You got your head in the gutter. All you can post about is sin and sex. Dr taught that it was wrong what David did with Bathsheba.
Wrong, wrong WRONG!!!!!! What wierwille TAUGHT was that what David did to URIAH was wrong....what David did to Bathsheba, wierwille had no problem with....thus the *all the women in the kingdom belong to the king* teaching.....
You gonna quote wierwille like gospel, then you damn well better get his teaching straight.....
It ain`t MY mind that is in the gutter, it`s the sleazeball who was raping our sisters while teaching this little gem who was living in the gutter....while his *mind* was full of the scripture you love to quote.....it is HE whom you should be offended with....
You got your head in the gutter. All you can post about is sin and sex. Dr taught that it was wrong what David did with Bathsheba.
Wrong, wrong WRONG!!!!!! What wierwille TAUGHT was that what David did to URIAH was wrong....what David did to Bathsheba, wierwille had no problem with....thus the *all the women in the kingdom belong to the king* teaching.....
You gonna quote wierwille like gospel, then you damn well better get his teaching straight.....
It ain`t MY mind that is in the gutter, it`s the sleazeball who was raping our sisters while teaching this little gem who was living in the gutter....while his *mind* was full of the scripture you love to quote.....it is HE whom you should be offended with....
vpw said "TECHNICALLY, all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king."
vpw said what was wrong was the murder-but the adultery was NOT decried,
and THEREFORE was not disapproved by vpw. Furthermore, since he said that
"TECHNICALLY" Bathsheba was David's PROPERTY
(that's what "belongs to" means in English),
it should be understood that vpw believed David acted in his
"TECHNICAL"-and thus LEGAL-rights in having sex with her.
That's what vpw taught in pfal.
That's not what the Bible teaches.
Adultery is a sin, whether the adulterer is a beggar or a king.
BTW,
by Mike's argument,
NATHAN's head was in the gutter.
Those darn prophets just can't keep their mouths shut....always complaining
about SOMETHING....if it's not "you committed adultery", it's
"you committed murder" or "you gave great occasion to the enemies of the LORD
to blaspheme" (II Samuel 12:14).
That's the same type of thinking that got Jeremiah put in prison for
How are your wedding plans coming? I hope for you sake that rascal doesn't start quizing you about petting and heavy necking. :D--> You gotta be careful posting around puritans.
I vaguely remember Bullinger expounding on the heaven issue. It was years ago, but I remember a phrase "birds of the heavens" regarding common creatures. I checked this out 30 years ago, so it's dim.
Say, Rascal,
do you object to a newlywed couple making out?
We know you object to RAPE, MOLESTATION and maybe ADULTERY,
do you consider all forms of affection between adults to be wrong, as
Please don't expect one post from me to line things up for you to believe these things in one sitting.
Mike, I know you weren't addressing me, but a 100,000 of your posts, in a lifetime of sittings, would not convince me of what you're pushing.
Take it from someone who is able to separate the bad things from the good things VPW did, someone who spent a fair amount of time in his presence and occasionally worked one-on-one with him, and someone who still values some of what was taught in PFAL: You are standing on dangerous ground. You have bought a three-legged horse and are convinced it's sound, and now you're obsessed with trying to convince others to buy a three-legged horse.
You have taken the worst that VPW had to offer: an insistence that we can know more than anyone else about God if we just "work it," and you've built a relgion for yourself around it. It's your right to do so, but I think you're in for a rude awakening someday.
Shortly after POP was read to the Corps for the first time, there were a lot of Corps people in a veritable panic: "What ever will we do without PFAL if we get booted from the ministry?" I momentarily got caught up in it and had actually agreed to help transcribe the PFAL tapes so that "we'd still have the class" if "they" took all the videos and tapes away from us.
About halfway through transcribing segment one of session one it hit me: "God is bigger than PFAL. God is bigger than The Way International. This is stupid."
Do you honestly think that God Almighty, the Creator of the universe, is so limited that He needs PFAL to teach people of His love and goodness and power? I think not.
Many times here, I've pointed out that the film/video/tape class is only the FOUNDATION and not the whole structure. If all there was to PFAL was the class then I'd have to agree with you that many to most of us DID take that enough times to pretty well master it. If the film class is all there is to PFAL then you'd be correct in asserting that there's substance lacking. That substance is in the books and magazine articles.
Over and over I've pointed this out here, yet hardly anyone gets it. Over and over Dr urged us to FINISH taking the class and master the written part of it, where the true substance is. The class is only an introduction to the meat in the books.
Get it?
Why is that so hard to get through?
See, Mike, a lot of us HAVE spent time in the books.
As HCW said-and he worked ON the books-the material in the books IS the material
from the class. If you memorized the class, you've got the material in the
books, plus some jokes.
So, first, you separate them where there IS no separation. The only things that
make the books "superior" is
A) We can flip thru the books
B) They were edited.
(For which I thank HCW and the others for their hard work.)
The CONTENT did not change. The editing process would have FAILED if they
changed the CONTENT. How quickly you either FORGOT or DISCOUNTED the
PERSONAL TESTIMONY of a man who was in the room actually DOING THE EDITING.
Furthermore,
we've spent some time in the books. There's errors in the books, and there's
CONTRADICTIONS in the books. This is acceptable if it's a work of man, but as
a supposed replacement Bible, it fails its internal testimony, for pfal itself
exclaims "your whole Bible would fall to pieces" if it contradicted like pfal
does. You've seen this and chosen to IGNORE it. Your decision, but is it any
wonder that the rest of us look at it and do the math?
If PFAL claims the Bible is inerrant,
and PFAL contains even ONE internal contradiction,
then PFAL has at least one ERROR.
Since PFAL has many errors, and PFAL claims the Bible has no errors,
by the standard specified in PFAL, PFAL fails to be a Bible.
Since you fail to accept this, your understanding has fundamental flaws,
which is why you can't understand what most people do.
quote:
When it does get through you'll see that many things in the books were forgotten or slipped by us unawares.
When we did, we found a bunch of errors.
If we cared enough, we could have catalogued a GREAT stack of errors across
ALL the books.
quote:
If we had worked those written materials better back then we wouldn't have been fooled by all the false doctrines the slowly grew over the years in the verbal traditions that developed.
If we understand "what is written", we can avoid the entire doctrine that
pfal is a Bible completely.
quote:
Things like the "really absent Christ" would not have taken root. People might have started yearning to have Christ formed within, the mind of Christ born within, and allowed that rotten natural man mind we all inherited to die away.
Not with vpw orchestrating practices of the natural man from hq....
The false doctrine that vpw was some great one blinded us to that error,
and freeing ourselves of THAT helps with the wholeness of our minds.
quote:
God set up the books and magazine articles, gave revelation to Dr and gave revelation to Dr's editors (whether they knew it or not, HCW ;)-->) to produce the perfect writings necessary for us grads to have Christ formed within.
Quite a set of wild claims, there.
Since the editors contradict you-
and WERE THERE-
I'll trust their EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS.
quote:
We all got "Christ in you the hope of glory" as the token, but then we all missed the significance of "Christ in us THE GLORY." It's still only a hope for all grads who have avoided fully receiving PFAL... in written form.
When the writings were nearly completed in 1982, Dr taught at Living Victoriously how Abraham turned hope into believing by receiving and believing special revelation God gave him.
quote:
He then said that the special revelation for believing for the return of Christ had already been given to us.
Can we have a copy of his EXACT WORDS,
or are we supposed to believe that you are correctly reporting them?
You've already demonstrated a track record THIS MONTH of changing words where
it suits you, and lying where it suits you (page 5).
Are we supposed to take your word for it that he said this?
If so, just admit you're calling yourself a prophet and get it over with.
quote:
This is in LV, but by then most were asleep and didn't see that the Times were a changin' right under our noses... like a thief in the night! A new administration coming in for those who were ready for it.
Is it in the book of Living Victoriously?
Is it in the tapes of Living Victoriously?
Some of us have access to them-just tell us the tape, side and context,
or the chapter and page in the book.
quote:
Now I KNOW you didn't hear any of this in the film class!
None of this was available in 1967 when that was made. It took time for God to get all of His Word into written form that's addressed to us grads.
quote:
Another benefit to mastering the written form of the class is being able to recognize Christ at his coming.
It won't be his fingerprints, driver's license, or DNA that will prove his identity to us. He is the Word made flesh,
and it's only by mastering PFAL (written form) that we grads will recognize him in the early stages of his presence.
Most grads are still at a kindergarten understanding regarding these things.
Most think that they will know it's him and that it's time for the gathering when they notice their feet are not on the ground but at some high altitude above sea level.
quote:
This is not what is taught in the books.
Yes it is.
We covered Acts 1 and the Ascension.
quote:
In the written form of PFAL we learn that just like Jesus Christ is NOT ABSENT spiritually, we will rise spiritually to meet him;
NOT physically but spiritually.
Give us the book name and page number,
o he who has a proven track record of making stuff up.
quote:
We will meet him NOT in the physical air,
but spiritually in the God-breathed air, the written revelations of PFAL.
Give us the book name and page number,
o he who has a proven track record of making stuff up.
Meanwhile, we will now see once again that Mike disrespects PFAL by subtracting
words, adding words, and changing words.
When you subtract from PFAL, you no longer have PFAL.
When you add to PFAL, you no longer have PFAL.
When you change PFAL, you no longer have PFAL.
When you no longer have PFAL, but claim you do,
then you are a FALSE PROPHET of PFAL.
Let's see this very point illustrated....
quote:
A point that IS made in the film class, but few get it, is that there is (or rather "was" in 1967) no authoritative written Word of God in the world.
There were ancient mis-copied fragments,
worldly-scholarly assemblages of the fragments,
and man-made translations,
but nothing authoritative. Just like punctuation, verse divisions, and chapter headings are devoid of authority, so are the critical Greek texts and all their translations and versions.
According to Mike,
"ancient mis-copied fragments"
"worldly-scholarly assembleges of the fragments"
"man-made translations".
I'm keeping a tally.
quote:
We were taught in Session Three that no translation, let alone a version is the ultimate Word of God.
