Love can also be exhibited in charging a hefty fee for certain types of classes to prevent unready students from diluting the atmosphere of learning the otherwise serious and ready students deserve. Many Bible colleges operate this way, at least in part. The PFAL class was run this way to a degree, and I'm glad it was. We ran free twig fellowships and helped get students serious and ready for the more formal and rich atmosphere of learning the this class could offer. Many exceptions were made to the required donation to take PFAL, such as other grads fronting the money at times. When people fork over the dough they are in a better position to receive in many ways. Free isn't always good. Just look at inner city free housing and how it's been a colossal failure. People appreciate better and are more careful with those things they have to work for.
(snip)
We here in my San Diego fellowship have found that Geer's editing is not to be trusted. In fact, we trust no one's editing of his writings after Dr's death.
(snip)
Since I firmly believe that Jesus Christ's Father was intimately involved in the writing of the PFAL collaterals, taking my eyes off them would be the equivalent of Peter taking his eyes off the Lord while he walked on water. That move will sink a man's walk.
In addition to PFAL correcting many cherished christian-world errors, it also teaches us the HOW of operating the power he learned and operated. Here we have, in my opinion, one of the situations in life where a CLOSED mind is what God recommends. After many years of searching I am convinced that, although it is not intended for everyone, it is unique and God's best for us grads by far.
Ok, let's see....
*takes out pointer*
As everyone can see, the first slide shows a marked denial of the reasons the
prices fluctuated for pfal at different times. If the market would have
borne the running of all pfal classes at $200, it would have stayed $200.
It only came down to match demand. Adam Smith's "invisible hand", not God's
invisible hand, moved the price. Also note how it was "correct and Godly"
to run classes at $200, just as it was "correct and Godly" to run classes
at $40. If vpw endorsed a decision, it was "correct and Godly" even if
contradictory statements are thus "correct and Godly."
*moves to second slide*
I imagine a detailed comparison of "Living Victoriously" was not attempted,
the book to the tapes. Some people sat thru an LV class with an LV book
in their hands, and discovered it was a transcript of the content portions
of the tapes. (That is, they leave out the jokes and cheapshots at other
Christians on each tape.) Even someone who hated vpw, cg and the tapes/book
would be able to admit that, if they compared them.
*moves to third slide*
Here we see Mike rewriting the editing process behind the pfal books.
We also have the testimony of one of those editors that this is nothing like
what happened. We can believe the word of a PARTICIPANT and EYEWITNESS,
or that of Mike who concluded what he wanted to, years later and states away.
However, Mike's determined not to allow other ideas to penetrate his mind,
and the admission is here.
*moves to last slide*
Here we see the holy pfal books correcting the evils of 20 centuries of
Christians once again. In Mike's mind, anyway. Never lets reality or the
evidence get in the way of his doctrine, that one.
Do you see that if you say PFAL is not God-breathed, then by the same reasoning, NOTHING IS?
(snip)
I want to repeat something. Do you see that if PFAL is not God-breathed, then by the same reasoning, NOTHING IS? The type of disqualifying analysis you do with PFAL will disqualify all known Bibles too. They too have errors.
I know you want to believe that the original versions, in the original languages and cultures, WERE God-breathed. But that's an abstract idea. Why do you believe it without proof, the kind of proof you insist on with PFAL? The reason I want to believe, and do believe, that the traditional Bible's originals were God-breathed is because I once tok a class called "Power for Abundant Living" on video tape and taught by one Victor Paul Wierwille.
***
Can you point to a single book in your library that is God-breathed? I don't mean a book that's derived from something that was God-breathed 2000 years ago, I mean an actual, physical, errorless, God-breathed book.
You can NOT pick up a single book and say to me:
"This book is bigger than me. It's perfect. If I disagree with it, I must change ME, and not a single word in this book. No matter how much sense knowledge information comes my way saying such-and-such is in error in this book, I'm ignoring that sense knowledge because I know this book is straight from God. I dare not alter a single word, because it's God-breathed."
(snip)
From taking PFAL I learned to overlook the MANY MAJOR errors that crept into the traditional Bible, correct any apparent errors due solely to my own wrong dividing of it, and abstractly look to the original revelation as my only rule for faith and practice.
It is far easier for me now to overlook the FEW MINOR errors that have crept into written PFAL, correct any apparent errors due solely to my own wrong dividing of it, and concretely look to these books as my only rule for faith and practice, and look to PFAL as my book of books, my own "The Book," the newly defined Bible.
No matter how many times you say
"if pfal isn't God-breathed, then nothing is!"
It STILL holds no water.
The origin of any canon has no bearing on any other canon.
Muslims say "if the Koran isn't God-breathed, then nothing is!"
Christian Science-ites say "If Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures
isn't God-breathed, then nothing is!"
Many other groups say similar things about THEIR holy books, like you do with
your holy books. Their beliefs don't require reality to conform to them.
You should know this-I've said this in greater detail before.
I'll leave the other comments alone, except to say they illustrate your POV
nicely, and new arrivals should easily see why this position of yours is error.
I'm disappointed that you think I'm a practitioner of the ad hominem fallacy. When my person is attacked I do sometimes attack the attacker, and I think that is sometimes justifiable. It doesn't help me in my argument, but can nullify his attack, and it MAY help the attacker to reconsider his methods.
If a messenger has an actual message, then "shooting the messenger" is a truly cheap shot. But for that same messenger to shoot back at his attacker and then have this retaliation labeled "shot the messenger" is an even cheaper shot. If the only message my attackers have is one directed at me personally, I think it's totally justifiable for me fight back if I think it's worth while to me and my message.
I'm also disappointed to see that both you and HCW do rely heavily on the ad hominem approach when dealing with my message, which by the very definition of "ad hominem" is NOT justifiable.
***
Just in case some readers are not familiar with that Latin term "ad hominem" here is how Research Geek defined it two years ago:
"Fallacy against the person - Rejection of an argument by means of an irrelevant fact about the author. The attack is usually against the character of the person. That is if they did so and so, they must be wrong about their premise."
Recently a few other posters cited a website cataloging logical fallacies, and here is the definition of "ad hominem" found there:
"Argument against the man. This is a personal attack on the person who presents or endorses a viewpoint and is often used as a last resort when the facts cannot be disputed. Called "poisoning the well," the argument is that to destroy the credibility of the person endorsing the viewpoint will destroy his argument. This argument is used extensively to discredit candidates for election by dirty-tricks campaigns that lay their private lives bare to public criticism."
***
I can leave it as an exercise to readers to look at all the very recent personal attacks here on this thread and see which were in the category of justifiable retaliation, and which were unjustifiable distractions from a message in attacking the messenger.
I can also do this myself, too. If I have the time I may highlight in color all such attacks. But then this is a further distraction from my message. I dislike it when I have to spend more time posting on how we all post to each other than what I originally wanted to talk about: God and His Word, and how He has blessed us grads, and how we can come back to this blessing.
Again, careful readers will be able to sort all this out.
Maybe, instead of allowing myself to be distracted into a talk about what we were talking about how he had previously been talking ad infinitum, I should just ignore the attacks against me and press on with the message, responding to as many sincere responses in the discussion as possible.
I'll be thinking all this through in the next couple of days. Thank you for acknowledging that lack of speediness in response is not necessarily equivalent to a lack of substance with which to respond.
I wish you'd add to that acknowledgment a recognition that I do respond to a large volume of questions and challenges, especially those justifiably aimed not at me but at the logic of my message. I am as sparing and careful as possible in what I choose to ignore. I do admit with regret that with the high volume of challenges aimed at my message mean that some get lost in the shuffle. Sometimes, with repetition of a challenge, I will eventually respond as time permits.
