Thomas, I know you were but I didn't want smike to think I'm interested. One little word and he gets excited. Don't want smikerol to be too excited. lol Thanks thomas for the apology it is excepted.
Ok!! I will not try to be a nice person...ok? I will not!!
Tomorrow I'm travelling to Columbus, OH, to attend Origins, a national gaming convention. There I intend to do a lot of schmoozing, round up some more work for the coming year, and generally have as much fun as my aging body will allow. The upshot is, I will be gone from this forum for about a week. By the time I get back, there will probably be so much stuff posted here it will take me several days of reading to catch back up. So I'll be gone for a while.
Before I go though, I want to address two points regarding things Mike has written.
First, this "You're possessed!" business.
This is from Mike's post of April 28, '03, 19:48, about 1/2 way down page 13 of this thread,
*****
"...this 'Christ' within (a la Gal. 4:19) is NOT the same as the familiar foundational topic 'Christ in you the hope of glory.' The Col. 1:25 type of 'Christ in' is pneuma hagion, holy spirit, the gift that does not affect the mind, because the 'Christ in' is in the spirit catagory, while the mind is in the soul catagory.
"Christ FORMED within the mind is something spiritual happening in the natural realm. This Christ is formed and grows in a renewed mind... This Christ formed within is the new man...
"This new man is advanced. He's God's REAL masterpiece. From the 5-senses perspective, receiving pneuma hagion where there was none before is a masterful stroke of grace on God's part. But the 5-senses view cannot contain the advance Christ Formed. From God's perspective, the REAL masterpiece is this Christ formed in the soul. It's the NEW spirit mentioned in the 'Are You Limiting God?' chapter of the Blue Book.
"The advanced Christ formed within fits well (while Christ in the hope does not) with this phrase from Part I of 'The Love Way' posted last week: 'Your spirit must have the privilege of meditating in the Word.' This indicates that it's not 'pneuma hagion' Dr is talking about, but the 'spirit of God' that's born into the soul catagory, a different, later process from that created spirit we were first taught. This spirit is capable of 'meditating' in the Word, a mental process, not in the spiritual catagory of holy spirit. This advanced Christ formed within is the NEW man and the NEW spirit. It's one notch away from the spiritual body.
"Notice also from Part I of 'The Love Way' above that the REAL man is described as 'your spirit'. Again this can't be pneuma hagion, but something even bigger. This spirit is fed by the Word, not SIT."
*****
Mike's "advanced Christ formed within" is a spirit. We know this because, "This spirit is fed by the Word, not SIT."
Mike's "advanced Christ formed within" is not pneuma hagion, the gift of holy spirit. We see this from: "...this 'Christ' within... is not the same as the familiar foundational topic 'Christ in you the hope of glory'"; "...This indicates that it's not 'pneuma hagion' Dr is talking about, but the 'spirit of God' that's born into the soul catagory, a different, later process from that created spirit we were first taught"; and "Again this can't be pneuma hagion, but something even bigger."
Mike's "advanced Christ formed within" spirit inhabits a person's mind: "Christ FORMED within the mind is something spiritual happening in the natural realm. This Christ is formed and grows in a renewed mind..."; "This spirit is capable of 'meditating' in the Word, a mental process..."
Mike's "advanced Christ formed within" spirit enters into a person's mind through some different, later process than the process of receiving holy spirit.
These are Mike's own words. I haven't read anything into them. According to Mike, there is a spirit other than the gift of holy spirit inhabiting his mind. As we've seen in other places, Mike relies on this spirit to reveal hidden meanings to him, meanings that often contradict the 5-senses meanings of both the Bible AND Wiewille's writings.
Does it walk like a duck? Does it quack like a duck? What conclusions are we to draw?
What does the bona fide, God-breathed Word have to say about these things?
*****
II Corinthians 11:3 "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4 "For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him."
*****
Paul was NOT highly in favor of receiving other spirits.
Paul was NOT interested in rationalizing lies by appealing to rules of grammar so fine that only the high-resolution spirit inhabiting Mike's mind can see them. Paul was concerned that the Corinthians MINDS might be CORRUPTED from the simplicity that is in Christ.
"Mike's "advanced Christ formed within" spirit enters into a person's mind through some different, later process than the process of receiving holy spirit.
These are Mike's own words. I haven't read anything into them. According to Mike, there is a spirit other than the gift of holy spirit inhabiting his mind. As we've seen in other places, Mike relies on this spirit to reveal hidden meanings to him, meanings that often contradict the 5-senses meanings of both the Bible AND Wiewille's writings.
Does it walk like a duck? Does it quack like a duck? What conclusions are we to draw?
What does the bona fide, God-breathed Word have to say about these things?"
Oh what the heck, I'll attempt to play the devil's advocate extraordinaire. The stuff you point out is quite interesting,- and worthy of the old Advanced Class "Ooohs" and "Aaahs" -though not at all surprising.
Yet "possession" is not the only inference that might be drawn from Mike's trip around the proverbial barn, particularly in view of E. Earl Ellis' article, "The Spiritual Gifts in the Pauline Community" in the journal New Testament Studies vol.20 ( which can be located at any decent college library), which goes into the possible relationship between spiritual gifts and angelology (or spirits of angels), and how this may be seen in Paul's writings as well as in sections of the Dead Sea scrolls.
That Mike should stumble into the view that there is more than one "spirit" involved amidst his studies may also be indicative of the various odd "ducks" that are to be encountered in the scriptures. Speaking of odd ducks it's certainly open to question at least in my mind how the request in Eph.1:21 should have been taken, that "the Father of glory may be giving you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the realisation of him" - considering that Ephesians was supposedly written to folks who already were bestowed "holy spirit"(?)- a very bizarre passage if taken literally, and if so, E. Earl Ellis' thesis (and Otto Everling before him) would make the most sense.
And again, we cannot overlook the inconsistent nature of VPW's teachings on the topic of holy spirit to bein with, which presents quite a parasitical "holy spirit" when accepted literally. Especially in view of VPW's handling of "body" and "soul" in other places, of which inconsistencies I think you done magnificantly in drawing attention to in past posts.
Your job sounds like a lot of fun. Is your employer looking for any additional help?
Actually it sounds like the kind of job my son would enjoy.
Danny
[This message was edited by TheInvisibleDan on June 24, 2003 at 12:06.]
[This message was edited by TheInvisibleDan on June 24, 2003 at 12:10.]
I apologize for having lost track of the post from which you took your break.
Maybe you also noticed I've got a backlog again with WordWolf too (I'm sure he noticed) as well as this droning exorcism Steve has going on in the background. Maybe some split pea soup has obscured your post from my attention. If you would be so kind to paste it back to these more current pages it?ll save me some work finding it. I can?t even remember any key words, otherwise I could find it pretty easy.
P.S. Regarding Kenyon?s version of ?The Love Way? that you told me about a year ago. I?d like to see it, but have no idea where to find it.
The Word of God says we're supposed to try things,
*****
I John 4:1 "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."
*****
What does it mean to "try the spirits"? Does it mean we go, "Oh, look, there's a Jungian archtype. Let's invite it in and see how it treats us."
"Wait, there's a shaman totem spirit over there. Let's see what it can do."
"How about that ancient soul from Atlantis? I'll bet she can channel some really hot spiritual understanding!"
Is that what it means to "try the spirits"? I don't think so. The word "try" is "dokimazo", which means to assay, to judge the quality of, to assess.