Let's see what the books say.
The Orange Book, page-127-128 says
"In proceeding as a workman, there is basic information which must be kept in
mind, the first of which is that no translation or version of the Bible may
properly be called the Word of God.
The Bible from which I have been quoting is called the King James Version.
It is not the King James Translation. If I had a King James translation in my
hands, I would have a Bible that is worth a great deal of money as a collector's
item. Once a translation has been made from an original text, like the Stephens
Text from which the King James was translated, the first copy is called a
translation. When scholars begin to rework the translation in any way, it becomes
a version.
Now, I said that no translation, let alone a version, may properly be called the
Word of God. As faras anybody knows, there are no original texts in existence
today. The oldest dated Biblical manuscript is from 464 AD and written in
Aramaic in Estrangelo script. There are older Aramaic manuscripts written in the
Estrangelo script which predate 464 AD, but these are not Biblical texts.
What students or scholars refer to as 'originals' really date from 464 AD and
later. These manuscripts are not originals--the originals are those which holy
men of God wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. At best, we have copies
of the originals. When I refer to the Word of God, I do not mean a copy or a
translation or a version; I mean that Word of Gof which was originally given by
revelation to holy men.
Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to
the fifth century AD,
how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which was given when holy men of
God spoke?
To get the Word of God out of any translation or out of any version,
we have to compare one word with another word
and one verse with another verse.
We have to study the context of all the verses.
If it is the Word of God, then if cannot have a contradiction
for God cannot contradict Himself.
Error has to be either in the translation or in one's own understanding.
When we get back to that original, God-breathed Word-
which I am confident we can-
then once again we will be able to say with all the authority of the
prophets of old, 'Thus saith the Lord'. "
Ok, let's see....
"ancient, mis-copied fragments"? Not in the Orange Book.
"worldly-scholarly assemblages of the fragments"? Not in the Orange Book.
"man-made translations"? Again, not a phrase in the Orange Book.
Mike has changed words or added words from PFAL to place these words there-
which means he does NOT have PFAL any longer,
merely his "private interpretation" of PFAL....
According to the rules OF PFAL.
WORSE,
Mike has made it a policy to consistently REFUSE to accept the contents of
page 128.
Mike always pretends vpw stopped before the words
"Since we have no originals...", leaving out 1/2 a page.
That 1/2 gives what vpw himself says is THE formula for going to the
versions and translations,
and deriving FROM those versions and translations
"THE WORD OF GOD."
vpw said that is how we can "get back to that original God-breathed Word."
According to Mike,
this is an unattainable goal.
Mike has changed the translations and versions
to make them a useless mess,
then claimed the Word of God was irretreivably lost, and they are USELESS
if one is seeking The Word of God.
According to PFAL, the translations and versions are THE way to find
The Word of God.
If PFAL was supposedly a "Gospel" (as Mike claims),
then Mike's stance on PFAL is "another" (heteros) gospel which is not
another (allo), a different gospel not of the same type.
Is this news?
No-
we discussed this in 2003 and since then,
and Mike KEEPS hoping this part of the book will go away.
quote:
Most grads never got this. Translations and versions may be correct in one spot and dead wrong in another, and there is no authority to say which is which.
"We have to compare one word with another word and one verse with another verse.
We have to study the context of all the verses.
If it is the Word of God, then it cannot have a contradiction for God cannot
contradict Himself. Error has to be either in the translation or in one's own
understanding. When we get back to that original, God-breathed Word--
which I am confident we can- then once again we will be able to say with all the
authority of the prophets of old, 'Thus saith the Lord.' "
vpw.
Sounds like vpw had a rather specific method outlined
"to say which is which."
Sounds like Mike thinks VPW was WRONG and the Orange Book is not authoritative.
quote:
Any section of scripture that you bet your life on MAY turn out to be mis-translated in modern times or miscopied in ancient times.
Do I need to quote it again?
SINCE, according to vpw, we have the means to get to The Word of God, a new
Word of God is unnecessary. Period.
Since Mike forsakes the words of vpw in the pfal book,
he puts forth a new Word of God doctrine.
To do this, he needs a new communication from God.
Where did he find it?
quote:
God made Dr the one with whom He would end all this uncertainty.
quote:
With the gradual writing of the collaterals and magazine articles, the merely approximate traditional scriptures were less and less needed. All the KJV verses we grads need in these times God had expounded upon in PFAL... in writtin form.
"Merely approximate traditional Scriptures" is ANOTHER phrase invented by Mike
which does NOT appear in pfal.
quote:
As PFAL was gradually put into "book an magazine form" over the years 1971-85, reliance on our KJV was less and less emphasized by Dr and the more he urged us to master PFAL...not the film class but it's written form.
Get it?
We get it.
It's "another gospel which is not another",
a doctrine ABOUT PFAL that contradicts the CONTENTS of PFAL in order to exist.
Oh-
lest we forget,
among the Orange Book errors were the dates of the earliest writings.
vpw was off by a considerable stretch. To those of us who don't claim the
Orange Book is divine and inerrant,
this is not a big problem.
Humans make mistakes.
Those people who have made the Orange Book into a new Holy Scripture
My question to you is similar. If these most visible posters don't want my message then why do they spend so much time posting in my vicinity? When I start a thread they flock to it. When I post on just one thread like I am now, they flock to that one.
If you ignore him, he will leave. Just don't address him or comment on anything he posts. It works. It just takes a little time. He was ALMOST gone and someone addressed a post of his and BAM! he's back with his b.s.
Just ignore him. He is so off the wall that even lurkers recognize his delusion.
(For which I thank HCW and the others for their hard work.)
The CONTENT did not change. The editing process would have FAILED if they
changed the CONTENT. How quickly you either FORGOT or DISCOUNTED the
PERSONAL TESTIMONY of a man who was in the room actually DOING THE EDITING.
Just a little correction, WW. I think you misunderstood HCW. He's an artist. He didn't edit the books.
I worked in the Editorial Dept. of Way Pub, but I didn't edit VPW's books, either. I only occasionally proofread portions of them when they did a new edition. By the time I was on staff in the 80s, there was a small team of editors who worked on VPW's books. Earlier, his daughter Karen and Donna R and others did the editing.
Just tryin' to keep the facts straight here.
But I agree, WW. Mike is twisting the words of his beloved PFAL to make his case. Great observation!
just as mike, I will NOT justify myself -- I need not your "gospel", bub --no matter how much you claim I, or others, do. I do not for the very reasons YOU claim you do not....(need any other than "written piffle")
as my dear old dad usta say, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; verstehen sie, mike???? I highly doubt it...
Your spiel is tired, old, and threadbare, mike...not needed, not wanted and the "nots" are even parallel, bub....
you are indeed GSC's man of la Mancha; tilt on, conquistador.... --> :(-->
Mike, you crack me up. You are sooo funny. So let me get this straight,
quote:
And remember: heaven is not a place in the physical universe.
Literal "heaven" is the air, the atmosphere above ground, dirt. Two feet off the ground is literal biblical heaven.
Figures of speech mark that which is most important.
Figurative "heaven" is the spiritual realm.
If heaven is two feet off the ground, and an airplane is 10,000 feet off the ground, is the airplane in the spiritual realm???? How about a helicopter? How about a bird that's soaring? How about a cloud, is a cloud in the spiritual realm.
Your sooo funny!!!!!! LOL, not in the physical realm because it happens to be two feet off the gound. I guess Mr. Duncan of the San Antonio Spurs goes to heaven each time he dunks a basket ball and that puts him in the spiritual realm. Thank you for that educational process
"If heaven is two feet off the ground, and an airplane is 10,000 feet off the ground, is the airplane in the spiritual realm???? How about a helicopter? How about a bird that's soaring? How about a cloud, is a cloud in the spiritual realm.
"Your sooo funny!!!!!! LOL, not in the physical realm because it happens to be two feet off the gound. I guess Mr. Duncan of the San Antonio Spurs goes to heaven each time he dunks a basket ball and that puts him in the spiritual realm. Thank you for that educational process"
I think you got it wrong.
Let me re-write the sentences from scratch and see if it makes better sense to you.
When the word "heaven" is used literally in God's Word, then that word refers to the areas of the physical realm that is anywhere above the ground.
When the word "heaven" is used figuratively in God's Word, then that word refers to the spiritual realm.
So, from that it should be obvious that an physical airplane flying at any high or low altitude is in what would biblically be a literal usage of the word "heaven" and still in the physical realm, as usual.
If it's the case that I typed it out in a way that was confusing to you, please identify show me your suggested re-write so that my original sentences wouldn't suggest the admittedly ridiculous notion you just posted.
If you just are pulling my leg here, then you succeeded. :(-->
But if you're serious then either I must re-write the sentences and learn from your grammar correction OR you must learn to read English better.
Say! :)--> That gives me an idea.
If it's the case that I wrote the sentences well, and you mis-read them.... then might I suggest you come back to PFAL (after your reading lessons are completed) and see how many things you missed?
On second thought... I'll wait until you find those sentences and we figure out who botched them in writing or reading. THEN I may make my suggestion. I'll be waiting. I always like getting a tune-up on my writing skills, so I'm having a hard time in deciding which side to root for here.
Did anyone else here read my original sentences the way TW just did? I would imagine LOTS of posters would jump on me if I had written it in a confusing manner.
Mike...You are certainly entitled to believe what you choose to believe...I can see that you are very sincere about it, but then again, I'm sure that you remember what Vic Wierwille said about "sincerity"...
It simply boils down to a matter of choice...you decide what to believe, so do the rest of us.
What I don't understand is why you waste your time on this website soliciting arguments. Didn't your father in da werd teach you something about dust on your feet? Perhaps your efforts would be better served if you tried convincing people who have never heard about grifter Vic and his cornfield cult...
Are you currently running a fellowship in your home?....or are you engaged in some sort of efforts to teach people what you believe?...or are you just an imposter who enjoys posting your pro pfal position on a website full of folks who were hurt very much by the false prophet wierwille and his insideous false teachings?
That's kinda like trying to sell cocaine at a rehab clinic....
Do you honestly think that God Almighty, the Creator of the universe, is so limited that He needs PFAL to teach people of His love and goodness and power?
Yes Linda, he does. He's said that many times as well as the Christ will be teaching from the PFAL book when he returns!
Mike... it's time to go back downstairs to the doctrinal section. This thread is about "PFAL Online" isn't it?
Well Mike, I quoted you using cut and paste. Do you think my compute has a virus that caused the cut and paste to be in error, or will you admit that I did a cut and paste and therefore need not take reading lesson. Maybe you just need to read your original writing again. Your second writing is much better.
I tell ya what's so ****ing funny is that there is some real truth in pfal and Mike can't even find it he's so blind. All that studying and still he couldn't even find a bone if God threw one his way!
So tell us about Heaven Mike. What have you seen there hmmm? Have you seen yourself yet?
Nah, your too blinded by greed and lust and yourself. If you even had a sliver of what vp might have seen in his early days you might even be dangerous. But no....you still remain in your ignorant plight of uselessness.
Go ahead stay there. Refuse what has been offered to you. Be a damn fool.
And don't even act like you don't know what I'm talking about either. I've had enough of your lies.
Thanks for the info but the site has been "locked Down" and shut down as they say.
Probably for copyright infringement.
But I would have loved to see and hear it. I have said since 1995 Power for Abundant Living should be available online. But for that to happen so-called leaders would have to give up control and power - not going to happen.
How long was that website up? Mike had disappeared from here for a bit, and had posted over there, so perhaps he can tell us when it first went up. Hey, we told him to get his own site....
But then we had to go and spoil it by announcing its existence, tipping off the WayGB. Hey, at least we know that TWI is still listening in here. Hi, guys! -->
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
50
49
36
97
Popular Days
Jun 18
120
Jun 19
84
Jun 24
72
Jun 17
47
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 50 posts
Catcup 49 posts
WordWolf 36 posts
Mike 97 posts
Popular Days
Jun 18 2005
120 posts
Jun 19 2005
84 posts
Jun 24 2005
72 posts
Jun 17 2005
47 posts
WordWolf
Or that the truth needs to be told, not hidden.
It does NOT mean "ignore the evil that men do."
Or aware Rascal has overcome it to the degree of avoiding
commission of FELONIES, and awareness that ministers who are
supposed to represent God can do at LEAST as well.
They're supposed to be "BLAMELESS" like it says in the REAL
Bible.
If so, they at least would not commit evil acts against others. Those who have their hearts set on what is right will
ALSO not commit evil acts against others.
Those who RAPE and MOLEST others have demonstrated they neither
follow external rules nor the internal love of God, else they
would love their neighbor as themself and fulfill the law
thereby.
No, she just refuses to ignore specific sins done by the
criminal ringleader of twi and his inner circle of cronies.
Right. By corrupting twi from the top, he institutionalized
sin among an inner circle who kept a "lockbox" of silence,
thus allowing him to ruin lives at the hands of the top leaders,
starting with vpw.
The good is suspect, to say the least, when it is the "bait"
to set on the trap.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Wrong, wrong WRONG!!!!!! What wierwille TAUGHT was that what David did to URIAH was wrong....what David did to Bathsheba, wierwille had no problem with....thus the *all the women in the kingdom belong to the king* teaching.....
You gonna quote wierwille like gospel, then you damn well better get his teaching straight.....
It ain`t MY mind that is in the gutter, it`s the sleazeball who was raping our sisters while teaching this little gem who was living in the gutter....while his *mind* was full of the scripture you love to quote.....it is HE whom you should be offended with....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
vpw said "TECHNICALLY, all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king."
vpw said what was wrong was the murder-but the adultery was NOT decried,
and THEREFORE was not disapproved by vpw. Furthermore, since he said that
"TECHNICALLY" Bathsheba was David's PROPERTY
(that's what "belongs to" means in English),
it should be understood that vpw believed David acted in his
"TECHNICAL"-and thus LEGAL-rights in having sex with her.
That's what vpw taught in pfal.
That's not what the Bible teaches.
Adultery is a sin, whether the adulterer is a beggar or a king.
BTW,
by Mike's argument,
NATHAN's head was in the gutter.
Those darn prophets just can't keep their mouths shut....always complaining
about SOMETHING....if it's not "you committed adultery", it's
"you committed murder" or "you gave great occasion to the enemies of the LORD
to blaspheme" (II Samuel 12:14).
That's the same type of thinking that got Jeremiah put in prison for
confronting SIN.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Say, Rascal,
do you object to a newlywed couple making out?
We know you object to RAPE, MOLESTATION and maybe ADULTERY,
do you consider all forms of affection between adults to be wrong, as
Mike suggests,
or just the ones that GOD said not to do?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Mike, I know you weren't addressing me, but a 100,000 of your posts, in a lifetime of sittings, would not convince me of what you're pushing.
Take it from someone who is able to separate the bad things from the good things VPW did, someone who spent a fair amount of time in his presence and occasionally worked one-on-one with him, and someone who still values some of what was taught in PFAL: You are standing on dangerous ground. You have bought a three-legged horse and are convinced it's sound, and now you're obsessed with trying to convince others to buy a three-legged horse.
