tree produces its OWN fruit. And VPW's was fairly rotten.
shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Sirguessalot,
Todd, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. And I am certanly entitled to blow it off as "worthless" if I choose. In this particular case I choose to. Nothing personal.
But understand that I am comming from a prospective that espouses the authority of scripture and the message that it brings to mankind. Whereas your prospective most likely does not.
If I am not mistaken your prospective does not even acknowledge the existence of God or salvation through Christ. So how can you call it an "evil thing to say". I would not think that evil exists in your world except possibliy in a secular or humanistic kind of way. So it seems pretty clear that your view of evil and mine are most likely not on the same page - at least not in reagards to Mike. My view of evil is based upon scripture, your is based on ... well who really knows.
Regards,
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
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.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
Sure you didn't mean wrong? Because you can sharply disagree with someone...believe they are totally wrong...and still have respect for them and their opinions. I go through it a lot each spring and summer in an example I will spare you..for now.
But to consider someone's opinion worthless is to toss any small measure of respect IMO...and hardly goes with "nothing personal".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Goey, for the record, I believe in God, Jesus Christ, and that the Bible is the Word of God. I study and pray every day. Your presumptions of my beliefs could not be farther from the truth.
IMO, your statement was counterproductive and lacked value because it declared that anyone who does not agree with YOUR evaluation of Mike's obvious evil nature does not have a lick of sense.
That's all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
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??
.
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
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
****************************************************
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
Mike, you have become unbelievably tedious--you are NEVER wrong, you never reconsider, we ALL need your info, yada, Yada, YADA, YADA....cmon, you have been listening to the sound of your own voice Way too long!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mike, when we try to discuss the so-called "purity" of the books, you attack our integrity. When we try to discuss errors in the books, you attack the Bible. When we show inconsistencies in the book, you tell us we have to adopt your position in order to see things your way (well, DUHHH).
Your reasonings are circular, your methods dishonest, and your canon impure and riddled with errors FAR more significant than those we've listed. It took you 32 years to come to us with this thesis, and I know you want us to take a fraction of that time to come to agree with you. But it takes far less time, and far more reason, to show that your thesis is flawed - and to see what those flaws are. But we can't argue with you. We can't even get you to admit that the book has mistakes introduced by the fact that their author was imperfect. 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.
It's pathetic. Why should I trust your analysis on important matters when your analysis on simpler matters are so filled with deception, when indeed your very modus operandi is to dodge, evade and refuse to admit the black-and-white truth before you?
Wierwille's works are less than perfect. They are NOT the God-breathed Word, even if they did help point many people to it. Your house is built on sinking sand. Keep the door open if you want, but don't expect me to walk through it anytime soon. And it's not because I'm not an "older grad." It's because I have enough sense in my head to see just how pathetically erroneous your thesis is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
Mike---what Raf said.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
I also think what he is doing is evil.
I have wrote it before as well.
the thing that galls me is you claims to love vpw and be thankful for his writings then twist and turn to make it into your own agenda with a sly thinking no one will notice this is your own fantasy and you use his name and books to promote it.
not in denfense of what pfal is or isnt I think the tacts are evil in and of themself.
I have said it before at least vpw started his own cult with his own writing , you use his and put your own in on a morbid twist that makes it worse playing off his fame or damage .
In your last post you agin speak for the people who have the same problems and your ability to "show" them how to handle it by your "book mastery"!!!!!
You imply you have mastered the books in your last sentence, with an holier than tho arrogrant attitude (except for those who have problems with those who disagree with you as well they are still ok in your eyes of course)then of course your job is to "show them how it is done...
what you show them is by methods that are low down and evil ...but most of all stupid .
you are just like vpw when you cant even use your own material to make any sense of anything you must use someone eles and put your own spin on it to work for you .
who do you think your talking to ? then your discrimination about only certin grads can get this new information,, please that is just elitism to the max. they are the "special called of grads .. oh it is endless your problems.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Mike,
You asked:"...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?"
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.
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
no such luck Mike.