The standard we are to use in assessing spirits is the Word of God. In John's specific situation, the false spirits were having their false prophets say that Jesus hadn't really come in the flesh. This contradicted John 1:14a, "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us..."
Today, false spirits are promoting a thousand and one different perversions of the Word, but their tactics are still the same, and we still have the same standard to recognize their godawful twists. Not convoluted rationalizations, but the simplicity that is in Christ.
Mike wrote, "...I'm well aware of the adversary's first tactic on Eve was to get her to question the integrity of God's Word... One difference is that Eve had a perfectly renewed mind and we don't. If Eve was to change her mind from what it was it would SURELY be bad.
"But for us to change our minds, sometimes its bad because we're right, and sometimes it's good because we were wrong to begin with and now closer to or on the truth.
"Because we don't start out perfect like Eve, we must experiment around and sometimes even to take risks to get to the truth or to more of the truth.
"From what I've presented PFAL mastery should look like a reasonable risk."
Soooo..... Eve's chances of being wrong in changing her mind were 100%, but my chances are only 50%/50%, because sometimes I'm right and sometimes I'm wrong already.
From what you've presented PFAL mastery should look like a reasonable risk, eh? You may have presented some odds (very dubiously odds at that), Mike, but what you didn't present were the stakes. Nobody can make a reasonable risk assessment without knowing the stakes.
I will give you the benefit of a doubt, and assume that you haven't yet crossed the will of your "advanced Christ formed within" spirit with your own will. If the time comes when you do, you'll find out the unspeakable profundity of the stakes you've anteed up. You've put your life in its hands. The risk you are asking people to take is NOT reasonable. I've taken those risks. I've been there. I HAVE tried it. I DIDN'T like it. If it weren't for the mercy and grace of God through Jesus Christ I'd be dead.
"From what I've presented about KJV verses being on every page, encouragement of context reading in PFAL and many other checks and balances like the exclusion of TWI and other ogre-nizations, this 'try it, you'll like it' invitation should look pretty safe."
But you've demonstrated that the voice of your "advanced Christ formed within" spirit trumps all KJV verses, all contexts, all checks and balances. There are NO checks and balances against your "advanced Christ formed within" spirit. There is NO safety in what you propose.
You wrote, "...PFAL mastery should look like a reasonable risk... this 'try it, you'll like it' invitation should look pretty safe."
You didn't write "should BE a reasonable risk" or "should BE pretty safe". You wrote "should LOOK like a reasonable risk" and "should LOOK pretty safe."
Why are you more concerned with appearance than with substance, Mike? Could it be that you are crafting the appearance to conceal the substance? It wouldn't surprise me in the least, because your sole reason for being in these forums is to recruit people to your program of "mastering PFAL", a program that entails people inviting alien spirits into their minds.
You wrote, "No, there's no OBVIOUS evil in what I purpose, yet you look away from the obvious evil all around you and go after an 'evil' that you must admit is in a very subtle and foundational area."
I DO have to admit that the evil you purpose is in a very subtle and foundational area. You've done all you can to remove its OBVIOUSness. All the more reason to shine the brightest possible light on your evil.
Danny - I sculpt original figures from which manufacturers make molds and sell reproductions. I've spent the last couple of years doing critters for the Glorantha universe. I picked up doing some of the Usagi Yojimbo figures this past year. I'm looking forward to seeing what's going to turn up next.
It IS fun, but I'm a self-employed free-lancer, and just like every other field, I had to pay my dues to get where I'm at. If your son's got some serious interest, I'd be happy to share some of my experiences with him.
thus far, most of this thread bores me. plus i don't like wierwille. as far as "taking a stand" on anything discussed, gee i don't know and i don't care. i think i have a lot of leftover waybrain and i haven't been able to tell what is what, for most of my life, that is.
"there are too many bible thumpers and not enough of those do goodin men...." to paraphrase my old buddy ted ferrell
(ps. this is in no way a cut to the wonderful christians here who i love -- litwin and others) it's just me talking out loud....
?Soooo..... Eve's chances of being wrong in changing her mind were 100%, but my chances are only 50%/50%, because sometimes I'm right and sometimes I'm wrong already.
?From what you've presented PFAL mastery should look like a reasonable risk, eh? You may have presented some odds (very dubiously odds at that), Mike, but what you didn't present were the stakes. Nobody can make a reasonable risk assessment without knowing the stakes.?
In the first sentence you assign your own numbers to the odds, and then You dub them ?very dubiously odds? at that.
Then you say I didn?t present the stakes, when I DID present them. I said that the stakes are the same for NOT experimenting and staying with current traditional paradigms and later finding out that THIS was the wrong course to take.
Let?s compare our presentations:
I totally recognize the stakes, mentioned them, and then pointed out that the stakes are high no matter who?s wrong here.
You don?t seem to recognize the stakes are high if YOU are wrong, you DON?T mention this, and you TRY to portray the situation as one of the stakes ONLY being on my side. Notice I?m giving you the benefit of the doubt. I?d LIKE to think you didn?t recognize these equally high stakes for your position being wrong, and that your obfuscation to others was not deliberate.
*******************
So, Steve, you are arguing the classic safety in numbers fallacy. It?s the false safety in numbers of people and in numbers of years invested in the current paradigms of traditional churchianity that you signal as the safety zone. I?ve seen enough Biblical examples of false traditions prevailing in a culture of ?believers? to say baloney to your pukey warnings.
I?m real comfortable with Paul?s exposition that the Galatians were missing something CRUCIAL in verse 4:19, and you are in the modern role of one of the types who bewitched the Galatians, and in record time, back into foolish traditionss and 5-senses perspectives.
***************
Meanwhile, Steve, you not only seem to have had a feeble understanding of Galatians 4:19, but you now want to keep that feeble understanding of yours undeveloped, and you want to keep others from learning what it?s all about too.
I notice a continued lack of threads you start with any positive instruction of correct doctrine.
I notice that after ?your? people heed your warning, then you have little planned for their continued growth. Maybe you could post a Gospel of John for them.
Mike - You wrote, "...you say I didn't present the stakes, when I did present them. I said that the stakes are the same for NOT experimenting and staying with current traditional paradigms and later finding out that THIS was the wrong course to take."
No, Mike, the stakes are not the same. When a person invites an alien spirit to take up residence in his mind, that person has anteed his SANITY into the pot.
I know. I've been there. I tried it. I didn't like it.
You wrote, "...you are in the role of one of the types who bewitched the Galatians..."
Galatians 3:1a reads, "O foolish ["anoetos" = "unthinking"] Galatians, who hath bewitched you..."
The Galatians were bewitched because they didn't use their critical faculties to consider what they were being told. They weren't exercising their 5-senses through practice to discern both good and evil. Which of us is encouraging people to think, and which is advocating turning that function over to an alien spirit, Mike?
You wrote, "I notice that after 'your' people heed your warning, then you have little planned for their continued growth..."
How revealing that YOU refer to people in terms of ownership. I don't own any people here. I don't pretend to. What is the agenda YOU have prepared for those who ante up their sanity? ACFWAs (Advanced Christ Formed Within Ambassadors)? An ACFW Leadership Training Program?
No thanks... double no thanks... too much of an OLG to fall for all that crap again.
I'm talking about having the lord Jesus Christ FORMED within, not an alien spirit being INVITED in.
We KNOW who Jesus Christ is, he's our brother, not an alien.
Just what do you think Paul was talking about in Gal. 4:19?
The way we form Christ within is detailed in Dr?s teaching posted here ?Christ Formed in You.? It?s by imitating Christ, informing ourselves of details of his character, that forms Christ within.