You have taken the worst that VPW had to offer: an insistence that we can know more than anyone else about God if we just "work it," and you've built a relgion for yourself around it. It's your right to do so, but I think you're in for a rude awakening someday.
Shortly after POP was read to the Corps for the first time, there were a lot of Corps people in a veritable panic: "What ever will we do without PFAL if we get booted from the ministry?" I momentarily got caught up in it and had actually agreed to help transcribe the PFAL tapes so that "we'd still have the class" if "they" took all the videos and tapes away from us.
About halfway through transcribing segment one of session one it hit me: "God is bigger than PFAL. God is bigger than The Way International. This is stupid."
Do you honestly think that God Almighty, the Creator of the universe, is so limited that He needs PFAL to teach people of His love and goodness and power? I think not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Lol wordwolf, I have NO problem with newlywed couples making out....
No, I don`t place that in the same catagory as rape, adultery, molestation.
Funny how rather than addressing issues presented, mike has to maligne me .... I guess he thinks that in doing so, he will discredit my posts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
See, Mike, a lot of us HAVE spent time in the books.
As HCW said-and he worked ON the books-the material in the books IS the material
from the class. If you memorized the class, you've got the material in the
books, plus some jokes.
So, first, you separate them where there IS no separation. The only things that
make the books "superior" is
A) We can flip thru the books
B) They were edited.
(For which I thank HCW and the others for their hard work.)
The CONTENT did not change. The editing process would have FAILED if they
changed the CONTENT. How quickly you either FORGOT or DISCOUNTED the
PERSONAL TESTIMONY of a man who was in the room actually DOING THE EDITING.
Furthermore,
we've spent some time in the books. There's errors in the books, and there's
CONTRADICTIONS in the books. This is acceptable if it's a work of man, but as
a supposed replacement Bible, it fails its internal testimony, for pfal itself
exclaims "your whole Bible would fall to pieces" if it contradicted like pfal
does. You've seen this and chosen to IGNORE it. Your decision, but is it any
wonder that the rest of us look at it and do the math?
If PFAL claims the Bible is inerrant,
and PFAL contains even ONE internal contradiction,
then PFAL has at least one ERROR.
Since PFAL has many errors, and PFAL claims the Bible has no errors,
by the standard specified in PFAL, PFAL fails to be a Bible.
Since you fail to accept this, your understanding has fundamental flaws,
which is why you can't understand what most people do.
When we did, we found a bunch of errors.
If we cared enough, we could have catalogued a GREAT stack of errors across
ALL the books.
If we understand "what is written", we can avoid the entire doctrine that
pfal is a Bible completely.
Not with vpw orchestrating practices of the natural man from hq....
The false doctrine that vpw was some great one blinded us to that error,
and freeing ourselves of THAT helps with the wholeness of our minds.
Quite a set of wild claims, there.
Since the editors contradict you-
and WERE THERE-
I'll trust their EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS.
Can we have a copy of his EXACT WORDS,
or are we supposed to believe that you are correctly reporting them?
You've already demonstrated a track record THIS MONTH of changing words where
it suits you, and lying where it suits you (page 5).
Are we supposed to take your word for it that he said this?
If so, just admit you're calling yourself a prophet and get it over with.
Is it in the book of Living Victoriously?
Is it in the tapes of Living Victoriously?
Some of us have access to them-just tell us the tape, side and context,
or the chapter and page in the book.
Yes it is.
We covered Acts 1 and the Ascension.
Give us the book name and page number,
o he who has a proven track record of making stuff up.
Give us the book name and page number,
o he who has a proven track record of making stuff up.
Meanwhile, we will now see once again that Mike disrespects PFAL by subtracting
words, adding words, and changing words.
When you subtract from PFAL, you no longer have PFAL.
When you add to PFAL, you no longer have PFAL.
When you change PFAL, you no longer have PFAL.
When you no longer have PFAL, but claim you do,
then you are a FALSE PROPHET of PFAL.
Let's see this very point illustrated....
According to Mike,
"ancient mis-copied fragments"
"worldly-scholarly assembleges of the fragments"
"man-made translations".
I'm keeping a tally.
Let's see what the books say.
The Orange Book, page-127-128 says
"In proceeding as a workman, there is basic information which must be kept in
mind, the first of which is that no translation or version of the Bible may
properly be called the Word of God.
The Bible from which I have been quoting is called the King James Version.
It is not the King James Translation. If I had a King James translation in my
hands, I would have a Bible that is worth a great deal of money as a collector's
item. Once a translation has been made from an original text, like the Stephens
Text from which the King James was translated, the first copy is called a
translation. When scholars begin to rework the translation in any way, it becomes
a version.
Now, I said that no translation, let alone a version, may properly be called the
Word of God. As faras anybody knows, there are no original texts in existence
today. The oldest dated Biblical manuscript is from 464 AD and written in
Aramaic in Estrangelo script. There are older Aramaic manuscripts written in the
Estrangelo script which predate 464 AD, but these are not Biblical texts.