HCW's challenges to me are special, and I have a special file I'm saving them in. I have found him particularly insightful in many of his posts here when directed at other posters. Although I do see his error in cases when he has challenged me, his high volume and high density of challenges make it particularly difficult for me. I find his posts to me useful in that they bring out some very salient issues. In other words, far from shrinking from his challenges, I anticipate responding to them with great excitement. Their high volume and emotional invective do delay me. I am, however, almost done collecting all my thoughts on his first great challenge to me regarding his report that Dr himself denied in a personal conversation to HCW that his PFAL writings were God-breathed. I'm sure the material I have will surprise and disappoint those who expect a plethora of logical fallacies in my response.
I agree that you are far more diplomatic than some. I enjoy discussing matters with you, even if we strongly disagree.
There are others who also are in this category with you, in my mind. Olus, there are some who seem to be slowly moving to that category now that their initial fury has calmed down.
I also agree that sincerity is no guanantee of truth. It's a very nice human quality, but it ALONE does not guarantee that the sincere seeker will find. Other qualities and situations must act in concert with it for truth to be found.
Would you agree with me in my complaint above, though? I see HCW on the ad hominem warpath with me and WW even more so. In his ad hominem accusations against me, he also accuses me of the same.
GADS! I hate it when we get sidetracked LIKE THIS into talking about what was said and how, about what was said and how, about what was said and how....
As Nick Danger once demanded: "Let's get down to business!"
I'm disappointed that you think I'm a practitioner of the ad hominem fallacy. When my person is attacked I do sometimes attack the attacker, and I think that is sometimes justifiable. It doesn't help me in my argument, but can nullify his attack, and it MAY help the attacker to reconsider his methods.
If a messenger has an actual message, then "shooting the messenger" is a truly cheap shot. But for that same messenger to shoot back at his attacker and then have this retaliation labeled "shot the messenger" is an even cheaper shot. If the only message my attackers have is one directed at me personally, I think it's totally justifiable for me fight back if I think it's worth while to me and my message.
I'm also disappointed to see that both you and HCW do rely heavily on the ad hominem approach when dealing with my message, which by the very definition of "ad hominem" is NOT justifiable.
***
Just in case some readers are not familiar with that Latin term "ad hominem" here is how Research Geek defined it two years ago:
"Fallacy against the person - Rejection of an argument by means of an irrelevant fact about the author. The attack is usually against the character of the person. That is if they did so and so, they must be wrong about their premise."
Recently a few other posters cited a website cataloging logical fallacies, and here is the definition of "ad hominem" found there:
"Argument against the man. This is a personal attack on the person who presents or endorses a viewpoint and is often used as a last resort when the facts cannot be disputed. Called "poisoning the well," the argument is that to destroy the credibility of the person endorsing the viewpoint will destroy his argument. This argument is used extensively to discredit candidates for election by dirty-tricks campaigns that lay their private lives bare to public criticism."
***
I can leave it as an exercise to readers to look at all the very recent personal attacks here on this thread and see which were in the category of justifiable retaliation, and which were unjustifiable distractions from a message in attacking the messenger.
I can also do this myself, too. If I have the time I may highlight in color all such attacks. But then this is a further distraction from my message. I dislike it when I have to spend more time posting on how we all post to each other than what I originally wanted to talk about: God and His Word, and how He has blessed us grads, and how we can come back to this blessing.
Again, careful readers will be able to sort all this out.
Maybe, instead of allowing myself to be distracted into a talk about what we were talking about how he had previously been talking ad infinitum, I should just ignore the attacks against me and press on with the message, responding to as many sincere responses in the discussion as possible.
I'll be thinking all this through in the next couple of days. Thank you for acknowledging that lack of speediness in response is not necessarily equivalent to a lack of substance with which to respond.
I wish you'd add to that acknowledgment a recognition that I do respond to a large volume of questions and challenges, especially those justifiably aimed not at me but at the logic of my message. I am as sparing and careful as possible in what I choose to ignore. I do admit with regret that with the high volume of challenges aimed at my message mean that some get lost in the shuffle. Sometimes, with repetition of a challenge, I will eventually respond as time permits.
HCW's challenges to me are special, and I have a special file I'm saving them in. I have found him particularly insightful in many of his posts here when directed at other posters. Although I do see his error in cases when he has challenged me, his high volume and high density of challenges make it particularly difficult for me. I find his posts to me useful in that they bring out some very salient issues. In other words, far from shrinking from his challenges, I anticipate responding to them with great excitement. Their high volume and emotional invective do delay me. I am, however, almost done collecting all my thoughts on his first great challenge to me regarding his report that Dr himself denied in a personal conversation to HCW that his PFAL writings were God-breathed. I'm sure the material I have will surprise and disappoint those who expect a plethora of logical fallacies in my response.
For those who somehow missed it,
and for the amusement of those who DID catch it-
this was Response "A"-
the "ad hominem" attack.
In this case, it was disguised as an appeal to avoid ad hominem attacks.
"My detractors are the scum of the earth and mean people who make cheap shots
at me for no reason! I would never resort to their cheap attacks!
I'm so disappointed with them!"
Go ahead, scroll up. I left it untouched.
Mike,
until you can tell the difference between HCW's post an an "ad hominem" attack,
between my post and an "ad hominem" attack,
you haven't demonstrated an understanding of what an "ad hominem" attack IS.
===
This didn't address HCW's post, BTW.
Although,
your post immediately preceeding this one I'm posting now,
you claim to regret getting sidetracked.
Since that was YOUR DECISION, you're disagreeing with your own call.
...I see HCW on the ad hominem warpath with me and WW even more so. In his ad hominem accusations against me, he also accuses me of the same.
Again you err Mike.
1. I'm not on any warpath against you.
2. Just because I made some terse comments towards WordWolf almost a month ago does not give you the right to determine that I'm "on the warpath" against him.
I actually thought that he & I patched up whatever differences there were then. I don't even remember the issue. I'm certainly NOT "even moreso" against him.
You see Mike.... Or better yet it's pretty obvious that you DON'T see that my posts "against you" are in fact NOT against you at all. You just don't get it.
Maybe this will help.
"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."
2 Corinthians 11:3
My concern, my reason for addressing this issue regarding PFAL is that OTHERS will not be beguiled by your subtily and drawn away from the siimplicity that is in Christ.
The man that you so admire, I saw with my own eyes, as he pounded many a desk, lecturn, bible, and anything that was in front of him as he spoke:
Its the WORD,
Its the WORD,
Its the WORD,
Its the WORD,
Its the WORD,
Its the WORD,
Its the WORD,
Its the WORD,
Its the WORD,
Its the WORD,
Its the WORD,
Its the WORD, peo-ple.
Its the WORD.
If HE believed as you believe, he would have said, Its the CLASS, Its the CLASS, Its the CLASS....
In absolutely certain that NOTHING in your seven years of mastery has unearthed him EVER saying that. In fact page 83 of PFAL, says precisely the opposite, when he spoke in both the film class and the written work, "Its not the works of VP Wierwille or any other man..."
There is NO debate on this issue.
My real concern is further stated in verse 4 of 2 Corinthians 11:
"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."
God addressed your PFAL, God-Breathed issue about 2000 years ago. Your message "sounds good," which is what the word subtilty in verse 3 can be literally translated. No one reading this thread could argue that that your position is NOT simple.
Not only is it not simple, I'm a pretty well educated guy with a huge vocabulary... I'm fairly well read and I have no fricken idea what an "ad hominem warpath" IS!
No thank you. I don't care to know either.
I do know that things of God are simple and easily entreated, so that not even a "fool need err therein." When I read your posts, my educated, well read, 147 IQ, greek readin' (in greek characters), highly experienced 46yr old self finds my eyes crossing as your pedantic (there's a word fer ya ) stylings morph into the "whaa, whaa, whaa" like Charlie Brown's teacher in the cartoons.
I look at your position and what I see is that you are the "he that cometh" from Corinthians. You are preaching VPW as "another Jesus" while you're saying that PFAL is "the way the truth and the life."
Not only is VPW not "whom we have not preached," YOU yourself, say that PFAL is another set of "good news" (another gospel) which we have not accepted. AND. If we "bear with" you (we might believe you) we would certainly recieve "another spirit."