Im here posting for you because I think you" missed something in the record" . somewhere.
See it is all about Love man.
I do not think your understanding .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
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.
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Golfie
I remember that SNS tape, "Christ formed in you."
The transcript of it was interesting...like eating fish...swallow the meat, but spit out the bones, or else you will choke.
Here are some fish bones:
"you that you can so get in alignment and harmony with God's Word that that Word so lives within you and you live within that Word that you can absolutely take anything your mind has done previously and make it agree with God's Word, change it around, and you can so walk ...
People will never see Christ until they see you. He's seated in the heavenlies, waiting to get back. The only Christ they'll ever see is the walk within you, the Christ in you, the joy in you, the thanksgiving, the blessings, the effervescence, the enthusiasm, the smile, the dedication, the commitment. That's all they'll ever see of Christ. They're not going to open the Book. You know, they can buy one, put it in the house, they ain't going to open it. They're not going to read it. Not going to study it..." -- VPW
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.
The absent Christ teaching is evident here. The ego to think that Jesus could not reveal Himself and the Father to who ever hungers and thirsts for righteousness, there has to be a PFAL grad to show the way.
I read the Bible and enjoyed it BEFORE I took PFAL. VPW is sure negative about people's ability to read the Bible without TWI to badger them into it.
Give God and Jesus some credit for doing something without twi and vpw.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
In his early postings on this thread Mike defined it's topic as Wierwille's ubiquitously hidden teaching, the idea that there is a "dichotomy of realms: the Natural/Factual Realm versus the Spiritual/True Realm".
I have entitled this post "The Ubiquitously Hidden *Error* of VPW". The idea that there is a "dichotomy of realms" *is* ubiquitous because it pervades just about all of Wierwille's thinking on spiritual matters. It is also hidden because it seems so obviously true that it is never questioned. It is never demonstrated from the Word of God. It's "truth" is simply taken for granted. It is also an error. The Word of God never asserts that there is a "dichotomy of realms".
The idea that there are two realms, the material and the spiritual, was first put forward in western thinking by Pythagoras in the early days of Greek philosophy. It was developed and championed by Plato. It was furthered in various schools of Platonic philosophy, but it didn't become dominant until Stoicism failed to satisfy questions raised by the terrible catastrophes that hit the Roman empire in the third century.
The writings that compose the Word of God are not Platonic, as can be seen by comparing them with the writings of Philo, an Alexandrian of the Jewish diaspora, who tried to reconcile the Jewish Scriptures with Platonism a few decades before Paul wrote. There is no hint in the Word of God that there are natural or spiritual "realms". "Spirit" is contrasted with "flesh", not "the senses"; and spirit and flesh don't exist in different "realms", they both subsist within the same unitary cosmos.
The phrases "sense-knowledge" and "senses-realm" do not appear in the Word of God. They *do* however appear in the writings of the neo-Platonists. Augustine was a neo-Platonist before he became a Christian, and Platonic dualism carried over into his theological writings. The idea of a material/spiritual, sense knowledge/true dichotomy is one of the greatest tatterations to which our understanding of the Word of God has been subjected.
The Church's view of the universe lost credibility during the Enlightenment. The Natural/Spiritual dichotomy was brought back into western thinking by the religious writings of Emmanuel Swedenborg in the mid-1700s. His writings inspired people like Ralph Waldo Emerson on the more scholarly side, and the pioneers of spiritualism on the "never give a sucker an even break" side.
The evidence suggests that Wierwille picked up his view of the spirit "realm" from some pretty questionable sources. In the PFAL class VPW mentioned "Mr. Fletcher". Mr. Fletcher was the supposed "spirit guide" of Arthur Ford, a popular spiritualistic medium of the early- to mid-20th century. 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. It seems Wierwille trusted the deceitfulness of his five senses to the detriment of his understanding of truly spiritual matters.
I find it more and more difficult to conceive that Wierwille actually believed the strange amalgam that constitutes PFAL.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
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.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
hogwash
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.