One of the keys taught in PFAL that I have NEVER heard anyone expound on is how God uses His spokesman's vocabulary in revelation.
Okay, now I know you MUST be yanking my chain. This was a major element of PFAL and was woven through the entire class. As such, we used this concept countless times while witnessing..."Holy men of God spake..."Some were more eloquent than others.... yada, yada, yada."
Yes, I admit, there may have been times when VPW slipped over this line, but not in the class and collaterals. I can see him saying things at a campfire that could be misconstrued this way, and anyone at that campfire that valued his words then over his words in the class and collaterals were doomed to the wrong understanding. I saw OODLES of Corps and other leaders preach the opulence gospel at times, but usually they calmed down when they integrated clear Biblical warnings against it, like "travel light" types of verses.
What was properly taught at times was that God does not look at great riches as automatic sin. We were taught that God can and does fellowship with some extremely rich people. Jesus taught this by example. My hunch is that Jesus was VERY successful at his business and very rich himself by age 30.
Okay, now I know you MUST be yanking my chain. This was a major element of PFAL and was woven through the entire class. As such, we used this concept countless times while witnessing..."Holy men of God spake..."Some were more eloquent than others.... yada, yada, yada."
Maybe I was too fast in how I wrote that....
That section in the class was the ONLY place I ever heard it, and never again by anyone else at any time or place. The film class is its only location as far as I know.
Maybe you can help me with my writing skills and show me how I could have said this better when I wrote:
"One of the keys taught in PFAL that I have NEVER heard anyone expound on is how God uses His spokesman's vocabulary in revelation."
Yes, I admit, there may have been times when VPW slipped over this line, but not in the class and collaterals. I can see him saying things at a campfire that could be misconstrued this way, and anyone at that campfire that valued his words then over his words in the class and collaterals were doomed to the wrong understanding.
Now you're just making stuff up. If he was truly God's spokesperson, as you have asserted, there would not have been room for such misunderstandings
5 minutes ago, Mike said:
My hunch is that Jesus was VERY successful at his business and very rich himself by age 30.
Well, MY hunch is that you just made this claim up to suit your agenda.
That section in the class was the ONLY place I ever heard it, and never again by anyone else at any time or place. The film class is its only location as far as I know
Are you telling me not even you, yourself, used this when you were witnessing or running a twig? as if there was something radically different about the way you witnessed or ran a twig that set you apart from the thousands of other believers that were doing just that?
You still have material abundance associated with greedy opulence.
No I haven't. In all the reposts and proof I posted to prove to you that the ministry taught material abundance, just where did I say they taught greed?
It's actually you backpedaling because you can't admit you were wrong.
22 minutes ago, Mike said:
He did not teach greedy opulence. He taught material abundance with needs met and some left over for giving.
Right. The only person that was allowed greedy opulence was Saint Vic.
22 minutes ago, Mike said:
Your density in not getting this allows me to repeat this over and over for the Read-Only Audience, so I am not angry with you for being so dense.
I wouldn't care if you were angry with me.
As for your read only audience, if they're still with you after blaming the woman for Saint Vic raping her (Saint Vic's level of temptation was high) then that says a lot about them, doesn't it?
Here below is an example of needs low, and wants high; need and want not balanced.
James 4:3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.
*/*/*/*
Here is an example of needs and wants balanced.
1John 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:
When we ask according to His will, then we are not asking according to our lusts or great desires that are way beyond, and out of balance with our needs.
That verse was not VPW's proof text here. It was the simple introduction to the topic. Others could have been used.
*/*/*/*
Do you need more? To see that this "needs and wants balanced" is a super simple common sense thing that pops up in numerous scriptures, with the same idea, it not the same vocabulary words.
Only a complete idiot contrarian would not be able to understand exactly what Dr was talking about in the class, after all this detail from me.
I am rooting for your sunesis here.
I think you can do it.
After all this detail from you, I'm not convinced you understand what victor was saying in his little fiction about the red drapes. Those scriptures you cite are not about balancing nor paralleling needs and wants. They just aren't, even if you beleeeve they are.
Balanced is not an accurate, precise, nor effectual synonym for parallel, especially in this context.