I'm weighing in on this because I see you bringing God's word to life as you endlessly try to pull anyone and everyone who would believe you AWAY from GOD! You are illustrating the process the seprpent used against Eve in Genesis.
You cannot say that the way to understanding God is by NOT reading His Word without directly REJECTING the Bible. "In the beginning was the WORD, the WORD was with God and the WORD WAS God." I might have taken a different stance concerning your positive assertions concerning the relative value of PFAL, ...IF... your self-proclaimed MASTERY of the materials were actually reflected in your posts.
In one of its simplest statements VPW in PFAL said, "truth needs no defense."
FOUR - simple - words. Mike. If you believed PFAL as you claim you do, WHY debate it? If you actually believed that it was God-breathed, and therefore the TRUTH, you would feel NO need to defend it. If your mastery of PFAL led you to this enlightened understanding WHY don't YOU teach us spiritually immature ones the "gems" the signs on the "signposts," the "KEYS" to unlock the same truths for US?
WE, the GreaseSpots, would be among the first to bring about the great wave of enlightenment you speak of. YOU would become the firstborn of many brethren, as we, together would usher in this newly renewed presence of God in the world. Then we would finish the works which would allow for Christ's return. Isn't THAT waht you beleive?
YOU don't even believe (into manifestation) your OWN .... Mike. Don't you think the end result of what you speak of is MORE important than simply telling people "master the class?"
If you say you don't try yo teach us the stuff because we haven't yet accepted the premise, or anything like that, my next post at you will be an EXORCISM.
You are SOOOO wrong Mike. So blind are you that you think I'm attacking YOU personally. I'm not.
I'M NOT EVEN TRYING TO GET YOU TO SEE ANYTHING OR DROP YOUR ASSERTION OR CHANGE YOUR POSITION, MIKE.
I'm commenting on this in effort to help keep other people who read your insanity from falling for it.
Mike --- this is just an IMHO, but I think it is something for you to think about.
You have so closely connected yourself to pfal, the *rev* given to VP, and his books -- that I think (again -- just my IMHO) that all attacks against your ideas, *teachings*, whatever you want to call them -- are translated by you as an attack upon yourself.
Granted foks have called you names, but over-all --- I have seen more dissent with what you say, rather than dissent about who you are.
Th only problem we (I) have -- is your lack of willingness to take a total view of things (Wierwille included), and look at it from an over-all perspective.
In all honesty -- talking to you about pfal is pretty much the same as talking to an LDS person about the book of Mormon. They hold their book in very high regard too, and when stacked up against the bible -- guess which one is on top?
DON'T ever again and STOP aligning yourself with me in ANY way, shape or form.
1. I'm NOT challenging you.
2. My comments on this topic are not "special" to you, they deserve no special file.
3. I have no desire for you to "save" my comments. In fact, my questions to you are, for the most part, RHETORICAL. WordWolf, whom you say I'm on the warpath against, is intelligent enough to see that.
That's why he & others promtp you to respond to them. They see how my questions to you are designed as an expose of how ludicrous your position is.
You don't even have to answer them! You say you've been at this 7 years. If there was some actual validity to your point, you would have gained at least ONE ally in your cause, right?
You would have ALREADY TOLD ME BY NOW if you had. You would ahve said WE have been debating this for 7 years, not I have been....
The fact that you, after 7 years of mastery, have to do "homework" to say, "Ummm... there are about "blank" number of others who believe this God-breathed thing too." Illustrates a basic lack of the requisite intelligence to make such a lofty claim. I didn't ask for a name, I asked for a NUMBER. If you don't have THAT on the tip of your tongue....
4. Don't speak as if you know me, or my intent. You DON'T. I'm not angry at YOU. I just don't like what you are doing to GOD's people.
PFAL is what it is what it is. I don't really care about that beacue I believe GOD was IN CHRIST reconciling the wold unto himself. We don't NEED PFAL any more than we need any other teaching ABOUT the Bible.
5. I will NEVER tell you a single word further about my personal conversations w/VPW. You dishonor his memory with your insane claims about his works.
6. I will NOT engage you in a point by point debate. Just as our country refuses to negotiate with terrorists. I refuse to debate idiocity with foolishness.
7. Any respect and positive equity I have here on GS among readers has been EARNED by my acting in a respect-ABLE manner. People don't agree with everything I write, I respect that I respect the rights of others to their opinions and positions on any topic and do not seek to ever tell anyone their experience is invalid.
I try hard to only weigh in on topics where I have some moral equity and then say things that make some sort of sense. I've been bum-rushed when folks felt I was out of line, which is cool.
Mike you have NO right to try to elevate your position by some sort of association with me. Stop it. Your lack of respect is a direct reflection of your own lack of respect-ABLE actions.
I actually resent your constant mentioning of my name. We have no "special" relationship. Other folks tell you to respond to me because they see how I've made an effort to ask you that same things they've asked in a slightly different way. They appreciate the fact that I have the "I was there" perspective. I resent the fact that you use the fact that people lack certain information to refute your insanity.
You don't see that I posted the fact that VPW didn't even write the book, PFAL as a "terminator." to your insane suggestion that PFAL is God breathed.
If HE didn't write it HOW could it POSSIBLY be God breathed, by HIM?Rather than back off of the insanity, you try to lure me and enlist me as your "worthy adversary" and advance your cause by whatever equity I may carry.
The more I get to know you the less there is to respect.
Until I'm ready to deal with the volumes you've challenged me with, I think I better keep quiet with you, lest I further increase my workload.
I will ask you (and everyone else) this one thing, though.
Did you ever hear Dr say the following?
"It's the Bible, it's the Bible, it's the Bible.... and nothing BUT the Bible!"
I do know that in his dying last words to us he told us to MASTER the written collaterals that come with the class, and that he did so TWICE in that last lost teaching.
I am obeying those final instructions, because I firmly believe God gave him that final teaching by revelation, so it's really God Who told us to MASTER those collaterals and He did so TWICE.
I noticed that you didn't answer my question about this thread's very recent attacks falling into the ad hominem category. Please try. I see many attacks on me as well as some on my message. Try putting yourself in my shoes and imagine how you'd feel if you were trying to help people and were addressed as I have been. Nuff said.
***
You wrote: "The only problem we (I) have -- is your lack of willingness to take a total view of things (Wierwille included), and look at it from an over-all perspective."
I think you actually mean to say here when using the phrases "a total view of things" and "an over-all perspective" is that you want me to adopt YOUR (plural) view and YOUR (plural) perspective here.
Are you willing to entertain, even just temporarily, that your (plural) perspective is wrong? Haven't you seen from history and from the Word that it is OFTEN the case that whole populations drift unawares from the perspective God would have them embrace to a wrong one? Do you ever consider the possibility that you all are wrong? Thinking that there is strength and surety in numbers is also a logical fallacy.
It's a very strong illusion to think that because everyone else thinks a certain way, then it's got to be true. If going alone against the mainstream would mean castigation (like I get) then that's all the more reason to never consider leaving the herd. But if the whole herd is wrong, as often DOES happen in life, then that safety in numbers is a total illusion.
It is a fact that I most certainly DID embraced for 27 years your (plural) total view of things and over-all perspective. When I finally decided to obey Dr's final instructions I found that my perspective was lacking. It was an abbreviation of Dr's teachings I had held in my mind for many years, and I saw that I had drifted away from Dr's teachings. I had forgotten many things and many things had slipped by me unnoticed. I noticed the same in every other grad I talked to.
I understand that you (plural) here are in great disagreement with me on the overall perspective of the PFAL writings. I know the feeling well of trusting my memory and trusting my ability to have gotten the message right way back when. I understand this disagreement. I am saddened to see that some loathe me for it, and even more saddened that almost no one here, even the calmer ones, wants to take me up on my challenge and come back to PFAL to see what got forgotten and what slipped by us.