What students or scholars refer to as 'originals' really date from 464 AD and
later. These manuscripts are not originals--the originals are those which holy
men of God wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. At best, we have copies
of the originals. When I refer to the Word of God, I do not mean a copy or a
translation or a version; I mean that Word of Gof which was originally given by
revelation to holy men.
Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to
the fifth century AD,
how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which was given when holy men of
God spoke?
To get the Word of God out of any translation or out of any version,
we have to compare one word with another word
and one verse with another verse.
We have to study the context of all the verses.
If it is the Word of God, then if cannot have a contradiction
for God cannot contradict Himself.
Error has to be either in the translation or in one's own understanding.
When we get back to that original, God-breathed Word-
which I am confident we can-
then once again we will be able to say with all the authority of the
prophets of old, 'Thus saith the Lord'. "
Ok, let's see....
"ancient, mis-copied fragments"? Not in the Orange Book.
"worldly-scholarly assemblages of the fragments"? Not in the Orange Book.
"man-made translations"? Again, not a phrase in the Orange Book.
Mike has changed words or added words from PFAL to place these words there-
which means he does NOT have PFAL any longer,
merely his "private interpretation" of PFAL....
According to the rules OF PFAL.
WORSE,
Mike has made it a policy to consistently REFUSE to accept the contents of
page 128.
Mike always pretends vpw stopped before the words
"Since we have no originals...", leaving out 1/2 a page.
That 1/2 gives what vpw himself says is THE formula for going to the
versions and translations,
and deriving FROM those versions and translations
"THE WORD OF GOD."
vpw said that is how we can "get back to that original God-breathed Word."
According to Mike,
this is an unattainable goal.
Mike has changed the translations and versions
to make them a useless mess,
then claimed the Word of God was irretreivably lost, and they are USELESS
if one is seeking The Word of God.
According to PFAL, the translations and versions are THE way to find
The Word of God.
If PFAL was supposedly a "Gospel" (as Mike claims),
then Mike's stance on PFAL is "another" (heteros) gospel which is not
another (allo), a different gospel not of the same type.
Is this news?
No-
we discussed this in 2003 and since then,
and Mike KEEPS hoping this part of the book will go away.
"We have to compare one word with another word and one verse with another verse.
We have to study the context of all the verses.
If it is the Word of God, then it cannot have a contradiction for God cannot
contradict Himself. Error has to be either in the translation or in one's own
understanding. When we get back to that original, God-breathed Word--
which I am confident we can- then once again we will be able to say with all the
authority of the prophets of old, 'Thus saith the Lord.' "
vpw.
Sounds like vpw had a rather specific method outlined
"to say which is which."
Sounds like Mike thinks VPW was WRONG and the Orange Book is not authoritative.
Do I need to quote it again?
SINCE, according to vpw, we have the means to get to The Word of God, a new
Word of God is unnecessary. Period.
Since Mike forsakes the words of vpw in the pfal book,
he puts forth a new Word of God doctrine.
To do this, he needs a new communication from God.
Where did he find it?
"Merely approximate traditional Scriptures" is ANOTHER phrase invented by Mike
which does NOT appear in pfal.
We get it.
It's "another gospel which is not another",
a doctrine ABOUT PFAL that contradicts the CONTENTS of PFAL in order to exist.
Oh-
lest we forget,
among the Orange Book errors were the dates of the earliest writings.
vpw was off by a considerable stretch. To those of us who don't claim the
Orange Book is divine and inerrant,
this is not a big problem.
Humans make mistakes.
Those people who have made the Orange Book into a new Holy Scripture
must pretend these dates are NOT errors.
That's their problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Mike said:
If you ignore him, he will leave. Just don't address him or comment on anything he posts. It works. It just takes a little time. He was ALMOST gone and someone addressed a post of his and BAM! he's back with his b.s.
Just ignore him. He is so off the wall that even lurkers recognize his delusion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Just a little correction, WW. I think you misunderstood HCW. He's an artist. He didn't edit the books.
I worked in the Editorial Dept. of Way Pub, but I didn't edit VPW's books, either. I only occasionally proofread portions of them when they did a new edition. By the time I was on staff in the 80s, there was a small team of editors who worked on VPW's books. Earlier, his daughter Karen and Donna R and others did the editing.
Just tryin' to keep the facts straight here.
But I agree, WW. Mike is twisting the words of his beloved PFAL to make his case. Great observation!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
just as mike, I will NOT justify myself -- I need not your "gospel", bub --no matter how much you claim I, or others, do. I do not for the very reasons YOU claim you do not....(need any other than "written piffle")
as my dear old dad usta say, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; verstehen sie, mike???? I highly doubt it...
Your spiel is tired, old, and threadbare, mike...not needed, not wanted and the "nots" are even parallel, bub....
you are indeed GSC's man of la Mancha; tilt on, conquistador....
--> 
:(-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tumbleweed Kid
Mike, you crack me up. You are sooo funny. So let me get this straight,
If heaven is two feet off the ground, and an airplane is 10,000 feet off the ground, is the airplane in the spiritual realm???? How about a helicopter? How about a bird that's soaring? How about a cloud, is a cloud in the spiritual realm.