This teaching can be found on this thread?s page 6 about one fifth of the way doen from the top, and posted April 13, 2003 13:13 or by clicking here:
You don't want to invite in some pre-packaged spirit, because THAT would be dangerous.
We take in God?s Word, His words, and that?s what does the forming. We have to work at it by reading God?s Word and applying it. It?s a SLOW growth process, not an invitation process.
[This message was edited by Mike on June 24, 2003 at 21:07.]
This issue is not really an issue. There are some things I?ve seen because I went to the books 5 years ago. I?ve invited you to come and see the same things. I?ve NOT said you are limited to me in seeing them. I do think that I can give you a head start or shortcut into seeing some things. It may take you 5 years to see some one thing without my pointing it out, but by following up on what I point out you may see it in FAR less time.
And besides, I?m NOT the only one who?s seen these things. There?s a whole fellowship here and a few individuals scattered around the country. I too had a head start of some items in that my teacher showed me, and then I saw it too in the books.
I?m trying to help, not lord it over any one. I?m not recruiting anyone to my team; I?m encouraging people to come back to see the treasures in their own books. I?m posting the information for free, so no one has to pay for it or even register for a class.
I desire to help accelerate the learning curve here.
***************
When we addressed PFAL,
you said you won't be sidetracked. Hours and
hours of discussion of the less-than-perfection
of the object of your adoration came up.
-----------------
These were hours of unprofitable discussion that I eschewed and spit out.
The subject of PFAL was indeed addressed, but from a perspective I had decided to abolish in my life. It?s a matter of deliberate policy that I won?t waste my time with researchers discussing AEs. I do work on PFAL AEs (Apparent Errors), but only minimally, and under more efficient conditions, as I have explained ad infinitum.
*********************
You have recently admitted that you claim to
be refused to be sidetracked, you refuse to
entertain what disproves your claims, etc, etc.
----------------
What disproves my claims to a team of eager PFAL critics is their eagerness.
**************
MIKE has announced that VPW repeatedly said that
his material was the results of VPW and God and
various other people.
---------------
I can cite passages where he said these things.
*************
This claim was already addressed on many threads.
VPW very prominently proclaimed in PFAL it was
just HIM and GOD.
-------------
Page and paragraph, please.
***************
Another question on this subject.....
..Mike has claimed that VPW claims that some of
what VPW said (wrote) is of God directly, and
some is of VPW. Supposedly, now, some was also
of other people, yet also of VPW AND some of
other people AND GOD. That's a tangled mess.
If one must claim that PFAL was DIVINE, it
swiftly becomes a scrambled mess concerning
who wrote what.
---------------
It?s only a tangled mess to those of you who want to discredit it. I see no need to have an inventory of just what came from where and when. The books are the picture of simplicity. It?s your analysis that?s convoluted, in that it?s trying hard to make a case of flimsiness, when it itself it based on a partial understanding of the contents of PFAL.
When you get to know better what?s in the books, as opposed to your tangled memory and present understanding of them, THEN it will be simple.
**************
B) On the charge of plagiarism... ...VPW NEVER
indicated that the PFAL class would NEVER have
happened without BG Leonard's class, which
seems to precisely parallel VPW's class,
complete with the imaginary examples of
Maggie Muggins and Johnny Jumpup and so on.
It can clearly be shown VPW had taken BG
Leonard's class before starting work on PFAL.
It can be clearly shown that VPW had read JE
Stiles' book before starting work on his own.
Like the situation with Queen Esther, if these men hadn?t done the work they did to help accelerate Dr?s learning curve like we discussed above, then God would have found another way or someone else to do the job.
The DID do that work, they DID help, Dr, and Dr DID credit them appropriate to the family setting in which they were used. If you insist on Dr crediting them in they style of academia or the market place you?re going to be disappointed. But I think that?s a silly demand. I like our family, and I like what God has done for us in giving us His Word like it has not been known since the first century. Screw academia and the market place.
***********
Despite huge sections of both appearing to be
photocopied to form VPW's work, he never said-
not once! -THIS is the class I owe so much to,
THIS is the book I owe so much to. Rather,
both names seem almost nonexistent in VPW
history.
Your demands are silly. He TOLD us, and you could have researched out how dependant Dr was on all that stuff while he was alive. You could have asked him then if this was so important. It?s only important to you know because you need an excuse to chuck the whole thing. I don?t buy it.
***********
Now, Mike, you've claimed the Bible is full of
"tattered remnants" and "unreliable fragments."
VPW declared in PFAL (chapter 8 entire) is NOT.
-------------
You misrepresented me.
I agree with Dr that the BIBLE is perfect. It?s miscopies, translations, and versions that get tattered and partial.
(1) I claim that the MODERN compilations, the critical texts of Bible have some problems.
(2) I claim the MODERN translations and versions have some problems.
(3) I claim the cultural religious bias causes LOTS of problems for people, even when they read accurately translated passages in modern texts. What gets registered within these many readers is often not what is written.
*(these three items were significantly edited many hours after posting)*
I have meticulously explained that it?s the SUM of these factors that make modern texts LIKE tattered remnants when COMPARED to PFAL.
I have also explained that factor (1) is not as intense as factor (2),
and that factor (3) is VERY strong. I think you are looking only at (1), and forgetting that my description was figurative and relative to PFAL.
I don?t think anyone would contest my ?tattered remnants? description if they were comparing the received text to a convincingly freshly issued authoritative text. You?re just not yet convinced that PFAL is such a revelation, because you refuse to master it from within, AGAIN.
You misrepresented me above by over abbreviating my position, and by misapplying the label ?tattered remnants? to the wrong target.
****************
E) I didn't say that studying was WRONG.
YOU said that, Mike. You claimed that using
the intellect to discern good and evil-thinking
about whether Mike's thesis is legit or not-
is wrong. I've been SAYING that THINKING is
important all along, by implication AND direct
statement. Don't pretend I said otherwise.
Your claim was that thinking was a 5-senses
approach and wrong.
-------------------
I said that LEANING on our understanding is wrong, as it says in Proverbs 3. I said that the 5-senses approach is useful if it?s the ONLY approach, but when it becomes AVAILABLE to see it spiritually, then the 5-senses approach should be put aside.
**********
E) You said you're not trying to present
evidence.
Goey already pointed out that's inconsistent
with your posts.
Also, you keep saying that blindly accepting
your instructions will get us the results.
Outside of religious cults, that kind of claim
never works.
"I refuse to prove I have anything to offer,
but if you do things my way, you'll see it."
-----------------
You?re wrong. It ALSO works this way in the way of a Father with His family.
And again, you misrepresent me. It?s not ?if you do things my way? that I say, but if we do things GOD?S way, which He revealed to Dr and Dr put into written form.
***************
F) Your latest appeal is one of loyalty.
I'm supposed to obey VPW "because he taught you
so much of God's Word." So, then, if I teach
people a lot, they're supposed to do whatever
I say?
I?d say that it?s not if you were to ?teach people a lot? but if you were to teach people a lot of ACCURACY of the Word, then those who listen and benefit will be very motivated to believe more from you the next time. It?s not just teaching a lot of quantity, but teaching a lot of QUALITY that earns this kind of respect. For me, and for many thousands of others, Dr did earn our respect. We did benefit from PFAL.
.
.
.
.
*(The section containing the three itemized claims was
significantly edited many hours after posting)*
[This message was edited by Mike on June 25, 2003 at 2:46.]