But I think this rejection is temporary. All it will take is a few who dare to think that maybe we didn't get EXACTLY what Dr was talking about. Maybe we did forget some. Maybe we could use some experimentation with our grand perspective of things. Maybe God did actually do a drastically good change in the format of His Word, switching from working with people repairing the problems that crept into the traditional canon and it's reconstructions and translations to the simple modern English of PFAL. He did it before, switching from supporting His Word written in the stars to stone and parchment. Maybe we ought to allow God to reissue his Word like He did in Jeremiah 36, and with many words added to the scroll.
Once a few grads start to consider this GREAT blessing of God in giving us His pure simple Word in PFAL, and they act on it by coming back to master the collaterals like Dr urged us all to do in his final instructions, and they start seeing great things they never saw before, and start getting blessed like never before.... THEN it will be easier for others to come back to PFAL and get blessed again.
***
You wrote: "In all honesty -- talking to you about pfal is pretty much the same as talking to an LDS person about the book of Mormon. They hold their book in very high regard too, and when stacked up against the bible -- guess which one is on top?"
Yes, I can totally appreciate that. But this is yet another logical fallacy. Just because it LOOKS like I'm committing the same error they commit because I have some things in common with them, that doesn't mean I have ALL things in common with them.
I often witness to customers of mine who are Mormons. Although they give lip service to the Bible, they contradict it all the time, and are woefully ignorant of it, compared to PFAL grads, especially regarding the epistles of Paul. A huge difference between me and Mormons is that I do know the KJV pretty well, spent 27 years attempting to master it, and nothing in PFAL contradicts it. That's a HUGE difference between me and them.
I understand your impressions of some similarity between me and LDS. Can you see that many first century Christians must have had very similar impressions when hearing of a maverick like Paul writing letters, and some (I Thess 2:13) possibly regarding his words as not the word of a man but as the Word of God? They must have though that those Paul idolators were horribly violating the well established canon of the Old Testament and disappointingly departing from the majority's prevailing overall perspective.
Have you ever carefully thought through how God's Word was received in the adversary's kingdom whenever portions of it were freshly written? I have. I spent 11 years (during that 27 year period when I thought more like you) thinking through and researching how the New Testament Canon was developed. It's worth spending some time on.
***
On a similar note: I've noticed that many people are well aware of the prevailing majority perspective 2000 years ago and their expectations of Christ's first coming. Most people nowadays know very well that back then the popular theological expectations of what it would be like when Christ would come were very far off what God had in mind. Did the most learned religious leaders of that time ask themselves questions and challenge themselves to see if maybe they were off? Did they notice when Christ came? Did they recognize him as he was fulfilling prophecy after prophecy?
In recent years I've asked many people if they ever considered that for the SECOND coming THEY TOO may be off the mark in their expectations and mental images of those events. So far no one has answered in the affirmative. Everyone likes their established mind picture, and won't consider the possibility that THEY TOO are far off the mark.
I think it's good to be challenged in fundamental expectations and perspectives. I think you should be thankful that I have come here with a vastly differing point of view. If I'm wrong, then people have strengthened their belief system in resisting me. If I'm right then we have been blessed abundantly with a vastly more simple Word to master. Of course, the theologians will suffer vast shame first, but they'll get over it.
***
I think ex10 has a much healthier point of view than my strident attackers. She thinks I'm crazy so she stays away from me. Those theologians who strongly attack, ad hominem or not, are not so well off. If they really thought I was as crazy as they say, they'd ignore me. Like I said the other day, they'd wait for me to run out of gas, paint myself into a corner, or die from defying God. Why do they instead attack me with so much energy, and put so much time into it?
I think it's a little like the situation with the Pharisees and Jesus. If he was communicating to them that he was God, they'd have recognized that his message was hopelessly impossible according to the scriptures, and that he had to be either crazy or trying to pick a fight with God or both. They would not have felt threatened by him, felt that the miracles were mere mass hysteria, and that he and his following would soon die off all by themselves.
But Jesus was NOT saying that he was God, only the SON of God, and that scared the leaders deep down inside, because that WAS possible. He threatened their entire world, so he HAD to be lying.
The possibility that Jesus was telling the truth was so scary they couldn't even consider it one iota's worth. What he was saying made just enough sense to threaten them, and not just mildly. Without putting any energy into considering the possibility that he was right they put all their energy into attacking him.
I see my attackers as falling into a similar fear trap. I see ex10 as not having this fear, so she leaves me alone.
The possibility that I could be reporting accurately of God blessing us grads with His pure Words is so scary they can't even consider it one iota's worth. What I am saying makes just enough sense to threaten them, and not just mildly. Without putting any energy into considering the possibility that I am right they put all their energy into attacking me.
I see you, dmiller, as having far less fear of me, so you are able to politely discuss these things. I'm grateful for that.
P.S. I have a question for you in the Doctrinal forum.
I see you, dmiller, as having far less fear of me, so you are able to politely discuss these things. I'm grateful for that.
Mike -- no I don't *fear* you. I also don't read all of your posts, simply because these tired old eyes can't handle it anymore.
I will say this --
I admire your dedication (I used to have it too);
I admire your zeal ----- (I used to have it too);
I also think that both your dedication and zeal are misguided.
Now -- let me qualify that. Pfal had some good things to offer, but it was not the *end all* when it comes to doctrine. Docvic was a *tool* (if you will), and he taught some good stuff, and he taught some questionable stuff, and he taught some bad stuff.
Unfortunately -- he got caught up in the *world* that he preached against, and that (for me) pretty much negated the effectiveness of whatever he might have had to say.
Also -- everything he taught came from someone else. Plain and simple. Perhaps he *coagulated* all the various doctrines into one -- and pfal was the result -- but to call that *God-breathed*, and worthy of more attention than the Bible is not only ludicrous, but blasphemy as well -- since it elevates the words of man, above those of God.
Now -- I'm not going to *burn you at the stake* for saying such, but I will disagree with what you are propounding. We've been through all this before, so I need not go into the details, nor do you need to *remind* me that God's Word is now *re-issued* (as it were) via pfal.
If you want to hang on to pfal -- I say God bless, have a great journey, and I'll see you on the other side. I for one, have little use for it, and am thinking that God is a lot bigger than pfal. Wish you did too.
ps -- I make it a point to be polite, and courteous (sp?) because I often find myself opening my big yap before I know the facts, and then have to swallow words I have spoken!
If God gave partial revelations to other men, then gave Dr revelation to put all their contributions together, then God is the real Author.
It may be the case that there's stuff in PFAL that you know not. It could be that God made it bigger than you are aware of. You're just going on your memories and they can be lacking the total picture of what's in PFAL. I am sure this is the case because I came BACK to it and have been working it from within for 7 years now.
All the biblical writers were sinners and fell short of the messages they wrote. They all yearned for their Savior from sin. Their sin did not negate their service to God in writing his revelations.
No fair WW, you used pfal logic (if there is such a thing) to actually force Mike to accept the fact that he is wrong... though he will not accept it.
We all know, as has been evident for the past couple of years and the hundreds and hundreds of posts over the same, lame, "pfal is God breathed" crap, that Mike will be unable to accept the fact. Appeals via simple logic have been made and dismissed in an ever present need for Mike to be the enlightened one and THE "masterer of pfal".
For real, what's next? Mike's claim that since "dr" said to master the collaterals then the blue book, green book, etc., etc., are all God breathed? Do you really have the stomach to go through all of this again with this guy? I mean, can you even imagine that?
It is definitely time in this (and any other forum) to put Mike's claim that pfal is God-breathed to bed. Enough already.
Mike can not, will not, and does not, want to see the light of the glorious gospel of Christ. He's more interested in the enslaving gospel of pfal.
Only the Spirit of God can do what so many others have tried and failed to do. I, for one, think He's the right choice for the job.
===============
Mike,
When the Holy Spirit of the Living God opens your eyes to the fact that pfal is NOT God breathed, I hope you won't be too crushed to continue to want to serve Him.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
42
42
104
94
Popular Days
Feb 22
44
Feb 28
40
Mar 11
40
Mar 1
34
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 42 posts
HCW 42 posts
Mike 104 posts
Ham 94 posts
Popular Days
Feb 22 2005
44 posts
Feb 28 2005
40 posts
Mar 11 2005
40 posts
Mar 1 2005
34 posts
Popular Posts
Bolshevik
Remember the ROA everyone smiling stupid all day? Zombies. Just zombies. With snack tents.
Rocky
Not that I necessarily disagree with you two, but returning to the topic of the PFLAP class... it's all about removing uncertainty from us and replacing it with Victor Wierwille. He had ONE freak
Bolshevik
I can't say what Christian practices are. Any quote by LCM should be read as if he is yelling or at a low rumble leading up to the yelling . . . Certainly sounds like an inner conflict
Greek2me
HCW,
Excellent observations. Don't be surprised if your direct questions are not satisfactorily answered.
Mike is simply incapable in his current state of blindness and denial.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ok, let's see....
*takes out pointer*
As everyone can see, the first slide shows a marked denial of the reasons the
prices fluctuated for pfal at different times. If the market would have
borne the running of all pfal classes at $200, it would have stayed $200.
It only came down to match demand. Adam Smith's "invisible hand", not God's
invisible hand, moved the price. Also note how it was "correct and Godly"
to run classes at $200, just as it was "correct and Godly" to run classes
at $40. If vpw endorsed a decision, it was "correct and Godly" even if
contradictory statements are thus "correct and Godly."
*moves to second slide*
I imagine a detailed comparison of "Living Victoriously" was not attempted,
the book to the tapes. Some people sat thru an LV class with an LV book
in their hands, and discovered it was a transcript of the content portions
of the tapes. (That is, they leave out the jokes and cheapshots at other
Christians on each tape.) Even someone who hated vpw, cg and the tapes/book
would be able to admit that, if they compared them.
*moves to third slide*
Here we see Mike rewriting the editing process behind the pfal books.
We also have the testimony of one of those editors that this is nothing like
what happened. We can believe the word of a PARTICIPANT and EYEWITNESS,
or that of Mike who concluded what he wanted to, years later and states away.
However, Mike's determined not to allow other ideas to penetrate his mind,
and the admission is here.
*moves to last slide*
Here we see the holy pfal books correcting the evils of 20 centuries of
Christians once again. In Mike's mind, anyway. Never lets reality or the
evidence get in the way of his doctrine, that one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You're not under time-constraints.
However,
if you just move on and pretend HCW never posted, I'll be posting some
gentle reminders, complete with cattle-prod.
By all means, address HCW's post entirely before addressing mine.
My issues are all coming up for the umpteenth time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
No matter how many times you say
"if pfal isn't God-breathed, then nothing is!"
It STILL holds no water.
The origin of any canon has no bearing on any other canon.
Muslims say "if the Koran isn't God-breathed, then nothing is!"
Christian Science-ites say "If Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures
isn't God-breathed, then nothing is!"
Many other groups say similar things about THEIR holy books, like you do with
your holy books. Their beliefs don't require reality to conform to them.
You should know this-I've said this in greater detail before.
I'll leave the other comments alone, except to say they illustrate your POV
nicely, and new arrivals should easily see why this position of yours is error.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
I'm disappointed that you think I'm a practitioner of the ad hominem fallacy. When my person is attacked I do sometimes attack the attacker, and I think that is sometimes justifiable. It doesn't help me in my argument, but can nullify his attack, and it MAY help the attacker to reconsider his methods.
If a messenger has an actual message, then "shooting the messenger" is a truly cheap shot. But for that same messenger to shoot back at his attacker and then have this retaliation labeled "shot the messenger" is an even cheaper shot. If the only message my attackers have is one directed at me personally, I think it's totally justifiable for me fight back if I think it's worth while to me and my message.
I'm also disappointed to see that both you and HCW do rely heavily on the ad hominem approach when dealing with my message, which by the very definition of "ad hominem" is NOT justifiable.
***
Just in case some readers are not familiar with that Latin term "ad hominem" here is how Research Geek defined it two years ago:
"Fallacy against the person - Rejection of an argument by means of an irrelevant fact about the author. The attack is usually against the character of the person. That is if they did so and so, they must be wrong about their premise."
Recently a few other posters cited a website cataloging logical fallacies, and here is the definition of "ad hominem" found there:
"Argument against the man. This is a personal attack on the person who presents or endorses a viewpoint and is often used as a last resort when the facts cannot be disputed. Called "poisoning the well," the argument is that to destroy the credibility of the person endorsing the viewpoint will destroy his argument. This argument is used extensively to discredit candidates for election by dirty-tricks campaigns that lay their private lives bare to public criticism."
***
I can leave it as an exercise to readers to look at all the very recent personal attacks here on this thread and see which were in the category of justifiable retaliation, and which were unjustifiable distractions from a message in attacking the messenger.
I can also do this myself, too. If I have the time I may highlight in color all such attacks. But then this is a further distraction from my message. I dislike it when I have to spend more time posting on how we all post to each other than what I originally wanted to talk about: God and His Word, and how He has blessed us grads, and how we can come back to this blessing.
Again, careful readers will be able to sort all this out.
Maybe, instead of allowing myself to be distracted into a talk about what we were talking about how he had previously been talking ad infinitum, I should just ignore the attacks against me and press on with the message, responding to as many sincere responses in the discussion as possible.
I'll be thinking all this through in the next couple of days. Thank you for acknowledging that lack of speediness in response is not necessarily equivalent to a lack of substance with which to respond.
I wish you'd add to that acknowledgment a recognition that I do respond to a large volume of questions and challenges, especially those justifiably aimed not at me but at the logic of my message. I am as sparing and careful as possible in what I choose to ignore. I do admit with regret that with the high volume of challenges aimed at my message mean that some get lost in the shuffle. Sometimes, with repetition of a challenge, I will eventually respond as time permits.
HCW's challenges to me are special, and I have a special file I'm saving them in. I have found him particularly insightful in many of his posts here when directed at other posters. Although I do see his error in cases when he has challenged me, his high volume and high density of challenges make it particularly difficult for me. I find his posts to me useful in that they bring out some very salient issues. In other words, far from shrinking from his challenges, I anticipate responding to them with great excitement. Their high volume and emotional invective do delay me. I am, however, almost done collecting all my thoughts on his first great challenge to me regarding his report that Dr himself denied in a personal conversation to HCW that his PFAL writings were God-breathed. I'm sure the material I have will surprise and disappoint those who expect a plethora of logical fallacies in my response.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Mike -- I have only disputed your *ideas*, and not you yourself.
You are obviously *sincere*, but remember --
SINCERITY IS NO GUARENTEE FOR TRUTH!
:)-->
Geez -- who was it that said that??
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
I agree that you are far more diplomatic than some. I enjoy discussing matters with you, even if we strongly disagree.
There are others who also are in this category with you, in my mind. Olus, there are some who seem to be slowly moving to that category now that their initial fury has calmed down.
I also agree that sincerity is no guanantee of truth. It's a very nice human quality, but it ALONE does not guarantee that the sincere seeker will find. Other qualities and situations must act in concert with it for truth to be found.
Would you agree with me in my complaint above, though? I see HCW on the ad hominem warpath with me and WW even more so. In his ad hominem accusations against me, he also accuses me of the same.
GADS! I hate it when we get sidetracked LIKE THIS into talking about what was said and how, about what was said and how, about what was said and how....
As Nick Danger once demanded: "Let's get down to business!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
For those who somehow missed it,
and for the amusement of those who DID catch it-
this was Response "A"-
the "ad hominem" attack.
In this case, it was disguised as an appeal to avoid ad hominem attacks.
"My detractors are the scum of the earth and mean people who make cheap shots
at me for no reason! I would never resort to their cheap attacks!
I'm so disappointed with them!"
Go ahead, scroll up. I left it untouched.
Mike,
until you can tell the difference between HCW's post an an "ad hominem" attack,
between my post and an "ad hominem" attack,
you haven't demonstrated an understanding of what an "ad hominem" attack IS.
===
This didn't address HCW's post, BTW.
Although,
your post immediately preceeding this one I'm posting now,
you claim to regret getting sidetracked.
Since that was YOUR DECISION, you're disagreeing with your own call.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Again you err Mike.
1. I'm not on any warpath against you.
2. Just because I made some terse comments towards WordWolf almost a month ago does not give you the right to determine that I'm "on the warpath" against him.
I actually thought that he & I patched up whatever differences there were then. I don't even remember the issue. I'm certainly NOT "even moreso" against him.
You see Mike.... Or better yet it's pretty obvious that you DON'T see that my posts "against you" are in fact NOT against you at all. You just don't get it.
Maybe this will help.
"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."
2 Corinthians 11:3
My concern, my reason for addressing this issue regarding PFAL is that OTHERS will not be beguiled by your subtily and drawn away from the siimplicity that is in Christ.
The man that you so admire, I saw with my own eyes, as he pounded many a desk, lecturn, bible, and anything that was in front of him as he spoke:
Its the WORD,
Its the WORD,
Its the WORD,
Its the WORD,
Its the WORD,
Its the WORD,
Its the WORD,
Its the WORD,
Its the WORD,
Its the WORD,
Its the WORD,
Its the WORD, peo-ple.
Its the WORD.
If HE believed as you believe, he would have said, Its the CLASS, Its the CLASS, Its the CLASS....
In absolutely certain that NOTHING in your seven years of mastery has unearthed him EVER saying that. In fact page 83 of PFAL, says precisely the opposite, when he spoke in both the film class and the written work, "Its not the works of VP Wierwille or any other man..."
There is NO debate on this issue.
My real concern is further stated in verse 4 of 2 Corinthians 11:
"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."
God addressed your PFAL, God-Breathed issue about 2000 years ago. Your message "sounds good," which is what the word subtilty in verse 3 can be literally translated. No one reading this thread could argue that that your position is NOT simple.
Not only is it not simple, I'm a pretty well educated guy with a huge vocabulary... I'm fairly well read and I have no fricken idea what an "ad hominem warpath" IS!
No thank you. I don't care to know either.
I do know that things of God are simple and easily entreated, so that not even a "fool need err therein." When I read your posts, my educated, well read, 147 IQ, greek readin' (in greek characters), highly experienced 46yr old self finds my eyes crossing as your pedantic (there's a word fer ya
) stylings morph into the "whaa, whaa, whaa" like Charlie Brown's teacher in the cartoons.
I look at your position and what I see is that you are the "he that cometh" from Corinthians. You are preaching VPW as "another Jesus" while you're saying that PFAL is "the way the truth and the life."
Not only is VPW not "whom we have not preached," YOU yourself, say that PFAL is another set of "good news" (another gospel) which we have not accepted. AND. If we "bear with" you (we might believe you) we would certainly recieve "another spirit."
I'm weighing in on this because I see you bringing God's word to life as you endlessly try to pull anyone and everyone who would believe you AWAY from GOD! You are illustrating the process the seprpent used against Eve in Genesis.
You cannot say that the way to understanding God is by NOT reading His Word without directly REJECTING the Bible. "In the beginning was the WORD, the WORD was with God and the WORD WAS God." I might have taken a different stance concerning your positive assertions concerning the relative value of PFAL, ...IF... your self-proclaimed MASTERY of the materials were actually reflected in your posts.
In one of its simplest statements VPW in PFAL said, "truth needs no defense."
FOUR - simple - words. Mike. If you believed PFAL as you claim you do, WHY debate it? If you actually believed that it was God-breathed, and therefore the TRUTH, you would feel NO need to defend it. If your mastery of PFAL led you to this enlightened understanding WHY don't YOU teach us spiritually immature ones the "gems" the signs on the "signposts," the "KEYS" to unlock the same truths for US?
WE, the GreaseSpots, would be among the first to bring about the great wave of enlightenment you speak of. YOU would become the firstborn of many brethren, as we, together would usher in this newly renewed presence of God in the world. Then we would finish the works which would allow for Christ's return. Isn't THAT waht you beleive?
YOU don't even believe (into manifestation) your OWN .... Mike. Don't you think the end result of what you speak of is MORE important than simply telling people "master the class?"
If you say you don't try yo teach us the stuff because we haven't yet accepted the premise, or anything like that, my next post at you will be an EXORCISM.
You are SOOOO wrong Mike. So blind are you that you think I'm attacking YOU personally. I'm not.
I'M NOT EVEN TRYING TO GET YOU TO SEE ANYTHING OR DROP YOUR ASSERTION OR CHANGE YOUR POSITION, MIKE.
I'm commenting on this in effort to help keep other people who read your insanity from falling for it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
If I may interject....
Why give any time or credance to the insane?
We could better spend our time, no? on stuff that really matters?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Mike --- this is just an IMHO, but I think it is something for you to think about.
You have so closely connected yourself to pfal, the *rev* given to VP, and his books -- that I think (again -- just my IMHO) that all attacks against your ideas, *teachings*, whatever you want to call them -- are translated by you as an attack upon yourself.
Granted foks have called you names, but over-all --- I have seen more dissent with what you say, rather than dissent about who you are.
Th only problem we (I) have -- is your lack of willingness to take a total view of things (Wierwille included), and look at it from an over-all perspective.
In all honesty -- talking to you about pfal is pretty much the same as talking to an LDS person about the book of Mormon. They hold their book in very high regard too, and when stacked up against the bible -- guess which one is on top?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
PS MIKE;
DON'T ever again and STOP aligning yourself with me in ANY way, shape or form.
1. I'm NOT challenging you.
2. My comments on this topic are not "special" to you, they deserve no special file.
3. I have no desire for you to "save" my comments. In fact, my questions to you are, for the most part, RHETORICAL. WordWolf, whom you say I'm on the warpath against, is intelligent enough to see that.
That's why he & others promtp you to respond to them. They see how my questions to you are designed as an expose of how ludicrous your position is.
You don't even have to answer them! You say you've been at this 7 years. If there was some actual validity to your point, you would have gained at least ONE ally in your cause, right?
You would have ALREADY TOLD ME BY NOW if you had. You would ahve said WE have been debating this for 7 years, not I have been....
The fact that you, after 7 years of mastery, have to do "homework" to say, "Ummm... there are about "blank" number of others who believe this God-breathed thing too." Illustrates a basic lack of the requisite intelligence to make such a lofty claim. I didn't ask for a name, I asked for a NUMBER. If you don't have THAT on the tip of your tongue....
4. Don't speak as if you know me, or my intent. You DON'T. I'm not angry at YOU. I just don't like what you are doing to GOD's people.
PFAL is what it is what it is. I don't really care about that beacue I believe GOD was IN CHRIST reconciling the wold unto himself. We don't NEED PFAL any more than we need any other teaching ABOUT the Bible.
5. I will NEVER tell you a single word further about my personal conversations w/VPW. You dishonor his memory with your insane claims about his works.
6. I will NOT engage you in a point by point debate. Just as our country refuses to negotiate with terrorists. I refuse to debate idiocity with foolishness.
7. Any respect and positive equity I have here on GS among readers has been EARNED by my acting in a respect-ABLE manner. People don't agree with everything I write, I respect that I respect the rights of others to their opinions and positions on any topic and do not seek to ever tell anyone their experience is invalid.
I try hard to only weigh in on topics where I have some moral equity and then say things that make some sort of sense. I've been bum-rushed when folks felt I was out of line, which is cool.
Mike you have NO right to try to elevate your position by some sort of association with me. Stop it. Your lack of respect is a direct reflection of your own lack of respect-ABLE actions.
I actually resent your constant mentioning of my name. We have no "special" relationship. Other folks tell you to respond to me because they see how I've made an effort to ask you that same things they've asked in a slightly different way. They appreciate the fact that I have the "I was there" perspective. I resent the fact that you use the fact that people lack certain information to refute your insanity.