Your sooo funny!!!!!! LOL, not in the physical realm because it happens to be two feet off the gound. I guess Mr. Duncan of the San Antonio Spurs goes to heaven each time he dunks a basket ball and that puts him in the spiritual realm. Thank you for that educational process
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net
you
have not answered me about the sexual abuse
i have asked 3 times so i must assume you are guilty too have you found a nice leather couch yet?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
coolchef1248@adelphia.net,
You sure do know how to elicit a response
with your probing, heartfelt manner of questioning...
-->
...Or maybe NOT!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tumbleweed Kid,
You wrote:
"If heaven is two feet off the ground, and an airplane is 10,000 feet off the ground, is the airplane in the spiritual realm???? How about a helicopter? How about a bird that's soaring? How about a cloud, is a cloud in the spiritual realm.
"Your sooo funny!!!!!! LOL, not in the physical realm because it happens to be two feet off the gound. I guess Mr. Duncan of the San Antonio Spurs goes to heaven each time he dunks a basket ball and that puts him in the spiritual realm. Thank you for that educational process"
I think you got it wrong.
Let me re-write the sentences from scratch and see if it makes better sense to you.
When the word "heaven" is used literally in God's Word, then that word refers to the areas of the physical realm that is anywhere above the ground.
When the word "heaven" is used figuratively in God's Word, then that word refers to the spiritual realm.
So, from that it should be obvious that an physical airplane flying at any high or low altitude is in what would biblically be a literal usage of the word "heaven" and still in the physical realm, as usual.
If it's the case that I typed it out in a way that was confusing to you, please identify show me your suggested re-write so that my original sentences wouldn't suggest the admittedly ridiculous notion you just posted.
If you just are pulling my leg here, then you succeeded.
:(-->
But if you're serious then either I must re-write the sentences and learn from your grammar correction OR you must learn to read English better.
Say!
:)--> That gives me an idea.
If it's the case that I wrote the sentences well, and you mis-read them.... then might I suggest you come back to PFAL (after your reading lessons are completed) and see how many things you missed?
On second thought... I'll wait until you find those sentences and we figure out who botched them in writing or reading. THEN I may make my suggestion. I'll be waiting. I always like getting a tune-up on my writing skills, so I'm having a hard time in deciding which side to root for here.
Did anyone else here read my original sentences the way TW just did? I would imagine LOTS of posters would jump on me if I had written it in a confusing manner.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Mike...You are certainly entitled to believe what you choose to believe...I can see that you are very sincere about it, but then again, I'm sure that you remember what Vic Wierwille said about "sincerity"...
It simply boils down to a matter of choice...you decide what to believe, so do the rest of us.
What I don't understand is why you waste your time on this website soliciting arguments. Didn't your father in da werd teach you something about dust on your feet? Perhaps your efforts would be better served if you tried convincing people who have never heard about grifter Vic and his cornfield cult...
Are you currently running a fellowship in your home?....or are you engaged in some sort of efforts to teach people what you believe?...or are you just an imposter who enjoys posting your pro pfal position on a website full of folks who were hurt very much by the false prophet wierwille and his insideous false teachings?
That's kinda like trying to sell cocaine at a rehab clinic....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Mike:
This IS a few pages back...but please don't use a conversation with me to insult Rascal. I consider her a friend. She's no Puritan by the way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Linda Z asked of Mike:
Yes Linda, he does. He's said that many times as well as the Christ will be teaching from the PFAL book when he returns!Mike... it's time to go back downstairs to the doctrinal section. This thread is about "PFAL Online" isn't it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tumbleweed Kid
Well Mike, I quoted you using cut and paste. Do you think my compute has a virus that caused the cut and paste to be in error, or will you admit that I did a cut and paste and therefore need not take reading lesson. Maybe you just need to read your original writing again. Your second writing is much better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
I tell ya what's so ****ing funny is that there is some real truth in pfal and Mike can't even find it he's so blind. All that studying and still he couldn't even find a bone if God threw one his way!
So tell us about Heaven Mike. What have you seen there hmmm? Have you seen yourself yet?
Nah, your too blinded by greed and lust and yourself. If you even had a sliver of what vp might have seen in his early days you might even be dangerous. But no....you still remain in your ignorant plight of uselessness.
Go ahead stay there. Refuse what has been offered to you. Be a damn fool.
And don't even act like you don't know what I'm talking about either. I've had enough of your lies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Deleted. Wouldn't have done much good anyway.
Belle, hope you had a nice weekend. It was rather hot here Saturday.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Marcos
Thanks for the info but the site has been "locked Down" and shut down as they say.
Probably for copyright infringement.
But I would have loved to see and hear it. I have said since 1995 Power for Abundant Living should be available online. But for that to happen so-called leaders would have to give up control and power - not going to happen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Ready to talk some Mike?
email me if you want...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
How long was that website up? Mike had disappeared from here for a bit, and had posted over there, so perhaps he can tell us when it first went up. Hey, we told him to get his own site....
But then we had to go and spoil it by announcing its existence, tipping off the WayGB. Hey, at least we know that TWI is still listening in here. Hi, guys!
-->
Shaz
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.