Danny - I sculpt original figures from which manufacturers make molds and sell reproductions. I've spent the last couple of years doing critters for the Glorantha universe. I picked up doing some of the Usagi Yojimbo figures this past year. I'm looking forward to seeing what's going to turn up next.
It IS fun, but I'm a self-employed free-lancer, and just like every other field, I had to pay my dues to get where I'm at. If your son's got some serious interest, I'd be happy to share some of my experiences with him.
Love,
Steve
Wow, so you're a sculptor? That's a very fascinating way to make a living, indeed! For some reason I envisioned you testing out new fangled video games, or something along those lines.
Would love to check out some of your artwork sometime. Do have you have an online exhibit?
My son loves video games ("Blockbuster Video" is the center of the universe to him at the moment), and he loves his "action figures" as well. I don't know if he's actually got an interest in sculpting, though he loves messing around with his legos (he's 11 yrs old).
Can anyone spare a sec for someone who just skims?
I have a few questions and thoughts.
Why do the stakes seem so high to so many of you/us/me at times, particularly regarding this issue of "The Way to God?" Really, what is it about us that is so threatened by our mortal failures that God cannot restore in time? What is so spiritually fleeting? Our place in the hierarchy of blessings, or something? I doubt it.
All facets of Christianity more-or-less seem to agree that Christ is the only way to God. So, biblicaly, what is wrong with the idea that there are MANY ways to Christ? Seems that all these religious debates within bibledom are wrestling over who knows the one-and-only way to Christ, or the most excellent way to Christ, or the even most-honest way to Christ, etc...
Foolishness. Vanity. Carnal. maybe?
For example, Mike insists that his specific way to VPW is the best and quickest way to Christ (who is the only way to God). And he (Mike) is the only one who knows this, which makes him also the best way to VPW, and therefore the best way to Christ, who is the only way to God. Mike, doesn't it seem that there are a few extra links in this express stairway to heaven?
Failure seems more of an option than most of bibledom wants to admit or allow. Otherwise, Christian spirituallity is more Darwinian than anything else (to use a cliche). Only the spiritual strong survive?!? gag me. Only the spiritually lucky? yeah right. Only the spiritually willing? whatever that means.
In other words, does God want us to be so darn right about everything that we chop each other to bits over whose way to Christ is best?
Mike, is it the law of the jungle, or the law of love? Is there even a difference?
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
Steve Lortz
Oh... just one more thing... That was one of the feeblest straw man/ad hominem attacks I've seen in a long time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Disclaimer
I was definitely joshin, Vickles. Scary, isn't it that on this thread even the most bizarre caricature fits in? I should have put a smiley on my post.
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
Thomas, I know you were but I didn't want smike to think I'm interested. One little word and he gets excited. Don't want smikerol to be too excited. lol Thanks thomas for the apology it is excepted.
Ok!! I will not try to be a nice person...ok? I will not!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Tomorrow I'm travelling to Columbus, OH, to attend Origins, a national gaming convention. There I intend to do a lot of schmoozing, round up some more work for the coming year, and generally have as much fun as my aging body will allow. The upshot is, I will be gone from this forum for about a week. By the time I get back, there will probably be so much stuff posted here it will take me several days of reading to catch back up. So I'll be gone for a while.
Before I go though, I want to address two points regarding things Mike has written.
First, this "You're possessed!" business.
This is from Mike's post of April 28, '03, 19:48, about 1/2 way down page 13 of this thread,
*****
"...this 'Christ' within (a la Gal. 4:19) is NOT the same as the familiar foundational topic 'Christ in you the hope of glory.' The Col. 1:25 type of 'Christ in' is pneuma hagion, holy spirit, the gift that does not affect the mind, because the 'Christ in' is in the spirit catagory, while the mind is in the soul catagory.
"Christ FORMED within the mind is something spiritual happening in the natural realm. This Christ is formed and grows in a renewed mind... This Christ formed within is the new man...
"This new man is advanced. He's God's REAL masterpiece. From the 5-senses perspective, receiving pneuma hagion where there was none before is a masterful stroke of grace on God's part. But the 5-senses view cannot contain the advance Christ Formed. From God's perspective, the REAL masterpiece is this Christ formed in the soul. It's the NEW spirit mentioned in the 'Are You Limiting God?' chapter of the Blue Book.
"The advanced Christ formed within fits well (while Christ in the hope does not) with this phrase from Part I of 'The Love Way' posted last week: 'Your spirit must have the privilege of meditating in the Word.' This indicates that it's not 'pneuma hagion' Dr is talking about, but the 'spirit of God' that's born into the soul catagory, a different, later process from that created spirit we were first taught. This spirit is capable of 'meditating' in the Word, a mental process, not in the spiritual catagory of holy spirit. This advanced Christ formed within is the NEW man and the NEW spirit. It's one notch away from the spiritual body.
"Notice also from Part I of 'The Love Way' above that the REAL man is described as 'your spirit'. Again this can't be pneuma hagion, but something even bigger. This spirit is fed by the Word, not SIT."
*****
Mike's "advanced Christ formed within" is a spirit. We know this because, "This spirit is fed by the Word, not SIT."
Mike's "advanced Christ formed within" is not pneuma hagion, the gift of holy spirit. We see this from: "...this 'Christ' within... is not the same as the familiar foundational topic 'Christ in you the hope of glory'"; "...This indicates that it's not 'pneuma hagion' Dr is talking about, but the 'spirit of God' that's born into the soul catagory, a different, later process from that created spirit we were first taught"; and "Again this can't be pneuma hagion, but something even bigger."
Mike's "advanced Christ formed within" spirit inhabits a person's mind: "Christ FORMED within the mind is something spiritual happening in the natural realm. This Christ is formed and grows in a renewed mind..."; "This spirit is capable of 'meditating' in the Word, a mental process..."
Mike's "advanced Christ formed within" spirit enters into a person's mind through some different, later process than the process of receiving holy spirit.
These are Mike's own words. I haven't read anything into them. According to Mike, there is a spirit other than the gift of holy spirit inhabiting his mind. As we've seen in other places, Mike relies on this spirit to reveal hidden meanings to him, meanings that often contradict the 5-senses meanings of both the Bible AND Wiewille's writings.
Does it walk like a duck? Does it quack like a duck? What conclusions are we to draw?
What does the bona fide, God-breathed Word have to say about these things?
*****
II Corinthians 11:3 "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4 "For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him."
*****
Paul was NOT highly in favor of receiving other spirits.
Paul was NOT interested in rationalizing lies by appealing to rules of grammar so fine that only the high-resolution spirit inhabiting Mike's mind can see them. Paul was concerned that the Corinthians MINDS might be CORRUPTED from the simplicity that is in Christ.
I'll post more later today.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Steve the Extraordinaire wroteth:
"Mike's "advanced Christ formed within" spirit enters into a person's mind through some different, later process than the process of receiving holy spirit.
These are Mike's own words. I haven't read anything into them. According to Mike, there is a spirit other than the gift of holy spirit inhabiting his mind. As we've seen in other places, Mike relies on this spirit to reveal hidden meanings to him, meanings that often contradict the 5-senses meanings of both the Bible AND Wiewille's writings.
Does it walk like a duck? Does it quack like a duck? What conclusions are we to draw?
What does the bona fide, God-breathed Word have to say about these things?"
Oh what the heck, I'll attempt to play the devil's advocate extraordinaire. The stuff you point out is quite interesting,- and worthy of the old Advanced Class "Ooohs" and "Aaahs" -though not at all surprising.
Yet "possession" is not the only inference that might be drawn from Mike's trip around the proverbial barn, particularly in view of E. Earl Ellis' article, "The Spiritual Gifts in the Pauline Community" in the journal New Testament Studies vol.20 ( which can be located at any decent college library), which goes into the possible relationship between spiritual gifts and angelology (or spirits of angels), and how this may be seen in Paul's writings as well as in sections of the Dead Sea scrolls.
That Mike should stumble into the view that there is more than one "spirit" involved amidst his studies may also be indicative of the various odd "ducks" that are to be encountered in the scriptures. Speaking of odd ducks it's certainly open to question at least in my mind how the request in Eph.1:21 should have been taken, that "the Father of glory may be giving you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the realisation of him" - considering that Ephesians was supposedly written to folks who already were bestowed "holy spirit"(?)- a very bizarre passage if taken literally, and if so, E. Earl Ellis' thesis (and Otto Everling before him) would make the most sense.
And again, we cannot overlook the inconsistent nature of VPW's teachings on the topic of holy spirit to bein with, which presents quite a parasitical "holy spirit" when accepted literally. Especially in view of VPW's handling of "body" and "soul" in other places, of which inconsistencies I think you done magnificantly in drawing attention to in past posts.
Your job sounds like a lot of fun. Is your employer looking for any additional help?
Actually it sounds like the kind of job my son would enjoy.
Danny
[This message was edited by TheInvisibleDan on June 24, 2003 at 12:06.]
[This message was edited by TheInvisibleDan on June 24, 2003 at 12:10.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I Thess. 5:23
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly;
and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body
be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
In a large dictionary nearly every word has multiple definitions.
The word ?spirit? has multiple definitions.
Does anyone think the new spiritual body we get in I Cor.15 is a new spirit other than the holy spirit gift?
It's a similar situation with the new spiritual mind, the perfectly renewed mind, the formed mind of Christ we receive as we feed from God's Word.
Does anyone think this is a spirit other than the holy spirit gift?
Here?s what God wants for us:
(1) Spirit - holy spirit, incorruptible seed, token, created, Christ in you the HOPE of glory
(2) Soul - perfectly renewed mind, the mind of Christ, Christ FORMED in you, the glory
(3) Body - spiritual body, resurrected body, perfect health
To the best of my understanding, the timing of God?s GREAT intervention to make these abundantly available is:
(1) 1942-1982
(2) NOW
(3) ? I don?t know..... yet.
I Thess. 5:23
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly;
and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body
be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[This message was edited by Mike on June 24, 2003 at 13:19.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thomas Heller,
I apologize for having lost track of the post from which you took your break.
Maybe you also noticed I've got a backlog again with WordWolf too (I'm sure he noticed) as well as this droning exorcism Steve has going on in the background. Maybe some split pea soup has obscured your post from my attention. If you would be so kind to paste it back to these more current pages it?ll save me some work finding it. I can?t even remember any key words, otherwise I could find it pretty easy.
P.S. Regarding Kenyon?s version of ?The Love Way? that you told me about a year ago. I?d like to see it, but have no idea where to find it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Now for the "try it, you'll like it!" business.
The Word of God says we're supposed to try things,
*****
I John 4:1 "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."
*****
What does it mean to "try the spirits"? Does it mean we go, "Oh, look, there's a Jungian archtype. Let's invite it in and see how it treats us."
"Wait, there's a shaman totem spirit over there. Let's see what it can do."
"How about that ancient soul from Atlantis? I'll bet she can channel some really hot spiritual understanding!"
Is that what it means to "try the spirits"? I don't think so. The word "try" is "dokimazo", which means to assay, to judge the quality of, to assess.
The standard we are to use in assessing spirits is the Word of God. In John's specific situation, the false spirits were having their false prophets say that Jesus hadn't really come in the flesh. This contradicted John 1:14a, "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us..."
Today, false spirits are promoting a thousand and one different perversions of the Word, but their tactics are still the same, and we still have the same standard to recognize their godawful twists. Not convoluted rationalizations, but the simplicity that is in Christ.
Mike wrote, "...I'm well aware of the adversary's first tactic on Eve was to get her to question the integrity of God's Word... One difference is that Eve had a perfectly renewed mind and we don't. If Eve was to change her mind from what it was it would SURELY be bad.
"But for us to change our minds, sometimes its bad because we're right, and sometimes it's good because we were wrong to begin with and now closer to or on the truth.
"Because we don't start out perfect like Eve, we must experiment around and sometimes even to take risks to get to the truth or to more of the truth.
"From what I've presented PFAL mastery should look like a reasonable risk."
Soooo..... Eve's chances of being wrong in changing her mind were 100%, but my chances are only 50%/50%, because sometimes I'm right and sometimes I'm wrong already.
From what you've presented PFAL mastery should look like a reasonable risk, eh? You may have presented some odds (very dubiously odds at that), Mike, but what you didn't present were the stakes. Nobody can make a reasonable risk assessment without knowing the stakes.
I will give you the benefit of a doubt, and assume that you haven't yet crossed the will of your "advanced Christ formed within" spirit with your own will. If the time comes when you do, you'll find out the unspeakable profundity of the stakes you've anteed up. You've put your life in its hands. The risk you are asking people to take is NOT reasonable. I've taken those risks. I've been there. I HAVE tried it. I DIDN'T like it. If it weren't for the mercy and grace of God through Jesus Christ I'd be dead.
"From what I've presented about KJV verses being on every page, encouragement of context reading in PFAL and many other checks and balances like the exclusion of TWI and other ogre-nizations, this 'try it, you'll like it' invitation should look pretty safe."
But you've demonstrated that the voice of your "advanced Christ formed within" spirit trumps all KJV verses, all contexts, all checks and balances. There are NO checks and balances against your "advanced Christ formed within" spirit. There is NO safety in what you propose.
You wrote, "...PFAL mastery should look like a reasonable risk... this 'try it, you'll like it' invitation should look pretty safe."
You didn't write "should BE a reasonable risk" or "should BE pretty safe". You wrote "should LOOK like a reasonable risk" and "should LOOK pretty safe."
Why are you more concerned with appearance than with substance, Mike? Could it be that you are crafting the appearance to conceal the substance? It wouldn't surprise me in the least, because your sole reason for being in these forums is to recruit people to your program of "mastering PFAL", a program that entails people inviting alien spirits into their minds.
You wrote, "No, there's no OBVIOUS evil in what I purpose, yet you look away from the obvious evil all around you and go after an 'evil' that you must admit is in a very subtle and foundational area."
I DO have to admit that the evil you purpose is in a very subtle and foundational area. You've done all you can to remove its OBVIOUSness. All the more reason to shine the brightest possible light on your evil.
More when I get back from Origins.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Danny - I sculpt original figures from which manufacturers make molds and sell reproductions. I've spent the last couple of years doing critters for the Glorantha universe. I picked up doing some of the Usagi Yojimbo figures this past year. I'm looking forward to seeing what's going to turn up next.
It IS fun, but I'm a self-employed free-lancer, and just like every other field, I had to pay my dues to get where I'm at. If your son's got some serious interest, I'd be happy to share some of my experiences with him.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
very cool post, danny, thanks
you help me to think and i appreciate that.
thus far, most of this thread bores me. plus i don't like wierwille. as far as "taking a stand" on anything discussed, gee i don't know and i don't care. i think i have a lot of leftover waybrain and i haven't been able to tell what is what, for most of my life, that is.
"there are too many bible thumpers and not enough of those do goodin men...." to paraphrase my old buddy ted ferrell
(ps. this is in no way a cut to the wonderful christians here who i love -- litwin and others) it's just me talking out loud....
peace be with you
and with your spirit
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Exy,
My message isn't about liking VPW or not.
It's about liking what God produced in PFAL, in spite of VPW.
.
.
.
.
[This message was edited by Mike on June 24, 2003 at 16:04.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Steve,
You slickly wrote:
?Soooo..... Eve's chances of being wrong in changing her mind were 100%, but my chances are only 50%/50%, because sometimes I'm right and sometimes I'm wrong already.
?From what you've presented PFAL mastery should look like a reasonable risk, eh? You may have presented some odds (very dubiously odds at that), Mike, but what you didn't present were the stakes. Nobody can make a reasonable risk assessment without knowing the stakes.?
In the first sentence you assign your own numbers to the odds, and then You dub them ?very dubiously odds? at that.
Then you say I didn?t present the stakes, when I DID present them. I said that the stakes are the same for NOT experimenting and staying with current traditional paradigms and later finding out that THIS was the wrong course to take.
Let?s compare our presentations:
I totally recognize the stakes, mentioned them, and then pointed out that the stakes are high no matter who?s wrong here.
You don?t seem to recognize the stakes are high if YOU are wrong, you DON?T mention this, and you TRY to portray the situation as one of the stakes ONLY being on my side. Notice I?m giving you the benefit of the doubt. I?d LIKE to think you didn?t recognize these equally high stakes for your position being wrong, and that your obfuscation to others was not deliberate.
*******************
So, Steve, you are arguing the classic safety in numbers fallacy. It?s the false safety in numbers of people and in numbers of years invested in the current paradigms of traditional churchianity that you signal as the safety zone. I?ve seen enough Biblical examples of false traditions prevailing in a culture of ?believers? to say baloney to your pukey warnings.
I?m real comfortable with Paul?s exposition that the Galatians were missing something CRUCIAL in verse 4:19, and you are in the modern role of one of the types who bewitched the Galatians, and in record time, back into foolish traditionss and 5-senses perspectives.
***************
Meanwhile, Steve, you not only seem to have had a feeble understanding of Galatians 4:19, but you now want to keep that feeble understanding of yours undeveloped, and you want to keep others from learning what it?s all about too.
I notice a continued lack of threads you start with any positive instruction of correct doctrine.
I notice that after ?your? people heed your warning, then you have little planned for their continued growth. Maybe you could post a Gospel of John for them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i get your message mikey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Exy,
You can also learn to like it.
Especially when you see more goodies are in the details.
I've got more surprises to post still.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Mike - You wrote, "...you say I didn't present the stakes, when I did present them. I said that the stakes are the same for NOT experimenting and staying with current traditional paradigms and later finding out that THIS was the wrong course to take."
No, Mike, the stakes are not the same. When a person invites an alien spirit to take up residence in his mind, that person has anteed his SANITY into the pot.
I know. I've been there. I tried it. I didn't like it.
You wrote, "...you are in the role of one of the types who bewitched the Galatians..."
Galatians 3:1a reads, "O foolish ["anoetos" = "unthinking"] Galatians, who hath bewitched you..."
The Galatians were bewitched because they didn't use their critical faculties to consider what they were being told. They weren't exercising their 5-senses through practice to discern both good and evil. Which of us is encouraging people to think, and which is advocating turning that function over to an alien spirit, Mike?
You wrote, "I notice that after 'your' people heed your warning, then you have little planned for their continued growth..."
How revealing that YOU refer to people in terms of ownership. I don't own any people here. I don't pretend to. What is the agenda YOU have prepared for those who ante up their sanity? ACFWAs (Advanced Christ Formed Within Ambassadors)? An ACFW Leadership Training Program?
No thanks... double no thanks... too much of an OLG to fall for all that crap again.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Steve,
I'm talking about having the lord Jesus Christ FORMED within, not an alien spirit being INVITED in.
We KNOW who Jesus Christ is, he's our brother, not an alien.
Just what do you think Paul was talking about in Gal. 4:19?
The way we form Christ within is detailed in Dr?s teaching posted here ?Christ Formed in You.? It?s by imitating Christ, informing ourselves of details of his character, that forms Christ within.
This teaching can be found on this thread?s page 6 about one fifth of the way doen from the top, and posted April 13, 2003 13:13 or by clicking here:
http://www.gscafe.com/groupee/forums?a=tpc...2192#5746062192
You don't want to invite in some pre-packaged spirit, because THAT would be dangerous.
We take in God?s Word, His words, and that?s what does the forming. We have to work at it by reading God?s Word and applying it. It?s a SLOW growth process, not an invitation process.
[This message was edited by Mike on June 24, 2003 at 21:07.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
You wrote:
A) The reason you keep coming up is that the
issue here is your private interpretation of
PFAL-secret messages only you've found, hidden
meanings only you've seen, special revelation
only you believe.
----------------
This issue is not really an issue. There are some things I?ve seen because I went to the books 5 years ago. I?ve invited you to come and see the same things. I?ve NOT said you are limited to me in seeing them. I do think that I can give you a head start or shortcut into seeing some things. It may take you 5 years to see some one thing without my pointing it out, but by following up on what I point out you may see it in FAR less time.
And besides, I?m NOT the only one who?s seen these things. There?s a whole fellowship here and a few individuals scattered around the country. I too had a head start of some items in that my teacher showed me, and then I saw it too in the books.
I?m trying to help, not lord it over any one. I?m not recruiting anyone to my team; I?m encouraging people to come back to see the treasures in their own books. I?m posting the information for free, so no one has to pay for it or even register for a class.
I desire to help accelerate the learning curve here.
***************
When we addressed PFAL,
you said you won't be sidetracked. Hours and
hours of discussion of the less-than-perfection
of the object of your adoration came up.
-----------------
These were hours of unprofitable discussion that I eschewed and spit out.
The subject of PFAL was indeed addressed, but from a perspective I had decided to abolish in my life. It?s a matter of deliberate policy that I won?t waste my time with researchers discussing AEs. I do work on PFAL AEs (Apparent Errors), but only minimally, and under more efficient conditions, as I have explained ad infinitum.
*********************
You have recently admitted that you claim to
be refused to be sidetracked, you refuse to
entertain what disproves your claims, etc, etc.
----------------
What disproves my claims to a team of eager PFAL critics is their eagerness.
**************
MIKE has announced that VPW repeatedly said that
his material was the results of VPW and God and
various other people.
---------------
I can cite passages where he said these things.
*************
This claim was already addressed on many threads.
VPW very prominently proclaimed in PFAL it was
just HIM and GOD.
-------------
Page and paragraph, please.
***************
Another question on this subject.....
..Mike has claimed that VPW claims that some of
what VPW said (wrote) is of God directly, and
some is of VPW. Supposedly, now, some was also
of other people, yet also of VPW AND some of
other people AND GOD. That's a tangled mess.
If one must claim that PFAL was DIVINE, it
swiftly becomes a scrambled mess concerning
who wrote what.
---------------
It?s only a tangled mess to those of you who want to discredit it. I see no need to have an inventory of just what came from where and when. The books are the picture of simplicity. It?s your analysis that?s convoluted, in that it?s trying hard to make a case of flimsiness, when it itself it based on a partial understanding of the contents of PFAL.
When you get to know better what?s in the books, as opposed to your tangled memory and present understanding of them, THEN it will be simple.
**************
B) On the charge of plagiarism... ...VPW NEVER
indicated that the PFAL class would NEVER have
happened without BG Leonard's class, which
seems to precisely parallel VPW's class,
complete with the imaginary examples of
Maggie Muggins and Johnny Jumpup and so on.
It can clearly be shown VPW had taken BG
Leonard's class before starting work on PFAL.
It can be clearly shown that VPW had read JE
Stiles' book before starting work on his own.
Like the situation with Queen Esther, if these men hadn?t done the work they did to help accelerate Dr?s learning curve like we discussed above, then God would have found another way or someone else to do the job.
The DID do that work, they DID help, Dr, and Dr DID credit them appropriate to the family setting in which they were used. If you insist on Dr crediting them in they style of academia or the market place you?re going to be disappointed. But I think that?s a silly demand. I like our family, and I like what God has done for us in giving us His Word like it has not been known since the first century. Screw academia and the market place.
***********
Despite huge sections of both appearing to be
photocopied to form VPW's work, he never said-
not once! -THIS is the class I owe so much to,
THIS is the book I owe so much to. Rather,
both names seem almost nonexistent in VPW
history.
Your demands are silly. He TOLD us, and you could have researched out how dependant Dr was on all that stuff while he was alive. You could have asked him then if this was so important. It?s only important to you know because you need an excuse to chuck the whole thing. I don?t buy it.
***********
Now, Mike, you've claimed the Bible is full of
"tattered remnants" and "unreliable fragments."
VPW declared in PFAL (chapter 8 entire) is NOT.
-------------
You misrepresented me.
I agree with Dr that the BIBLE is perfect. It?s miscopies, translations, and versions that get tattered and partial.
(1) I claim that the MODERN compilations, the critical texts of Bible have some problems.
(2) I claim the MODERN translations and versions have some problems.
(3) I claim the cultural religious bias causes LOTS of problems for people, even when they read accurately translated passages in modern texts. What gets registered within these many readers is often not what is written.
*(these three items were significantly edited many hours after posting)*
I have meticulously explained that it?s the SUM of these factors that make modern texts LIKE tattered remnants when COMPARED to PFAL.
I have also explained that factor (1) is not as intense as factor (2),
and that factor (3) is VERY strong. I think you are looking only at (1), and forgetting that my description was figurative and relative to PFAL.
I don?t think anyone would contest my ?tattered remnants? description if they were comparing the received text to a convincingly freshly issued authoritative text. You?re just not yet convinced that PFAL is such a revelation, because you refuse to master it from within, AGAIN.
You misrepresented me above by over abbreviating my position, and by misapplying the label ?tattered remnants? to the wrong target.
****************
E) I didn't say that studying was WRONG.
YOU said that, Mike. You claimed that using
the intellect to discern good and evil-thinking
about whether Mike's thesis is legit or not-
is wrong. I've been SAYING that THINKING is
important all along, by implication AND direct
statement. Don't pretend I said otherwise.
Your claim was that thinking was a 5-senses
approach and wrong.
-------------------
I said that LEANING on our understanding is wrong, as it says in Proverbs 3. I said that the 5-senses approach is useful if it?s the ONLY approach, but when it becomes AVAILABLE to see it spiritually, then the 5-senses approach should be put aside.
**********
E) You said you're not trying to present
evidence.
Goey already pointed out that's inconsistent
with your posts.
Also, you keep saying that blindly accepting
your instructions will get us the results.
Outside of religious cults, that kind of claim
never works.
"I refuse to prove I have anything to offer,
but if you do things my way, you'll see it."
-----------------
You?re wrong. It ALSO works this way in the way of a Father with His family.
And again, you misrepresent me. It?s not ?if you do things my way? that I say, but if we do things GOD?S way, which He revealed to Dr and Dr put into written form.
***************
F) Your latest appeal is one of loyalty.
I'm supposed to obey VPW "because he taught you
so much of God's Word." So, then, if I teach
people a lot, they're supposed to do whatever
I say?
I?d say that it?s not if you were to ?teach people a lot? but if you were to teach people a lot of ACCURACY of the Word, then those who listen and benefit will be very motivated to believe more from you the next time. It?s not just teaching a lot of quantity, but teaching a lot of QUALITY that earns this kind of respect. For me, and for many thousands of others, Dr did earn our respect. We did benefit from PFAL.
.
.
.
.
*(The section containing the three itemized claims was
significantly edited many hours after posting)*
[This message was edited by Mike on June 25, 2003 at 2:46.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Excathedra,
You must be an angel, because my own posts can even put me to sleep
:)-->
I hope you had an excellent birthday, with lots of rich, chocolate cake!
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Wow, so you're a sculptor? That's a very fascinating way to make a living, indeed! For some reason I envisioned you testing out new fangled video games, or something along those lines.
Would love to check out some of your artwork sometime. Do have you have an online exhibit?
My son loves video games ("Blockbuster Video" is the center of the universe to him at the moment), and he loves his "action figures" as well. I don't know if he's actually got an interest in sculpting, though he loves messing around with his legos (he's 11 yrs old).
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mike:
Yes, I know that as far as you're concerned,
you (you and Seaspray) are right and everyone
else is wrong. I don't think it's fair for you
to invoke people anonymously who've never
posted here, who could easily be made-up or
wildly misquoted. It's almost as unfair as
rewriting the words of a dead man. Yes, as
far as you're concerned, anything that displays
an error in PFAL is a non-issue. Yes, as far as
you're concerned, the frame of mind of the
researcher determines, for example, whether or
not the kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God are
synonymous (as the Bible sasy, using them
INTERCHANGEABLY as it does) or mean 2 different
things (as we were taught in PFAL.)
To the rest of us, these are not things that can
be "poo-poohed" away...not if we want to claim
any intellectual, Biblical or Godly integrity.
Doesn't it strike you as ironic, then, that you
can say the following?
A) Unless you can find a place in the orange
book that says (as the videotapes said) that VPW
"took all his other Christian books down to the
town gehenna, where the fires never go out, and
that he just closeted himself off with God and
the Bible, and that he almost wished he'd kept
that roomful of books so that they could be
used as a display piece, showing how many books
he read BEFORE giving them up", I refuse to
believe he said that.
B) The PFAL orange book does not cite BG Leonard
as the source of most of the material, and the
white RTHST book does not cite JE Stiles as the
source of most of the material. That does NOT
mean he failed to acknowledge them.
I know-you DON'T see that as a logical
inconsistency-the books being the final
authority in one place, and not in another-
but the rest of US do.
I know you think the plagiarism of the material
means nothing to you. Your response is that
we could have found out anytime.
WHEN?
Back when questioning him resulted in people
mysteriously vanishing? Before we had access
to BG Leonard and JE Stiles' work? We were told
the contributions of all others were minor.
Like a bunch of jerks, we accepted VPW at his
word, since we thought he had integrity, and his
word was reliable. That was the party line in
TWI no matter WHEN you were in.
BTW, Mike,
I keep running into people who've read
Bullinger's stuff, yet never heard of TWI, VPW
or PFAL. Still think he didn't reach anyone?
Frankly, whether or not the entirety of the
material of PFAL was original, or NONE of it was
means very little in my evaluation of things.
The integrity issue, however, DOES count.
I know this means NOTHING to you. It does to the
REST of us, though.
Also, your dogged insistence in ascribing new
and "secret" meanings to things is one of YOUR
major credibility issues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
At Mike's request, I have spent some time in
the orange PFAL book.
I have found some interesting things.
Now, some of you following this thread have
thrown away your orange books. As such, when you
challenged some of Mike's claims, he replied
that you were relying on faulty memories of the
PFAL class, and you had no idea what the books
said. The BOOKS, Mike insisted, are canonical,
not the class or your memories of either.
Therefore, I will post some direct quotes from
the books. Those of you who lack access to
your orange books might want to print these out.
Those of you who HAVE your orange books are
welcome to follow along and confirm (refute?)
whether these are direct quotes from the book
or not.
-----------------------------------------------
Now, then, Mike's been rather clear with us
that PFAL REPLACED the Bible, and is now God's
Word. Now, then, if that is true-and Mike
asserts that it IS-then PFAL's internal
testimony concerning both ITSELF and
"The Word of God"-which, according to Mike, are
now synonymous-are the ONLY accurate sources of
material on PFAL. That means that when PFAL
speaks, neither Mike nor I dare contradict it.
-----------------------------------------------
Here is one place PFAL (the orange book)
discusses how to understand The Word of God...
page 147.
"There is another answer-The Word interprets
itself.
The Word interprets itself in one of three ways:
1) it interprets itself in the verse where it
is written, or
2) it interprets itself in its context, or
3) the interpretation can be found by its
previous usage in The Word.
It was a remarkable revelation to us who do
Biblical research to discover that the vast
majority of the Word of God does interpret
itself right where it is written. I would
estimate that from Genesis to Revelation 85 to
90 per cent of the Word of God interprets itself
in the verse.
If the interpretation is so obvious, why have we
not understood it? First of all, we have not
read it; and secondly, we have not remembered
what we read. We get sloppy and read
"thoroughly" instead of "throughly".
Let us look at some examples where Scripture
interprets itself in the verse.
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth.
Where does this verse interpret itself? One
needs no commentary to understand this verse."
-----------------------------------------------
Ok, let's review.
Three keys to understanding The Word...
A) the verse where it's written.
85-90% of the Word of God can be understood
by the "OBVIOUS" meaning of the verses. So long
as we READ them, and remember what we read,
we can understand 85-90% of Scripture.
That means the Word of God, at most, can
contain a maximum of 15% of verses that can NOT
be understood by the "OBVIOUS" meaning.
That's straight out of this page, right?
(BTW, I retyped the entire page, and did NOT
include anything from either surrounding page.)
That's EXACTLY what we can take from this page.
So, people claiming that the PFAL IS Scripture,
and the ORANGE book is canonical DARE NOT claim
what this page says is not true-
that is, claim that less than 85% of PFAL is
understood by the "OBVIOUS" meaning of the text.
-----------------------------------------------
Let's also note that it named ONLY 3 keys for
understanding.
Let's look at the other 2 keys.
page 183-184, the Orange PFAL book.
"The second point of how Scripture interprets
itself is in its context. If Scripture does not
interpret itself in its own verse, then read the verse in its context. The context is that
which makes up the whole story, the enveloping
idea."
The example is then given of understanding
Psalm 2:8 "Ask of me and I shall give the the
heathen..." in light of Psalm 2:9
"Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron..."
Other examples follow, each of which state
principles you all, I'm certain, remember
fairly well.
Your memory of the class is often pretty
accurate-despite the claims of some.
--------------------------------------------
Let's look at the LAST key.
page 199, the orange PFAL book. (Entire page)
"Chapter Fourteen
In Its Previous Usage.
If Scripture does not interpret itself in the
verse or in the context, then the interpretation
is found in its previous usage. In the first
usage of a word, expression or idea, the
explanation is usually complete enough to carry
through in all other references in the Bible.
If God ever changed the usage of a word or
expression, He always explained it.
To see this great truth on how The Word
interprets itself in its previous usage observe
II Corinthians 12. II Corinthians 12 is the
passage on Paul's thorn in the flesh which has
been a problem to many people. I have a
collection in my library of different things
ministers and theologians have through the
years written to explain Paul's thorn. These
men have come up with fourteen different
conclusions. The Word tells us what Pauls' thorn
in the flesh was and thus we do not rely on
guesswork and cannot, therefore, have fourteen
contradictory opinions."
----------------------------------------------
The chapter then expounds on the "thorn in the
flesh". Page 201 has an important point to make
when examining previous usage.
"This one verse alone, since it is the first
usage of the expression in the Bible, says that
"pricks in your eyes" and "thorns in your sides"
are people."
Those of you following along at home may
remember VPW going into detail about how the
FIRST usage of a word will often determine its
meaning throughout the rest of Scripture.
This is where that point comes up. It may also
come up in his other books-I'll address that
when I get to it.
-----------------------------------------------
Different claims have been put forth about
PFAL.
Was PFAL supposed to be simply a class to help
understand the Bible (as Goey, for example,
said)?
Was PFAL supposed to replace the tired old
documents we've been struggling to use for
2000 years or more, and take the Bible's place
as the Word of God (as Mike said)?
No one who dares respect the contents of the
PFAL orange book would dare to contradict its
internal testimony of itself.
What does PFAL says about itself?
page 4, PFAL orange book.
"This book, Power for Abundant Living, is one
way of showing interested people the abundant
life which Jesus Christ lived and which He
came to make available to believers as it is
revealed in the Word of God.
This is a book containing Biblical keys. The
contents herein do not teach the Scriptures
from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21: rather, it
is designed to set before the reader the basic
keys in the Word of God so that Genesis to
Revelation will unfold and so that the abundant
life will become evident to those who want to
appropriate God's abundance to their lives. "
---------------------------------------------
The answer? PFAL declares ITSELF a book on KEYS,
not a teaching of Genesis to Revelation, a guide
to understanding Genesis to Revelation.
That's all I feel like posting at the moment.
A little later I have one Goey's going to be
particularly interested in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Can anyone spare a sec for someone who just skims?
I have a few questions and thoughts.
Why do the stakes seem so high to so many of you/us/me at times, particularly regarding this issue of "The Way to God?" Really, what is it about us that is so threatened by our mortal failures that God cannot restore in time? What is so spiritually fleeting? Our place in the hierarchy of blessings, or something? I doubt it.
All facets of Christianity more-or-less seem to agree that Christ is the only way to God. So, biblicaly, what is wrong with the idea that there are MANY ways to Christ? Seems that all these religious debates within bibledom are wrestling over who knows the one-and-only way to Christ, or the most excellent way to Christ, or the even most-honest way to Christ, etc...
Foolishness. Vanity. Carnal. maybe?
For example, Mike insists that his specific way to VPW is the best and quickest way to Christ (who is the only way to God). And he (Mike) is the only one who knows this, which makes him also the best way to VPW, and therefore the best way to Christ, who is the only way to God. Mike, doesn't it seem that there are a few extra links in this express stairway to heaven?
Failure seems more of an option than most of bibledom wants to admit or allow. Otherwise, Christian spirituallity is more Darwinian than anything else (to use a cliche). Only the spiritual strong survive?!? gag me. Only the spiritually lucky? yeah right. Only the spiritually willing? whatever that means.
In other words, does God want us to be so darn right about everything that we chop each other to bits over whose way to Christ is best?
Mike, is it the law of the jungle, or the law of love? Is there even a difference?
Todd
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
skimmer here
law of love appeals to me
veepee did not love me; he hurt me; that's my gripe. "get over it" i am over it to the best of my brain/heartpower this moment.
i'm not going to start a law or a church over that or anything else.
always always nice to see you sirguess
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Always always nice to see you too, Ex.
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.