We all know what parallel means -- side by side, at the same time, analogous, equivalent, aligned... In the Fire Engine Red Drapes (FERD) story, that broad needed an apartment and wanted red drapes for the apartment that she needed. Her want was at the same time and corresponding to her need. Drapes go hand in hand, side by side with modern dwellings with windows
She didn't need an apartment and want a younger, handsome lover. Lovers and apartments don't match, they aren't aligned, because anyone can get their kicks in a car or in an alley or in a minister's office. That need and want aren't parallel.
But drapes and apartments with windows line up side by side. They correspond naturally. They line up. They fit. Like a hand in a...
The lesson is make sure your arbitrary, carnal wants are aligned (parallel) with your needs -- there's a better chance of getting what you want that way.
In FERDS no one asked for anything in accordance with God's Will.
Not understanding what "needs and wants parallel" means is another example of people not paying good attention when hearing the film class, or having limited intelligence, or having a very inflexible way of assigning meaning to others' words, or some other deficiency, like memory loss or lack of desire or trust.
My revealing this about the word "balanced" should totally fix any misunderstandings you may have had all these years.
If you are still in the dark, I will post to transcript for you to read, so you can once again have that very supportive context that VPW wrapped around his idiosyncratic use of the word "balanced." If that doesn't completely solve this, then I would suspect a lack of desire to understand.
Alright, since you insist on addressing me as if Im an ignorant jacka$$ who lacks the very basic comprehension to understand wierwille's remedial and elementary presentations. Parallel and balanced are not even remotely the same concept. But you are accusing me of assigning meaning to other words, or maybe its your memory loss or lack of desire, but I do want to fix this basic misunderstanding you have that parallel and balanced are synanomous.
Let me explain there, boy wonder. Parallel is equilateral, or one could say everywhere equally distanced. The concept has nothing to do with the items being balanced. You could have a car traveling equally distanced to a cat and the two items mentioned would be parallel but not balanced. Parallel is not balanced.
Balamced is speaking of a harmonious proportion between items and those items may or may not be equally distanced. Balance implies an equality, a harmonious state.
Can you see the difference, there mr wizard? If you are still in the dark then please use the following link to help clear up what you have appearantly forgotten, or not paid attention to, or whatever have you...maybe you were running an atom smasher that day or something....
So, if wierwille said and taught that to receive anything form God your needs and wants must be parallel then needs and want must be equally distanced. I could need a can of sardines and want an elephant and God would have to provide them as long as they are equally distanced in their course.
If wierwille meant balanced and used parallel then he is a complete idiot that lacked basic dexterity and comprhension to pick up an effn dictionary and use it.
And in the world of little g god breathed pflap that is a glaring error and according to wierwille, if it fails on one point it fails on all points. Epic fail...epic fail.
My hunch is that Jesus was VERY successful at his business and very rich himself by age 30.
Yeah, a rich carpenter. Jesus likely was very wealthy but it's highly unlikely it was from what he earned. If he had bread it was from the gold, frakenscence, and myrrh he received from the wisemen when he was an infant. They were quite literally gifts fit for a king.
My God, it absolutely does NOT say what you are trying to make it say!!! Read what's written without wierwille goggles dude. He's talking about people asking God amiss because they are trying to fulfill their lusts....this has nothing to do with needs low and wants high.
Lust and want are the same basic idea.
You are too much the stickler on exact vocabulary.
Lust literally means strong desire or want.
You are probably stuck in thinking "lust" always refers to sex.
It says that as his last Passover was approaching, Jesus LUSTED to eat the supper with his apostles. Lust simply means great desire, and context tells us if that great desire is off the Word or not. With Jesus it was righteous lust for the companionship of his apostles for that High Holy Day. I know that sounds weird, but renew your mind.
If he was truly God's spokesperson, as you have asserted, there would not have been room for such misunderstandings...
Not necessarily so. Peter's last words are about people being destroyed because they would not understand the Epistles of Paul. Paul was God's spokesman, yet there was MUCH damaging misunderstanding of what he meant.
You are too much the stickler on exact vocabulary.
Lust literally means strong desire or want.
You are probably stuck in thinking "lust" always refers to sex.
It says that as his last Passover was approaching, Jesus LUSTED to eat the supper with his apostles. Lust simply means great desire, and context tells us if that great desire is off the Word or not. With Jesus it was righteous lust for the companionship of his apostles for that High Holy Day. I know that sounds weird, but renew your mind.
Don't blame me cause the verse doesn't say what you want it to.
Balanced is not an accurate, precise, nor effectual synonym for parallel, especially in this context.
You are right about that.
But you are wrong to use the word parallel alone in your comment.
You obviously did not get understanding when you read what I wrote about this.
I will repeat for you here.
Dr used the word PARALLEL with illustration with his arms to indicate balance. The use of that word along with his body language in his older live classes communicated the same idea that balance conveys.
I am noticing over and over a persnickety and inappropriate insistence on exactly lining up of simple words, but ignoring the richer lining up of ideas.
I think your brain is too devoted to dismissing my credibility, and not enough brain cells are left over to accurately understand what I write. You are looking for Gotch Hooks and ignoring ideas. This explains a lot why you did not get it when you took the class; all the wrong motives and too many distractions.
Yeah, a rich carpenter. Jesus likely was very wealthy but it's highly unlikely it was from what he earned. If he had bread it was from the gold, frakenscence, and myrrh he received from the wisemen when he was an infant. They were quite literally gifts fit for a king.
You are forgetting that those gifts financed his family's trip to Egypt, staying there a year or two, and then the trip from Egypt to Nazareth. Safe travel in those days was expensive. If any was left over, Joseph still needed to build his business from scratch, another very costly item.
Maybe I haven't been specific enough on the parallel thing. Evidently no one has a clue what I mean, and I guess all the time of their stay at TWI they never looked into this item.
When you have an old fashioned scale to weigh things, it looks a little like a child's see-saw. You then put the thing to be weighed on the Right seat of the see-saw, and its weight pushed the see-saw down on that side all the way to the ground.
So now the see-saw is at an angle where the Right seat is at 4 o'clock, and the Left seat is at 10 o'clock.
Then you put a small weight on the Left seat and watch what happens. If nothing happens then you put a little more weight on the Left seat. Eventually there will be enough weight on the Left seat to push that seat down and the Right seat up.
When you get just the right amount of weight on the Left seat, the see saw will balance, with the Left seat at 9 o'clock and the Right seat at 3 o'clock.
The weight on the Left seat EQUALS the unknown weight on the Right seat. The two weights are BALANCED, and the see-saw is PARALLEL to the ground.
This is what VPW was doing with his arms: positioning them to illustrate this. One arm represented the level ground, and the other arm represented the balanced scale weighing the needs on one side and the wants on the other side.
His arms were parallel, representing the needs and wants being parallel to the ground or balanced.
*/*/*
Now I have questions.
Where WERE your heads when you took the class?
Where WERE your heads when you entered the Corps and re-studied this stuff?
Why did you not ever question "parallel" long ago?
I think this is, once again, indicative of how poorly you all understood the class you now hate and criticize in nearly complete befuddlement on issue after issue.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
358
229
215
220
Popular Days
Mar 4
144
May 2
83
Apr 29
77
Mar 5
70
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 358 posts
So_crates 229 posts
OldSkool 215 posts
Nathan_Jr 220 posts
Popular Days
Mar 4 2023
144 posts
May 2 2023
83 posts
Apr 29 2023
77 posts
Mar 5 2023
70 posts
Popular Posts
chockfull
I believe that the real deal is possible and the path toward it is to address and correct all the doctrinal and practical error introduced by VPs box top doctorate research. isolation from other
chockfull
The Corps is a necessary cult element providing free labor at the expense of volunteers lives. Any imagery like the Marines promotes extremist behavior. No other Christian seminary or school use
Nathan_Jr
"Teaching" Romans to the Corps, Q&A: LCM: How much does your behavior that people do not see influence your example to them? VPW: It doesn't, unless you believe it will. LCM: You u
Posted Images
Mike
You still have material abundance associated with greedy opulence.
He did not teach greedy opulence. He taught material abundance with needs met and some left over for giving.
Your density in not getting this allows me to repeat this over and over for the Read-Only Audience, so I am not angry with you for being so dense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Okay, now I know you MUST be yanking my chain. This was a major element of PFAL and was woven through the entire class. As such, we used this concept countless times while witnessing..."Holy men of God spake..."Some were more eloquent than others.... yada, yada, yada."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yes, I admit, there may have been times when VPW slipped over this line, but not in the class and collaterals. I can see him saying things at a campfire that could be misconstrued this way, and anyone at that campfire that valued his words then over his words in the class and collaterals were doomed to the wrong understanding. I saw OODLES of Corps and other leaders preach the opulence gospel at times, but usually they calmed down when they integrated clear Biblical warnings against it, like "travel light" types of verses.
What was properly taught at times was that God does not look at great riches as automatic sin. We were taught that God can and does fellowship with some extremely rich people. Jesus taught this by example. My hunch is that Jesus was VERY successful at his business and very rich himself by age 30.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Can you quote the section of the collaterals that supports your claim?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Maybe I was too fast in how I wrote that....
That section in the class was the ONLY place I ever heard it, and never again by anyone else at any time or place. The film class is its only location as far as I know.
Maybe you can help me with my writing skills and show me how I could have said this better when I wrote:
"One of the keys taught in PFAL that I have NEVER heard anyone expound on is how God uses His spokesman's vocabulary in revelation."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Now you're just making stuff up. If he was truly God's spokesperson, as you have asserted, there would not have been room for such misunderstandings
Well, MY hunch is that you just made this claim up to suit your agenda.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Not at the moment.\
I encourage you to look for yourself. Searching your memory with a table of contents in front of you may stimulate lots of good memories.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Are you telling me not even you, yourself, used this when you were witnessing or running a twig? as if there was something radically different about the way you witnessed or ran a twig that set you apart from the thousands of other believers that were doing just that?
Edited by waysidermissed a word
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
No I haven't. In all the reposts and proof I posted to prove to you that the ministry taught material abundance, just where did I say they taught greed?
It's actually you backpedaling because you can't admit you were wrong.
Right. The only person that was allowed greedy opulence was Saint Vic.
I wouldn't care if you were angry with me.
As for your read only audience, if they're still with you after blaming the woman for Saint Vic raping her (Saint Vic's level of temptation was high) then that says a lot about them, doesn't it?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm not going to do that. You made the claim. Now back it up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
In other words, Mike has squat. Actually, he wishes he had squat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
After all this detail from you, I'm not convinced you understand what victor was saying in his little fiction about the red drapes. Those scriptures you cite are not about balancing nor paralleling needs and wants. They just aren't, even if you beleeeve they are.
Balanced is not an accurate, precise, nor effectual synonym for parallel, especially in this context.
We all know what parallel means -- side by side, at the same time, analogous, equivalent, aligned... In the Fire Engine Red Drapes (FERD) story, that broad needed an apartment and wanted red drapes for the apartment that she needed. Her want was at the same time and corresponding to her need. Drapes go hand in hand, side by side with modern dwellings with windows
She didn't need an apartment and want a younger, handsome lover. Lovers and apartments don't match, they aren't aligned, because anyone can get their kicks in a car or in an alley or in a minister's office. That need and want aren't parallel.
But drapes and apartments with windows line up side by side. They correspond naturally. They line up. They fit. Like a hand in a...
The lesson is make sure your arbitrary, carnal wants are aligned (parallel) with your needs -- there's a better chance of getting what you want that way.
In FERDS no one asked for anything in accordance with God's Will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Alright, since you insist on addressing me as if Im an ignorant jacka$$ who lacks the very basic comprehension to understand wierwille's remedial and elementary presentations. Parallel and balanced are not even remotely the same concept. But you are accusing me of assigning meaning to other words, or maybe its your memory loss or lack of desire, but I do want to fix this basic misunderstanding you have that parallel and balanced are synanomous.
Let me explain there, boy wonder. Parallel is equilateral, or one could say everywhere equally distanced. The concept has nothing to do with the items being balanced. You could have a car traveling equally distanced to a cat and the two items mentioned would be parallel but not balanced. Parallel is not balanced.
Balamced is speaking of a harmonious proportion between items and those items may or may not be equally distanced. Balance implies an equality, a harmonious state.
Can you see the difference, there mr wizard? If you are still in the dark then please use the following link to help clear up what you have appearantly forgotten, or not paid attention to, or whatever have you...maybe you were running an atom smasher that day or something....
https://www.merriam-webster.com/
So, if wierwille said and taught that to receive anything form God your needs and wants must be parallel then needs and want must be equally distanced. I could need a can of sardines and want an elephant and God would have to provide them as long as they are equally distanced in their course.
If wierwille meant balanced and used parallel then he is a complete idiot that lacked basic dexterity and comprhension to pick up an effn dictionary and use it.
And in the world of little g god breathed pflap that is a glaring error and according to wierwille, if it fails on one point it fails on all points. Epic fail...epic fail.
Make it make sense there mikey.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Your hunch is not parallel with the textual evidence. He was a day laborer like his “earthly” father.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Yeah, a rich carpenter. Jesus likely was very wealthy but it's highly unlikely it was from what he earned. If he had bread it was from the gold, frakenscence, and myrrh he received from the wisemen when he was an infant. They were quite literally gifts fit for a king.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Lust and want are the same basic idea.
You are too much the stickler on exact vocabulary.
Lust literally means strong desire or want.
You are probably stuck in thinking "lust" always refers to sex.
It says that as his last Passover was approaching, Jesus LUSTED to eat the supper with his apostles. Lust simply means great desire, and context tells us if that great desire is off the Word or not. With Jesus it was righteous lust for the companionship of his apostles for that High Holy Day. I know that sounds weird, but renew your mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Not necessarily so. Peter's last words are about people being destroyed because they would not understand the Epistles of Paul. Paul was God's spokesman, yet there was MUCH damaging misunderstanding of what he meant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Don't blame me cause the verse doesn't say what you want it to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You are right about that.
But you are wrong to use the word parallel alone in your comment.
You obviously did not get understanding when you read what I wrote about this.
I will repeat for you here.
Dr used the word PARALLEL with illustration with his arms to indicate balance. The use of that word along with his body language in his older live classes communicated the same idea that balance conveys.
I am noticing over and over a persnickety and inappropriate insistence on exactly lining up of simple words, but ignoring the richer lining up of ideas.
I think your brain is too devoted to dismissing my credibility, and not enough brain cells are left over to accurately understand what I write. You are looking for Gotch Hooks and ignoring ideas. This explains a lot why you did not get it when you took the class; all the wrong motives and too many distractions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
They are when you add in the body language where VPW positioned his arms to ILLUSTRATE how this parallel thing meant balanced.
I answered this in more detail with Nathan a few minutes ago. You both are hung up on vocabulary when a little more is involved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You are forgetting that those gifts financed his family's trip to Egypt, staying there a year or two, and then the trip from Egypt to Nazareth. Safe travel in those days was expensive. If any was left over, Joseph still needed to build his business from scratch, another very costly item.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I just want to encourage you to get you needs and lusts parallel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
wierwille certainly had that one down. You gonna keep hurling childish insults? Grow up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Maybe I haven't been specific enough on the parallel thing. Evidently no one has a clue what I mean, and I guess all the time of their stay at TWI they never looked into this item.
When you have an old fashioned scale to weigh things, it looks a little like a child's see-saw. You then put the thing to be weighed on the Right seat of the see-saw, and its weight pushed the see-saw down on that side all the way to the ground.
So now the see-saw is at an angle where the Right seat is at 4 o'clock, and the Left seat is at 10 o'clock.
Then you put a small weight on the Left seat and watch what happens. If nothing happens then you put a little more weight on the Left seat. Eventually there will be enough weight on the Left seat to push that seat down and the Right seat up.
When you get just the right amount of weight on the Left seat, the see saw will balance, with the Left seat at 9 o'clock and the Right seat at 3 o'clock.
The weight on the Left seat EQUALS the unknown weight on the Right seat. The two weights are BALANCED, and the see-saw is PARALLEL to the ground.
This is what VPW was doing with his arms: positioning them to illustrate this. One arm represented the level ground, and the other arm represented the balanced scale weighing the needs on one side and the wants on the other side.
His arms were parallel, representing the needs and wants being parallel to the ground or balanced.
*/*/*
Now I have questions.
Where WERE your heads when you took the class?
Where WERE your heads when you entered the Corps and re-studied this stuff?
Why did you not ever question "parallel" long ago?
I think this is, once again, indicative of how poorly you all understood the class you now hate and criticize in nearly complete befuddlement on issue after issue.
Hate makes people stupid.
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.