You don't see that I posted the fact that VPW didn't even write the book, PFAL as a "terminator." to your insane suggestion that PFAL is God breathed.
If HE didn't write it HOW could it POSSIBLY be God breathed, by HIM?Rather than back off of the insanity, you try to lure me and enlist me as your "worthy adversary" and advance your cause by whatever equity I may carry.
The more I get to know you the less there is to respect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Thanks WW for the definition.
It shows how doubletonged Mike is. He wants to speak respectfully of me while leveling veiled insults.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
HCW,
Until I'm ready to deal with the volumes you've challenged me with, I think I better keep quiet with you, lest I further increase my workload.
I will ask you (and everyone else) this one thing, though.
Did you ever hear Dr say the following?
"It's the Bible, it's the Bible, it's the Bible.... and nothing BUT the Bible!"
I do know that in his dying last words to us he told us to MASTER the written collaterals that come with the class, and that he did so TWICE in that last lost teaching.
I am obeying those final instructions, because I firmly believe God gave him that final teaching by revelation, so it's really God Who told us to MASTER those collaterals and He did so TWICE.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Yes-I'll answer this one.
IN PFAL, vpw stated outright something that is a mathematical truth,
which is that things that are congruent to something else are congruent to
each other. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C.
IN PFAL, vpw makes it clear (to everyone but Mike) that when he's talking
about "the Bible" and when he's talking about "the Word of God", he's talking
about the same thing. He makes this crystal clear, in fact.
"The greatest secret in the world today is that the Bible is the revealed
Word and Will of God."
So, when he said "It's the Word, the Word, and nothing BUT the Word, people!"
it is congruent to him saying
"It's the Bible, the Bible, and nothing BUT the Bible, people!"
or
"It's God's Will, God's Will, and nothing BUT God's Will, people!"
Do you really need me to post some examples from the Orange Book where he
used them interchangeably, to refer to the Bible as God's Word or The Word?
BTW,
BEFORE you claim it,
"The Word" is short for "The Word of God", which is another way of saying
"God's Word". That was ALWAYS interchangeable in twi lingo-
to say "The Word" was to say "God's Word", and vice versa. So, save yourself
seeking a secret, elite, cabalistic meaning of the term, trying to outline
the differences.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WW,
Please answer these two questions with a simple "yes" or "no."
Did he ever say the following EXACT WORDS?
"It's the Bible, it's the Bible.... and nothing BUT the Bible!"
Were the EXACT words in his final instructions to us to master the "Bible" or the "collateral readings?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
I noticed that you didn't answer my question about this thread's very recent attacks falling into the ad hominem category. Please try. I see many attacks on me as well as some on my message. Try putting yourself in my shoes and imagine how you'd feel if you were trying to help people and were addressed as I have been. Nuff said.
***
You wrote: "The only problem we (I) have -- is your lack of willingness to take a total view of things (Wierwille included), and look at it from an over-all perspective."
I think you actually mean to say here when using the phrases "a total view of things" and "an over-all perspective" is that you want me to adopt YOUR (plural) view and YOUR (plural) perspective here.
Are you willing to entertain, even just temporarily, that your (plural) perspective is wrong? Haven't you seen from history and from the Word that it is OFTEN the case that whole populations drift unawares from the perspective God would have them embrace to a wrong one? Do you ever consider the possibility that you all are wrong? Thinking that there is strength and surety in numbers is also a logical fallacy.
It's a very strong illusion to think that because everyone else thinks a certain way, then it's got to be true. If going alone against the mainstream would mean castigation (like I get) then that's all the more reason to never consider leaving the herd. But if the whole herd is wrong, as often DOES happen in life, then that safety in numbers is a total illusion.
It is a fact that I most certainly DID embraced for 27 years your (plural) total view of things and over-all perspective. When I finally decided to obey Dr's final instructions I found that my perspective was lacking. It was an abbreviation of Dr's teachings I had held in my mind for many years, and I saw that I had drifted away from Dr's teachings. I had forgotten many things and many things had slipped by me unnoticed. I noticed the same in every other grad I talked to.
I understand that you (plural) here are in great disagreement with me on the overall perspective of the PFAL writings. I know the feeling well of trusting my memory and trusting my ability to have gotten the message right way back when. I understand this disagreement. I am saddened to see that some loathe me for it, and even more saddened that almost no one here, even the calmer ones, wants to take me up on my challenge and come back to PFAL to see what got forgotten and what slipped by us.
But I think this rejection is temporary. All it will take is a few who dare to think that maybe we didn't get EXACTLY what Dr was talking about. Maybe we did forget some. Maybe we could use some experimentation with our grand perspective of things. Maybe God did actually do a drastically good change in the format of His Word, switching from working with people repairing the problems that crept into the traditional canon and it's reconstructions and translations to the simple modern English of PFAL. He did it before, switching from supporting His Word written in the stars to stone and parchment. Maybe we ought to allow God to reissue his Word like He did in Jeremiah 36, and with many words added to the scroll.
Once a few grads start to consider this GREAT blessing of God in giving us His pure simple Word in PFAL, and they act on it by coming back to master the collaterals like Dr urged us all to do in his final instructions, and they start seeing great things they never saw before, and start getting blessed like never before.... THEN it will be easier for others to come back to PFAL and get blessed again.
***
You wrote: "In all honesty -- talking to you about pfal is pretty much the same as talking to an LDS person about the book of Mormon. They hold their book in very high regard too, and when stacked up against the bible -- guess which one is on top?"
Yes, I can totally appreciate that. But this is yet another logical fallacy. Just because it LOOKS like I'm committing the same error they commit because I have some things in common with them, that doesn't mean I have ALL things in common with them.
I often witness to customers of mine who are Mormons. Although they give lip service to the Bible, they contradict it all the time, and are woefully ignorant of it, compared to PFAL grads, especially regarding the epistles of Paul. A huge difference between me and Mormons is that I do know the KJV pretty well, spent 27 years attempting to master it, and nothing in PFAL contradicts it. That's a HUGE difference between me and them.
I understand your impressions of some similarity between me and LDS. Can you see that many first century Christians must have had very similar impressions when hearing of a maverick like Paul writing letters, and some (I Thess 2:13) possibly regarding his words as not the word of a man but as the Word of God? They must have though that those Paul idolators were horribly violating the well established canon of the Old Testament and disappointingly departing from the majority's prevailing overall perspective.
Have you ever carefully thought through how God's Word was received in the adversary's kingdom whenever portions of it were freshly written? I have. I spent 11 years (during that 27 year period when I thought more like you) thinking through and researching how the New Testament Canon was developed. It's worth spending some time on.
***
On a similar note: I've noticed that many people are well aware of the prevailing majority perspective 2000 years ago and their expectations of Christ's first coming. Most people nowadays know very well that back then the popular theological expectations of what it would be like when Christ would come were very far off what God had in mind. Did the most learned religious leaders of that time ask themselves questions and challenge themselves to see if maybe they were off? Did they notice when Christ came? Did they recognize him as he was fulfilling prophecy after prophecy?
In recent years I've asked many people if they ever considered that for the SECOND coming THEY TOO may be off the mark in their expectations and mental images of those events. So far no one has answered in the affirmative. Everyone likes their established mind picture, and won't consider the possibility that THEY TOO are far off the mark.
I think it's good to be challenged in fundamental expectations and perspectives. I think you should be thankful that I have come here with a vastly differing point of view. If I'm wrong, then people have strengthened their belief system in resisting me. If I'm right then we have been blessed abundantly with a vastly more simple Word to master. Of course, the theologians will suffer vast shame first, but they'll get over it.
***
I think ex10 has a much healthier point of view than my strident attackers. She thinks I'm crazy so she stays away from me. Those theologians who strongly attack, ad hominem or not, are not so well off. If they really thought I was as crazy as they say, they'd ignore me. Like I said the other day, they'd wait for me to run out of gas, paint myself into a corner, or die from defying God. Why do they instead attack me with so much energy, and put so much time into it?
