PFAL Online?

[WordWolf]

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:

Catcup,

You wrote: "...I reject the "law of believing" as a LAW. There is a difference between a law and a principle. One is NOT the other"

Oh, so you have installed yourself as the official discerner of the fine differences between words?

Actually, Catcup acknowledges that words have commonly-understood meanings.

YOU'RE the one who's installed himself as the man with the power to alter them as

you see fit.

quote:

I don't care if the President of the USA along with the UN installed you as the world's official Dictionary Dictator; it would make any difference to this discussion. When we want to know what Dr meant in his writings, is is HIS vocabulary that the inspired Word of God is expressed in, and not your world's definitions.

Liar.

vpw's usage of "LAW" was consistent with what Catcup said.

We've discussed this for YEARS now.

Orange Book, page 44.

"What one fears will surely come to pass. It is a law. Have you ever heard about

people who set the time of their death? When somebody says 'Well, this time next

year I will not be here', if you are a betting man, bet your money, you are going to

win. If a person makes up his mind that this time next year he is going to be dead,

God would have to change the laws of the universe for the person not to be

accomodated."

You are disinterested in what vpw meant by "law" because we demonstrated (and

continue to do so) that believing is not a "LAW". Since you are enslaved to the letter

of his work and committed to defending it in the face of overwhelming evidence,

you're required by your own obsession to alter the meaning of the text in order to

make it defensible.

quote:

What we were taught will make sense when you take the time to properly understand it. Believing is a law, and we need to find out what that means, not reject it.

Believing is NOT a law. Believing God is a good thing. Confidence and trust in truth

is a good thing. Believing is NOT a law.

We had discussions a few years ago where you admitted you STILL didn't understand

this "law of believing" after over 5 years of study. Amazing how you STILL haven't

gotten there yet-this is SESSION 1 material. I'll die of old age before you make

it to Session 6 at this rate.

quote:

You wrote: "In my many years in The Way International, during the many classes I attended, and while literally sitting at the feet of this man, I NEVER heard Victor Paul Wierwille claim that believing was a 'crude approximation of a law.' However, Wierwille did claim 'mathematical exactness and scientific precision,' in the same breath as 'the law of believing.'"

Catcup, you have given away two of your weakness in one paragraph here. The first is your past focus on the spoken teaching of Dr, when he repeatedly tried to get top leadership to see the written. Your use of phrases like "classes" and "sitting at the feet" and "heard" is indicative of the malaise that totally infected top leadership who rested on the spoken forms drifted farther and farther from the much more powerful and accurate written forms of same.

Nice try hiding one of your OWN weaknesses here.

Catcup was physically present and learned face-to-face from vpw.

Your revisionist view is constructed from fragments of books and tapes.

(Not the WHOLE book, just the parts that match your opinion.)

Hearing vpw and seeing him teach face-to-face skips the editing process

of other people (like you) deciding what vpw meant.

vpw NEVER said believing was

"A CRUDE APPROXIMATION". That phrase was INVENTED by MIKE, and used to try to

defend the false doctrine that "believing is a law".

Go ahead, Mike, what's the book and page# where vpw said it?

I'd LOOOOOOOOVVVVVEEEE to read it for myself.

Where did vpw make this statement that you made up?

Hm-they're focused on the failure of believing to be a "LAW"-I'd better

CHANGE THE SUBJECT COMPLETELY....

quote:

Dr's final instructions were a final plea, after a ten year string of similar pleas, to get leadership serious about getting the written forms mastered. The reasons so many top leaders had no idea what to do when the ministry meltdown occurred in 1986-89 was because they had no solid roots in the written teachings, and the spoken forms had by then degenerated into many differing TVTs of powerless sloganeering. I have posted countless times here about this crucial distinction between the written and spoken forms of Dr's teachings and how leadership missed this distinction. You help prove my point in this telling paragraph of yours.

No, that had nothing to do with anything. