A common misconception most people have is thinking God’s “original creation of light” has somehow stopped. The reality is our universe is, and it has been constantly expanding at an unbelievable breakneck speed. Exactly what speed? It’s about 186,000 miles per second, the same as the speed of light. Again, there is nothing we can do to stop that universal expansion any more than we can stop the light God Almighty first spoke into existence.
Very fascinating and insightful, WTH.
Particularly in light of the possible interpretion behind "logos in John 1:1ff
which I've entertained these past few years:
that namely, "the word" or "command" in John 1:1ff may be a specific reference to the very
first words uttered by Elohim in Genesis
1:3 - "Let there be light" - to which John 1:4 continues, "then the light shined into the darkness."
The personal sense from this take between Gen 1:3 and John 1:1 invokes that of the travel and "expansion" of light.
I'll be placing the original God-breathed manuscript of this treatise, version 1.0 in it's first released draft, on e-bay, and start the bidding at $100. ... Do I hear $120?
Remember, he says sincerity is good four times there, but
Your but,, negates the fact that it is good at all. Futhermore this is not what scripture teaches. In Corinthians it talks about sincerity... the leaven to be mixed with the word. thus the argument is without sincerity you cannot be, (in your own vernacular) a master of the word at all. Thus sincerity is the majic ingredient to be mixed with the word to "rightly divide the word of God. Also when he says it is good, what does he say it is good for? In deed, he left it good for nothing. For if sincerity was good, why didnt he say what good it brought?
This point precisely highlights the deceptiveness of the teaching of VPW, for his pupils gave him credit for being "sincere", yet he and his followers didnt want anyone engaging in there own sincerity. For if he could minimize (and thats precisely what he did) peoples quest and journey with God through a sincere desire to know the truth, control would follow quite emphantically. It left no openendedness with each individual believer in pursuit of God.
your comment:
Does this make you wonder how many other things you forgot or distorted in your memory from so long ago? It should.
No Mike it does not, for I forgot nothing and distorted nothing. You know Mike, I take offense to the fact that you are telling me "I distorted something in my memory." This is precisely the type of mind games he and people in this ministry played when they preyed on people with this garbage. Actually, I glorify God that my season with this stuff was short.
Furthermore Mike by VPW own biblically accurate standards, some of the epistles like Phillipians were addressed "to all the saints at Phillipi with the bishops and deacons, etc. Where does it say it was addressed to "other churches" as in us? By VPW own standard of omission and inclusions, one would have to toss this epistle out and others also. But VPW could always fit a square peg in a round hole by glossing over his own standards when it was convient, and thus included all the epistles as "to us" and demeaned the gospels. Furthermore he uses the epistle of Peter to circumcise the writings of Paul, with the "no private interpetation stuff" But wait a minute Peter was a minister of the circumcision so his letters werent written by VPW's own logic to the church at all? Nope Mike this is a real high wire act that never did cut mustard, because it never had any mustard as in sincerity for individuals lifes.
I think you might not understand my questions exactly. Let me re-explain them.
We all hear many things in the course of a day.
After hearing something, in your decision whether to accept and believe it, versus deny and reject it, what standard do you use THERE?
It sounds like maybe you use the winging method, or maybe the winging it by revelation?
-------Do you look in the storehouse of your mind to something that was written for such decisions,
-------OR do you look to your spontaneous feelings at each moment such a decision is called for,
-------OR do you ask for revelation each time?
I'm not trying to beat you up or anything here. I'm just trying to draw out of you what your exact decision proceedures are.
Hardly ANYONE ever does this, examine their decision making proceedures, so don't feel bad if it's new to you.
It can be scary to do this because it can get us wondering about ourselves. That can be good, though, because we can then set out to consciously decide what proceedures we use, rather than just running along and making many accept/reject unconscious judgments on the fly.
I use my collected wisdom, knowlege of life and the Bible, my parents, elders in my church and prayer to God.
You wrote: "I use my collected wisdom, knowlege of life and the Bible, my parents, elders in my church and prayer to God."
But what do you use when it comes time to REJECT a statement from your parents or elders? Certainly there must be times when you disagree with them, right? That would mean that the list you mentioned above is NOT an unalterable standard for you, but more of a set of sources you find that usually supply information you feel comfortable in accepting.
Do you have an ultimate authority, an unalterable one, that helps you decide what will be accepted or rejected? ...like an only rule for faith and practice?
***
I want to thank you for participating like this with my questioning and being honest about pretty personal stuff. I promised to not get on your case, and I want very much to honor that promise.
The way you've described it so far is, I think, the way most people think. I thought that way in most areas of my life from birth up. This common method of thought is what I mean when use the term "winging it." I do not mean to say that it is bad. However, when I got into science and math, I was taught a new method of thinking that seemed to be much more powerful. However this new method was very limited for use within those areas of math and science.
Let's use Geometry as an example.
Using this new method I was taught to clear out of my mind ALL of what I thought I knew about Geometry, and would then load into my mind the "standard" or the "only rule for faith and practice" for Geometry. This Geometry standard was a small set of Postulates and Axioms Definitions. Then, with this Geometry standard in place I would see many other pieces of knowledge (Theorems) be built upon that standard, and be in accordance with that standard.
This whole procedure was relatively easy to me because I had a GREAT Geometry teacher who made Theorem building sound like a fun adventure. Plus, what I had to clear out of my mind at the beginning, before loading in the standard, was relatively small. Plus, the standard was pretty small too.
This new method of learning, with a clear concise standard base on which to build knowledge, was extended to work in other very simple areas of math, and then into science. However, with each step farther from Geometry, the theorems got tougher to find and understand, and the usefulness of the method got less and less spectacular. Still, it was useful for relatively simple situations, but not at all for interactions with human beings and life's deep issues. In those areas I still had to "wing it" because there was no other way to go.
Then I took PFAL and was shown in an early session that SOME of that non-winging new method of thought I had learned in Geometry was possible to use in deep spiritual areas involving God and man.
Dr goes fast in this section of the class, and if you want I can e-mail you a transcript of it, but a condensed version of it can be found in PFAL page 230.
What Dr teaches there, using my terminology, is that by clearing out of the "acceptance storehouse" of our minds ALL that we think we know about God and man, and placing God's Word in there as our standard, we can then build knowledge on that standard that is as solid as the standard. Dr taught us the rules for this, and he showed us many examples of their use.
***
The term "winging it" comes from the early days of aviation, before aeronomical engineers, and flight manuals, and flight simulators were invented. People would climb into early airplanes and learn to fly "by the seat of their pants," so to speak, or "on the fly." This method worked well for simple, slow airplanes but as technology increased and larger, faster airplanes were invented, much more careful ways of learning to fly had to be devised.
For someone who had never flown an airplane to climb into the cockpit of a 747 and attempt to learn how to fly from the feel of it, and from what they'd seen in movies, and from their experiences of driving a car, certain disaster will follow. I sure wouldn't want to be passenger with such a student pilot.
There are times and places where "winging it" is the only way to learn. Then there are situations where "winging it" will fail for us miserably.
***
It is not easy to clear out of the "acceptance storehouse" of our minds all that we think we know about God and man. It is not easy to place a standard in there on which to build. This is not relatively easy like it was in Geometry for those who were lucky to have a great teacher. It takes work, but the payoff is great.
One of the big payoffs of graduating from the "winging it" method in spiritual matters is that if a large number of people start out with the same standard, and all build carefully, they all arrive at the same answers. This happens all the time in science. The reason we never see this kind of like-mindedness in religion is because most people are "winging it." Even for those few who adopt this new powerful method in religion, often they disagree with each other as to which standard to use, or they don't build carefully on it, and very little like-mindedness occurs.
Like-mindedness is great stuff when everyone has arrived at the truth. It's not so good if everyone is in error and is in agreement about it.
Sometimes people choose a standard for working on spiritual matters, but they keep changing it, or they have conflicting elements contained within their standard. For them their operations are very close to "winging it" and the results are similar.
***
Remember, I promised to not insult you, and I've also said here that "winging it" is often the ONLY way people can live and learn. It is my pleasure to tell you that in PFAL we can learn this new, more powerful method of thinking and learning.
In addition to that, I have found that by selecting the written form of PFAL as my standard, the method becomes even more powerful.
From what you have described, def59, it looks to me that your present method is the method most people use, and I call it "winging it" in a non-derogatory sense. There is, in my opinion, a much more powerful method available, and I invite you to come back to PFAL see that learning in that environment again is an exciting adventure.
But, Tom, as you decided to do what she asked you DID draw upon the storehouse of you mind, and in there somewhere it probably says to love your wife as Christ loved the church... ;)--> in addition to cartoons of frying pans and rolling pins... :D-->
If I disagree (or have a question) with someone be it a parent, elder or you, I go with my accumulated knowledge, bits of wisdom I've picked up along the way and ask God for help.
It's the same way I am dealing with CK and Mark S. on the Biblical Universalism thread.
I haven't had time to go there, but I just took a peek. It does look like some opinions are being exchanged, and some look pretty hot too!
I remember Dr saying a very small amount on that subject, or a similar one. Something about everything returns to its original state, or something like that. I've been on the lookout for more on that topic in PFAL, but so far nothing has surfaced. I'll let you know is some does.
I'm already on record here on greaseSpot saying that VPW was kinda like a grandfather to me. I've said how I used to live right next door to him, visit w/ him & Mrs. on more than a few starlit nights in the courtyard, worked on "his" staff for the better part of a decade, etc.
Shared meals w/ the guy, was one of few people he would just throw the keys to his Lincoln to and say move it, I drove him around when he was there for Ambassador One weekends, helped him clean his garage on Saturdays, etc.
That being said. What I did concerning VPW that pertains to this thread is that I was senior designer in the publications department that produced his books, articles, letters, everything he publicly published. I was even authorized to sign his name (in his handwriting) when he as not available and something required a his signature (don't get this twisted folks; it happens all the time in big corporations).
Most pertinent to this discussion was that I was part of the historical staff. As such I sat w/him, Mrs. and others who "were there" and "who knew" the "heart of the ministry."
Al that goes to say, in the most verbose way:
THERE IS NOTHING "GOD BREATHED" ABOUT PFAL.
Hate to say I told you so, but HE told ME so.
PFAL was never intended to be anything more than a compliation of foundational materials to help guide a person through the first steps in their relationship with JESUS CHRIST, who IS, the way, the truth and the life.
Noone comes to the FATHER, but my him. Jesus. Jesus' teachings, not VPW's. VPW said at least a million times through the years that what HE had done was only the first steps. Once we who came after him did OUR OWN research in the scriptures, when WE found where HE, VPW had erred; he/we (the ministry) would "CHANGE OUR THINKING ACCORDINGLY."
Suffice it to say at this point Mike. You seem to be a nice, well meaning guy; as long as you continue on this PFAL is "theo Pneustos" you are 100% wrong.
You claim that you heard doctor say that. That is only hearsay, since I did not hear him say it. Furthermore, what is God breathed is the PFAL book, not doctor saying that the PFAL book was not god breathed. If doctor had said in the PFAL book that PFAL was not god breathed, I would check my own understanding of what is written. Since PFAL IS god breathed, then seeing it written in PFAL that it IS NOT god breathed must be a proofreader's oversight, or a figure of speech. If Wierwille's writing cannot contradict the godbreathedness of PFAL, how can his own alleged words, reported by someone who has obviously not mastered PFAL? (which is god breathed)
I've been chuckling over this lineup all day, ever since I saw HCW's post, but had no time and was on the way out the door. I didn't know exactly who would show up in this lineup, but I KNEW it would be here. There may even be another one lining up with you guys any minute whilst I take pen in hand to ink this document.
So do I have this straight? You guys are finally vindicated in all your debates with me because you now have a superstar heavy hitter on your side. Well, if it's the case that you all are only too happy to take HCW's word on this matter, does that mean you also take his word as a final judgment on the plagiarism issue, and the sex issue?
Time and time again, a scenario has played out here where I take three steps forward with the God-breathedness of PFAL, only to be forced two steps back with the distractions of these two hot issues.
HCW has put forth a set of very forceful arguments that, like David and others in ancient times, a man can be messed up in one area, and totally together in another. I have made this point many times here before, but HCW made it in ways that took many here by surprise. I'm not sure, but it seems that VERY few have even tried to argue him back on this. I don't read all his posts, but I did see his debut week's worth plus a few more and I was very impressed.
When I collect together in one place all my arguments on this subject, his will be certainly included, along with posts by certain others here like Oldiesman, What the Hay, Galen, and johniam. Forgive if I've left anyone out of this list of "Select Subject Allies." I'm tired right now and had a long day of manual labor. I'd love to add any names that come to mind later.
I'll also be collecting arguments from these same posters on the plagiarism issue, and again HCW will be a prominent contributor.
So, if I get this right, I suppose I should get less of the diverted argument strategies from you folks in the future as I press on in projecting my life's bet argument of PFAL being God-breathed. This is a very common strategy against me, to resort to a man's character and issues of sex and plagiarism, when what I want on the table is the TEXT of PFAL. It happened just last night again, or maybe that was this morning.
I won't be betting any money on this supposition, though.
***
So, how do you folks think I'll deal with this post from HCW? Oakspear has ventured forth a few guesses, one of which is drifting in the right direction, but still misses. Actually he is pretty close in the way he proposed multiple strategies.
I'll set forth a hint. My strategies have been posted here before, albeit in abbreviated forms. One of them was even posted VERY recently, like within the last 24 hours. Some of them have received a bit of a detailed treatment at times. Maybe by searching through all my 3700 posts you all can ancipitate my tantrics and my strateegery. Or maybe you just will read very closely my very recent posts for an minor expansion of this hint.
Now, if you don't mind, I've got a few other planned posts to write. I owe sky4it, What The Hay, and you TheInvisibleDan a response each, and the TWI website thread one too. These may take a little time.
I like to keep everyone in suspenders before a heavyweight belt match.
I had a feeling we'd be meeting about this. I'll be circling the field for a while so that you can, if you so desire, check up on some of my past posts on this subject. Actually there are probably too many. You came in late on this movie, so maybe I should fill you in on some of what's happened so far. Let me know if you want to get a rundown on where I'm coming from before we get into what you reported what Dr said.
I was only kidding about the heavyweight match above. Humor is a way I lighten up myself for sure, and hopefully others, in these very intense debates that have been raging for just over two years now. Oakspear named them the MikeWars, but some of us have calmed down to have some pretty friendly exchanges at times, especially backstage by e-mail and PTs.
If you'd like to talk about these things by e-mail that's fine too, as time allows. We can get right into the things you said Dr told you, or we can back track into what I mean about PFAL being God-breathed or why.
One detail up-front: It's only the written form I am talking about, the books Dr put his name to and his magazine articles. I also seem to be limiting myself in my bet to Dr's books after 1971. This second qualifier is still in a state of learning. For practical reasons this is my best estimate of when Dr's written works reached a state of maturity ready for such a bet as I have made.
I want to thank you greatly for you excellent job in dealing with the two spurious issues that constantly derail me here when really want to only discuss the written works. Other hot issues that rage here from time to time you have well doused, like the white supremacist one just today.
If you want to expand on your post regarding you and Dr talking about this preferred issue I'm all ears.
quote: ...vindicated in all your debates with me because you now have a superstar heavy hitter on your side...
My head is swelling so much so, I can't sleep. Its now so heavy that its fallen over & I can't get up!
They don't need me.
Mike. I think you're a nice guy. If you truly view me as a superstar heavy hitter.... Man. Please. Get a new
quote: ...life's bet argument...
If you truly believe that VPW believed PFAL to be "God Breathed," submit ONE piece of evidence to support that assertion... or should I say ASSUMPTION?
While developing your strateegeries on this topic, consider this:
1. I'm not taking sides.
I don't think the folks you listed, your adversaries, are taking me at my "superstar heavyhitter word." (Hey. I guy can dream right? Its only been about "12 minutes.") I think they recognize the validity of someone who actually spoke to the guy about the stuff.
2. I haven't drawn any "final" conclusions on the plagiarism nor the sex issues.
I certainly haven't concluded that VPW was...
quote: messed up in one area, and totally together in another.
What I have said is that a person's faults don't necessarily negate their accomplishments... as a general principle.
I feel that if a person is gonna take a stand on an issue, they should consider facts, as many as are available on said issue. (Isn't it great that we all sound so smart?) I weigh in on a conversation when I feel I have something substantial to add. I can't predict which subjects I will weigh in on or when, so how can you?
All of your adversaries on this subject and others you view as "Mike haters" are presenting substantive information in support of their position. I'm forced to respect both it and them. I've had folks flat out refute some of my ideas and others, straight up, "school me" on stuff; which is cool. Please do not draw any conclusions about me that I have not drawn.
quote: ...It's only the written form I am talking about, the books Dr put his name to and his magazine articles. I also seem to be limiting myself in my bet to Dr's books after 1971.
I really wish you hadn't said that.
Professional writers all know that "the writer is nothing without his editor."
VPW never actually wrote the PFAL book. It was "written" by staff writers and editors from the transcript of the film class. "Editorial" simply edited it and changed the sense from spoken to "written" form. VP's daughter Karen M. was his personal editor. She actually "wrote" the books from VP's notes, teaching tape transcripts and other stuff he wrote.
Not at all unusual in the publishing world.
Therefore. If the spoken class was not "God Breathed," nor was the written book.
I, yes ME, I actually laid out the vast majority of VPW's magazine articles for the last ten years of his life. Occasionally I would suggest rewrites of paragraphs or actually scrap whole sentences to get them to fit in the available space. WE, the publications staff, told writers how much room they had (in terms of word count) for their articles.
If somebody turned in too many words, we would hack the article to bits. I seem to remember that a certain "LindaZ" who posts on GS was nicknamed, "The Hatchet!" She was an excellent senior editor with a great disdain for verbosity. Our editorial staff trained our contributing writers on how to write for a magazine and would stand firm when writers tried to pull the "God Breathed" crap on us.
If GOD was breathin' it He woulda breathed it so it would fit!
God INSPIRED, maybe, but "Theo Pneustos?" No way. VPW taught that God Breathed was reserved for the scriptures, PERIOD.
Way Publications, in the time frame you mentioned, Mike, had some very high standards,"in the day." "God Inspired Professionals" was the goal.
There's nothing more to talk about on the VPW told me tip. I don't remember hearing or reading ONCE where VP claimed HIS works were anything "God Breathed." I remember him saying his stuff wasn't even necessarily "new."
PFAL even said that "God would teach me the Word as it hadn't been taught for centuries...."
Centuries old stuff. Not NEW, God Breathed revelation.
Here is a short response to one of your points, though.
I lived in New Knoxville with JFW, a co-editor of the PFAL book, for two years in the late 70's. We maintained a best-friend relationship all the way up until late last year when he passed away. We talked by phone several times each year.
During those two early years, and then in recent years I pumped him with many, many questions as to how the editing of Dr's material worked. We spent many hours discussing how I post here. He was a rare poster here too, but I never asked him his handle. In recent years I contacted KM, the other PFAL editor, and discussed many similar things in phone calls and e-mails. I have maintained a good friendship with DC, an editor of the Way Magazine, who also worked with Dr on his printed material, and my posts were intensely discussed with him.
None of them supported my thesis presented here, but I learned much from them all.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
29
23
17
106
Popular Days
Jan 20
29
Feb 23
26
Jan 21
25
Jan 22
23
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 29 posts
def59 23 posts
Oakspear 17 posts
Mike 106 posts
Popular Days
Jan 20 2005
29 posts
Feb 23 2005
26 posts
Jan 21 2005
25 posts
Jan 22 2005
23 posts
TheInvisibleDan
Very fascinating and insightful, WTH.
Particularly in light of the possible interpretion behind "logos in John 1:1ff
which I've entertained these past few years:
that namely, "the word" or "command" in John 1:1ff may be a specific reference to the very
first words uttered by Elohim in Genesis
1:3 - "Let there be light" - to which John 1:4 continues, "then the light shined into the darkness."
The personal sense from this take between Gen 1:3 and John 1:1 invokes that of the travel and "expansion" of light.
Thanks.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I'll be placing the original God-breathed manuscript of this treatise, version 1.0 in it's first released draft, on e-bay, and start the bidding at $100. ... Do I hear $120?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Mike :
Your comment:
Remember, he says sincerity is good four times there, but
Your but,, negates the fact that it is good at all. Futhermore this is not what scripture teaches. In Corinthians it talks about sincerity... the leaven to be mixed with the word. thus the argument is without sincerity you cannot be, (in your own vernacular) a master of the word at all. Thus sincerity is the majic ingredient to be mixed with the word to "rightly divide the word of God. Also when he says it is good, what does he say it is good for? In deed, he left it good for nothing. For if sincerity was good, why didnt he say what good it brought?
This point precisely highlights the deceptiveness of the teaching of VPW, for his pupils gave him credit for being "sincere", yet he and his followers didnt want anyone engaging in there own sincerity. For if he could minimize (and thats precisely what he did) peoples quest and journey with God through a sincere desire to know the truth, control would follow quite emphantically. It left no openendedness with each individual believer in pursuit of God.
your comment:
Does this make you wonder how many other things you forgot or distorted in your memory from so long ago? It should.
No Mike it does not, for I forgot nothing and distorted nothing. You know Mike, I take offense to the fact that you are telling me "I distorted something in my memory." This is precisely the type of mind games he and people in this ministry played when they preyed on people with this garbage. Actually, I glorify God that my season with this stuff was short.
Furthermore Mike by VPW own biblically accurate standards, some of the epistles like Phillipians were addressed "to all the saints at Phillipi with the bishops and deacons, etc. Where does it say it was addressed to "other churches" as in us? By VPW own standard of omission and inclusions, one would have to toss this epistle out and others also. But VPW could always fit a square peg in a round hole by glossing over his own standards when it was convient, and thus included all the epistles as "to us" and demeaned the gospels. Furthermore he uses the epistle of Peter to circumcise the writings of Paul, with the "no private interpetation stuff" But wait a minute Peter was a minister of the circumcision so his letters werent written by VPW's own logic to the church at all? Nope Mike this is a real high wire act that never did cut mustard, because it never had any mustard as in sincerity for individuals lifes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
I use my collected wisdom, knowlege of life and the Bible, my parents, elders in my church and prayer to God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
def59,
You wrote: "I use my collected wisdom, knowlege of life and the Bible, my parents, elders in my church and prayer to God."
But what do you use when it comes time to REJECT a statement from your parents or elders? Certainly there must be times when you disagree with them, right? That would mean that the list you mentioned above is NOT an unalterable standard for you, but more of a set of sources you find that usually supply information you feel comfortable in accepting.
Do you have an ultimate authority, an unalterable one, that helps you decide what will be accepted or rejected? ...like an only rule for faith and practice?
***
I want to thank you for participating like this with my questioning and being honest about pretty personal stuff. I promised to not get on your case, and I want very much to honor that promise.
The way you've described it so far is, I think, the way most people think. I thought that way in most areas of my life from birth up. This common method of thought is what I mean when use the term "winging it." I do not mean to say that it is bad. However, when I got into science and math, I was taught a new method of thinking that seemed to be much more powerful. However this new method was very limited for use within those areas of math and science.
Let's use Geometry as an example.
Using this new method I was taught to clear out of my mind ALL of what I thought I knew about Geometry, and would then load into my mind the "standard" or the "only rule for faith and practice" for Geometry. This Geometry standard was a small set of Postulates and Axioms Definitions. Then, with this Geometry standard in place I would see many other pieces of knowledge (Theorems) be built upon that standard, and be in accordance with that standard.
This whole procedure was relatively easy to me because I had a GREAT Geometry teacher who made Theorem building sound like a fun adventure. Plus, what I had to clear out of my mind at the beginning, before loading in the standard, was relatively small. Plus, the standard was pretty small too.
This new method of learning, with a clear concise standard base on which to build knowledge, was extended to work in other very simple areas of math, and then into science. However, with each step farther from Geometry, the theorems got tougher to find and understand, and the usefulness of the method got less and less spectacular. Still, it was useful for relatively simple situations, but not at all for interactions with human beings and life's deep issues. In those areas I still had to "wing it" because there was no other way to go.
Then I took PFAL and was shown in an early session that SOME of that non-winging new method of thought I had learned in Geometry was possible to use in deep spiritual areas involving God and man.
Dr goes fast in this section of the class, and if you want I can e-mail you a transcript of it, but a condensed version of it can be found in PFAL page 230.
What Dr teaches there, using my terminology, is that by clearing out of the "acceptance storehouse" of our minds ALL that we think we know about God and man, and placing God's Word in there as our standard, we can then build knowledge on that standard that is as solid as the standard. Dr taught us the rules for this, and he showed us many examples of their use.
***
The term "winging it" comes from the early days of aviation, before aeronomical engineers, and flight manuals, and flight simulators were invented. People would climb into early airplanes and learn to fly "by the seat of their pants," so to speak, or "on the fly." This method worked well for simple, slow airplanes but as technology increased and larger, faster airplanes were invented, much more careful ways of learning to fly had to be devised.
For someone who had never flown an airplane to climb into the cockpit of a 747 and attempt to learn how to fly from the feel of it, and from what they'd seen in movies, and from their experiences of driving a car, certain disaster will follow. I sure wouldn't want to be passenger with such a student pilot.
There are times and places where "winging it" is the only way to learn. Then there are situations where "winging it" will fail for us miserably.
***
It is not easy to clear out of the "acceptance storehouse" of our minds all that we think we know about God and man. It is not easy to place a standard in there on which to build. This is not relatively easy like it was in Geometry for those who were lucky to have a great teacher. It takes work, but the payoff is great.
One of the big payoffs of graduating from the "winging it" method in spiritual matters is that if a large number of people start out with the same standard, and all build carefully, they all arrive at the same answers. This happens all the time in science. The reason we never see this kind of like-mindedness in religion is because most people are "winging it." Even for those few who adopt this new powerful method in religion, often they disagree with each other as to which standard to use, or they don't build carefully on it, and very little like-mindedness occurs.
Like-mindedness is great stuff when everyone has arrived at the truth. It's not so good if everyone is in error and is in agreement about it.
Sometimes people choose a standard for working on spiritual matters, but they keep changing it, or they have conflicting elements contained within their standard. For them their operations are very close to "winging it" and the results are similar.
***
Remember, I promised to not insult you, and I've also said here that "winging it" is often the ONLY way people can live and learn. It is my pleasure to tell you that in PFAL we can learn this new, more powerful method of thinking and learning.
In addition to that, I have found that by selecting the written form of PFAL as my standard, the method becomes even more powerful.
From what you have described, def59, it looks to me that your present method is the method most people use, and I call it "winging it" in a non-derogatory sense. There is, in my opinion, a much more powerful method available, and I invite you to come back to PFAL see that learning in that environment again is an exciting adventure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
What The Hay,
TheInvisibleDan,
sky4it,
I'd love to have the time to respond, but I don't just now. See you later.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
My wife told me to take out the trash... I didn't have to check the blue book... I knew it was trash day...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
But, Tom, as you decided to do what she asked you DID draw upon the storehouse of you mind, and in there somewhere it probably says to love your wife as Christ loved the church...
;)--> in addition to cartoons of frying pans and rolling pins... 
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Mike
I think my answer speaks for itself.
If I disagree (or have a question) with someone be it a parent, elder or you, I go with my accumulated knowledge, bits of wisdom I've picked up along the way and ask God for help.
It's the same way I am dealing with CK and Mark S. on the Biblical Universalism thread.
And boy, don't get him Chuck mad at you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
def59,
I haven't had time to go there, but I just took a peek. It does look like some opinions are being exchanged, and some look pretty hot too!
I remember Dr saying a very small amount on that subject, or a similar one. Something about everything returns to its original state, or something like that. I've been on the lookout for more on that topic in PFAL, but so far nothing has surfaced. I'll let you know is some does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Yo. Pull up Mike, PULL UP!!!!!!!!
I'm already on record here on greaseSpot saying that VPW was kinda like a grandfather to me. I've said how I used to live right next door to him, visit w/ him & Mrs. on more than a few starlit nights in the courtyard, worked on "his" staff for the better part of a decade, etc.
Shared meals w/ the guy, was one of few people he would just throw the keys to his Lincoln to and say move it, I drove him around when he was there for Ambassador One weekends, helped him clean his garage on Saturdays, etc.
That being said. What I did concerning VPW that pertains to this thread is that I was senior designer in the publications department that produced his books, articles, letters, everything he publicly published. I was even authorized to sign his name (in his handwriting) when he as not available and something required a his signature (don't get this twisted folks; it happens all the time in big corporations).
Most pertinent to this discussion was that I was part of the historical staff. As such I sat w/him, Mrs. and others who "were there" and "who knew" the "heart of the ministry."
Al that goes to say, in the most verbose way:
THERE IS NOTHING "GOD BREATHED" ABOUT PFAL.
Hate to say I told you so, but HE told ME so.
PFAL was never intended to be anything more than a compliation of foundational materials to help guide a person through the first steps in their relationship with JESUS CHRIST, who IS, the way, the truth and the life.