I think it's a little like the situation with the Pharisees and Jesus. If he was communicating to them that he was God, they'd have recognized that his message was hopelessly impossible according to the scriptures, and that he had to be either crazy or trying to pick a fight with God or both. They would not have felt threatened by him, felt that the miracles were mere mass hysteria, and that he and his following would soon die off all by themselves.
But Jesus was NOT saying that he was God, only the SON of God, and that scared the leaders deep down inside, because that WAS possible. He threatened their entire world, so he HAD to be lying.
The possibility that Jesus was telling the truth was so scary they couldn't even consider it one iota's worth. What he was saying made just enough sense to threaten them, and not just mildly. Without putting any energy into considering the possibility that he was right they put all their energy into attacking him.
I see my attackers as falling into a similar fear trap. I see ex10 as not having this fear, so she leaves me alone.
The possibility that I could be reporting accurately of God blessing us grads with His pure Words is so scary they can't even consider it one iota's worth. What I am saying makes just enough sense to threaten them, and not just mildly. Without putting any energy into considering the possibility that I am right they put all their energy into attacking me.
I see you, dmiller, as having far less fear of me, so you are able to politely discuss these things. I'm grateful for that.
P.S. I have a question for you in the Doctrinal forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Mike -- no I don't *fear* you. I also don't read all of your posts, simply because these tired old eyes can't handle it anymore.
I will say this --
I admire your dedication (I used to have it too);
I admire your zeal ----- (I used to have it too);
I also think that both your dedication and zeal are misguided.
Now -- let me qualify that. Pfal had some good things to offer, but it was not the *end all* when it comes to doctrine. Docvic was a *tool* (if you will), and he taught some good stuff, and he taught some questionable stuff, and he taught some bad stuff.
Unfortunately -- he got caught up in the *world* that he preached against, and that (for me) pretty much negated the effectiveness of whatever he might have had to say.
Also -- everything he taught came from someone else. Plain and simple. Perhaps he *coagulated* all the various doctrines into one -- and pfal was the result -- but to call that *God-breathed*, and worthy of more attention than the Bible is not only ludicrous, but blasphemy as well -- since it elevates the words of man, above those of God.
Now -- I'm not going to *burn you at the stake* for saying such, but I will disagree with what you are propounding. We've been through all this before, so I need not go into the details, nor do you need to *remind* me that God's Word is now *re-issued* (as it were) via pfal.
If you want to hang on to pfal -- I say God bless, have a great journey, and I'll see you on the other side. I for one, have little use for it, and am thinking that God is a lot bigger than pfal. Wish you did too.
ps -- I make it a point to be polite, and courteous (sp?) because I often find myself opening my big yap before I know the facts, and then have to swallow words I have spoken!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
.
.
.
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
If God gave partial revelations to other men, then gave Dr revelation to put all their contributions together, then God is the real Author.
It may be the case that there's stuff in PFAL that you know not. It could be that God made it bigger than you are aware of. You're just going on your memories and they can be lacking the total picture of what's in PFAL. I am sure this is the case because I came BACK to it and have been working it from within for 7 years now.
All the biblical writers were sinners and fell short of the messages they wrote. They all yearned for their Savior from sin. Their sin did not negate their service to God in writing his revelations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ok, let's see, I responded to Mike's question as follows:
Mike's response to that answer....
====
"Please answer these two questions with a simple "yes" or "no".
Did he ever say the following EXACT WORDS?
"It's the Bible, it's the Bible...and nothing BUT the Bible!"
Were the EXACT words in his final instructions to us to master the "Bible"
or the "collateral readings?"
======
Now,
Mike's insistence on a yes/no answer AFTER I ALREADY answered him means one
of a few things. The possibilities are:
A) Mike did not read my reply.
B) Mike felt my reply was unclear and ambiguous.
C) Mike felt I did not address the question sufficiently.
D) Mike did not understand my reply.
E) Mike did not hear the answer he wished to hear.
So, then, I shall hope the answer was not
"WordWolf was clear but Mike didn't like the answer"
and will attempt to address the question once again.
Mike,
In pfal, the phrases "The Word of God" and "the Bible" were used interchangeably
by its teacher.
That means that its teacher considered the two interchangeable.
Let me know if you need some quotes from the Orange Book on this-they ARE there,
and if your "7 years of study" haven't revealed them, that's a little
embarassing.
An entire session of PFAL was named "The Greatest Secret in the World"
and was directed specifically to have us think this very thing.
The first "Listening with a Purpose" question for that session was
"What is the greatest secret in the world today?"
complete with a chart to shove this down our throats.
When I sat in that session, usually, that answer was chanted by the group
in harmony.
I bet you've seen that happen, too.
Know why?
VPW went out of his way to enforce the idea that
"The Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God"
all over that session.
======
So, when he spoke of one, he spoke of the other.
So,
the many, many, many times he said
"It's The Word, The Word, and nothing BUT The Word",
based on his coverage in PFAL-the tapes, syllabus AND collaterals,
what he said was functionally equivalent
(based on rules ALSO stated in PFAL) to
"It's the Bible, the Bible, and nothing BUT the Bible!"
So,
IF one were to discard the logic used IN PFAL,
and the usages of terms as used IN PFAL,
then one would say "no, that's not the same thing."
If one is to claim that pfal has some intrinsic value and claim to accuracy,
however, one is either forced to agree that this is functionally what he said,
or
that pfal does NOT have a claim to accuracy,
or
that the speaker is a hypocrite, discarding some contents and lauding others
selectively.
Mind you,
the speaker also has the option of ignoring this and refusing to
declare one position or another.
In doing so, of course, one demonstrates to his audience that one
is voluntarily assuming the office of hypocrite while attempting
to draw attention away from it due to shame associated with the term.
So,
your choice how you respond from here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greek2me
No fair WW, you used pfal logic (if there is such a thing) to actually force Mike to accept the fact that he is wrong... though he will not accept it.
We all know, as has been evident for the past couple of years and the hundreds and hundreds of posts over the same, lame, "pfal is God breathed" crap, that Mike will be unable to accept the fact. Appeals via simple logic have been made and dismissed in an ever present need for Mike to be the enlightened one and THE "masterer of pfal".
For real, what's next? Mike's claim that since "dr" said to master the collaterals then the blue book, green book, etc., etc., are all God breathed? Do you really have the stomach to go through all of this again with this guy? I mean, can you even imagine that?
It is definitely time in this (and any other forum) to put Mike's claim that pfal is God-breathed to bed. Enough already.
Mike can not, will not, and does not, want to see the light of the glorious gospel of Christ. He's more interested in the enslaving gospel of pfal.
Only the Spirit of God can do what so many others have tried and failed to do. I, for one, think He's the right choice for the job.
===============
Mike,
When the Holy Spirit of the Living God opens your eyes to the fact that pfal is NOT God breathed, I hope you won't be too crushed to continue to want to serve Him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
How about once more:
"I don't want PFAL, part two"
Worship this old junk with me
I'd rather get stung by a bee.
We could be just oh so thankful
I'd prefer to break an ankle.
Don't you see I bought it once,
no longer am I a great dunce.
We could read and read the book
I did that lots, I will not look
Don't you want God's best for you?
Only thing I'll say is pew.
It stinks to me like fresh manure,
It really smells like an old sewer.
Doesn't work? You did not get it
If I was you I wouldn't bet it.
But don't you know that its just perfect?
Fine for you if you like defect.
No I'm not just in a funk,
I really think that it is junk.
We could take it once again
Not for me, I like my brain.
But it claims its modern truth
More properly, its modern spewth.
Why oh why won't you admit
it's really too much full of dang.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Mike;
Please answer with a simple yes or no...
In all your years of doing this do you have a SINGLE convert?
I'll even give you the blank ______________ to fill in, so it's not too much "homework" for you.
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.