Noone comes to the FATHER, but my him. Jesus. Jesus' teachings, not VPW's. VPW said at least a million times through the years that what HE had done was only the first steps. Once we who came after him did OUR OWN research in the scriptures, when WE found where HE, VPW had erred; he/we (the ministry) would "CHANGE OUR THINKING ACCORDINGLY."
Suffice it to say at this point Mike. You seem to be a nice, well meaning guy; as long as you continue on this PFAL is "theo Pneustos" you are 100% wrong.
Dead wrong.
Not right.
not close.
not even in the ball park.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mannn, this is gonna be GOOD!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Yeah... what he said!
And I was going to ask of Mike (again)... (probably for the zillionth time)...
Mike, did you ever hear VP talk about PFAL as you do? did you ever hear VP refer to PFAL as you do?
nah? ...didn't think so...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Here's what I predict Mike will say:
You claim that you heard doctor say that. That is only hearsay, since I did not hear him say it. Furthermore, what is God breathed is the PFAL book, not doctor saying that the PFAL book was not god breathed. If doctor had said in the PFAL book that PFAL was not god breathed, I would check my own understanding of what is written. Since PFAL IS god breathed, then seeing it written in PFAL that it IS NOT god breathed must be a proofreader's oversight, or a figure of speech. If Wierwille's writing cannot contradict the godbreathedness of PFAL, how can his own alleged words, reported by someone who has obviously not mastered PFAL? (which is god breathed)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
You have offended the Great Piafael.
Woe unto you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
well, well, well...another county heard from. The version varies a tad...
nice work, Oak...spot on.
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Raf,
alfakat,
Oakspear,
Tom Strange,
TheInvisibleDan,
I've been chuckling over this lineup all day, ever since I saw HCW's post, but had no time and was on the way out the door. I didn't know exactly who would show up in this lineup, but I KNEW it would be here. There may even be another one lining up with you guys any minute whilst I take pen in hand to ink this document.
So do I have this straight? You guys are finally vindicated in all your debates with me because you now have a superstar heavy hitter on your side. Well, if it's the case that you all are only too happy to take HCW's word on this matter, does that mean you also take his word as a final judgment on the plagiarism issue, and the sex issue?
Time and time again, a scenario has played out here where I take three steps forward with the God-breathedness of PFAL, only to be forced two steps back with the distractions of these two hot issues.
HCW has put forth a set of very forceful arguments that, like David and others in ancient times, a man can be messed up in one area, and totally together in another. I have made this point many times here before, but HCW made it in ways that took many here by surprise. I'm not sure, but it seems that VERY few have even tried to argue him back on this. I don't read all his posts, but I did see his debut week's worth plus a few more and I was very impressed.
When I collect together in one place all my arguments on this subject, his will be certainly included, along with posts by certain others here like Oldiesman, What the Hay, Galen, and johniam. Forgive if I've left anyone out of this list of "Select Subject Allies." I'm tired right now and had a long day of manual labor. I'd love to add any names that come to mind later.
I'll also be collecting arguments from these same posters on the plagiarism issue, and again HCW will be a prominent contributor.
So, if I get this right, I suppose I should get less of the diverted argument strategies from you folks in the future as I press on in projecting my life's bet argument of PFAL being God-breathed. This is a very common strategy against me, to resort to a man's character and issues of sex and plagiarism, when what I want on the table is the TEXT of PFAL. It happened just last night again, or maybe that was this morning.
I won't be betting any money on this supposition, though.
***
So, how do you folks think I'll deal with this post from HCW? Oakspear has ventured forth a few guesses, one of which is drifting in the right direction, but still misses. Actually he is pretty close in the way he proposed multiple strategies.
I'll set forth a hint. My strategies have been posted here before, albeit in abbreviated forms. One of them was even posted VERY recently, like within the last 24 hours. Some of them have received a bit of a detailed treatment at times. Maybe by searching through all my 3700 posts you all can ancipitate my tantrics and my strateegery. Or maybe you just will read very closely my very recent posts for an minor expansion of this hint.
Now, if you don't mind, I've got a few other planned posts to write. I owe sky4it, What The Hay, and you TheInvisibleDan a response each, and the TWI website thread one too. These may take a little time.
I like to keep everyone in suspenders before a heavyweight belt match.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi HCW,
I had a feeling we'd be meeting about this. I'll be circling the field for a while so that you can, if you so desire, check up on some of my past posts on this subject. Actually there are probably too many. You came in late on this movie, so maybe I should fill you in on some of what's happened so far. Let me know if you want to get a rundown on where I'm coming from before we get into what you reported what Dr said.
I was only kidding about the heavyweight match above. Humor is a way I lighten up myself for sure, and hopefully others, in these very intense debates that have been raging for just over two years now. Oakspear named them the MikeWars, but some of us have calmed down to have some pretty friendly exchanges at times, especially backstage by e-mail and PTs.
If you'd like to talk about these things by e-mail that's fine too, as time allows. We can get right into the things you said Dr told you, or we can back track into what I mean about PFAL being God-breathed or why.
One detail up-front: It's only the written form I am talking about, the books Dr put his name to and his magazine articles. I also seem to be limiting myself in my bet to Dr's books after 1971. This second qualifier is still in a state of learning. For practical reasons this is my best estimate of when Dr's written works reached a state of maturity ready for such a bet as I have made.
I want to thank you greatly for you excellent job in dealing with the two spurious issues that constantly derail me here when really want to only discuss the written works. Other hot issues that rage here from time to time you have well doused, like the white supremacist one just today.
If you want to expand on your post regarding you and Dr talking about this preferred issue I'm all ears.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Huh?
I was about to go to bed.
My head is swelling so much so, I can't sleep. Its now so heavy that its fallen over & I can't get up!
They don't need me.
Mike. I think you're a nice guy. If you truly view me as a superstar heavy hitter.... Man. Please. Get a new
If you truly believe that VPW believed PFAL to be "God Breathed," submit ONE piece of evidence to support that assertion... or should I say ASSUMPTION?
While developing your strateegeries on this topic, consider this:
1. I'm not taking sides.
I don't think the folks you listed, your adversaries, are taking me at my "superstar heavyhitter word." (Hey. I guy can dream right? Its only been about "12 minutes.") I think they recognize the validity of someone who actually spoke to the guy about the stuff.
2. I haven't drawn any "final" conclusions on the plagiarism nor the sex issues.
I certainly haven't concluded that VPW was...
What I have said is that a person's faults don't necessarily negate their accomplishments... as a general principle.
I feel that if a person is gonna take a stand on an issue, they should consider facts, as many as are available on said issue. (Isn't it great that we all sound so smart?) I weigh in on a conversation when I feel I have something substantial to add. I can't predict which subjects I will weigh in on or when, so how can you?
All of your adversaries on this subject and others you view as "Mike haters" are presenting substantive information in support of their position. I'm forced to respect both it and them. I've had folks flat out refute some of my ideas and others, straight up, "school me" on stuff; which is cool. Please do not draw any conclusions about me that I have not drawn.
I can't respect that.
3. I don't read all my posts either.
Jus don't take myself that seriously.
4. What's a "diverted argument strategy?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mike: "PFAL is God-breathed."
Wierwille: "No, it's not."
Who you gonna believe?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Yo HCW,
Welcome to the *surreal* world of Smikeol, THE Prophet of the God-Breathedness (supposedly) of PFAL.
This is kinda like an episode of the Twilight Zone that was too wierd even for that classic show.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Ok. After this, I'm REALLY going to bed.
I really wish you hadn't said that.
Professional writers all know that "the writer is nothing without his editor."
VPW never actually wrote the PFAL book. It was "written" by staff writers and editors from the transcript of the film class. "Editorial" simply edited it and changed the sense from spoken to "written" form. VP's daughter Karen M. was his personal editor. She actually "wrote" the books from VP's notes, teaching tape transcripts and other stuff he wrote.
Not at all unusual in the publishing world.
Therefore. If the spoken class was not "God Breathed," nor was the written book.
I, yes ME, I actually laid out the vast majority of VPW's magazine articles for the last ten years of his life. Occasionally I would suggest rewrites of paragraphs or actually scrap whole sentences to get them to fit in the available space. WE, the publications staff, told writers how much room they had (in terms of word count) for their articles.
If somebody turned in too many words, we would hack the article to bits. I seem to remember that a certain "LindaZ" who posts on GS was nicknamed, "The Hatchet!" She was an excellent senior editor with a great disdain for verbosity. Our editorial staff trained our contributing writers on how to write for a magazine and would stand firm when writers tried to pull the "God Breathed" crap on us.
If GOD was breathin' it He woulda breathed it so it would fit!
God INSPIRED, maybe, but "Theo Pneustos?" No way. VPW taught that God Breathed was reserved for the scriptures, PERIOD.
Way Publications, in the time frame you mentioned, Mike, had some very high standards,"in the day." "God Inspired Professionals" was the goal.
There's nothing more to talk about on the VPW told me tip. I don't remember hearing or reading ONCE where VP claimed HIS works were anything "God Breathed." I remember him saying his stuff wasn't even necessarily "new."
PFAL even said that "God would teach me the Word as it hadn't been taught for centuries...."
Centuries old stuff. Not NEW, God Breathed revelation.
Now. Its bedtime.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
HCW,
It's bedtime for me too.
Here is a short response to one of your points, though.
I lived in New Knoxville with JFW, a co-editor of the PFAL book, for two years in the late 70's. We maintained a best-friend relationship all the way up until late last year when he passed away. We talked by phone several times each year.
During those two early years, and then in recent years I pumped him with many, many questions as to how the editing of Dr's material worked. We spent many hours discussing how I post here. He was a rare poster here too, but I never asked him his handle. In recent years I contacted KM, the other PFAL editor, and discussed many similar things in phone calls and e-mails. I have maintained a good friendship with DC, an editor of the Way Magazine, who also worked with Dr on his printed material, and my posts were intensely discussed with him.
None of them supported my thesis presented here, but I learned much from them all.
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.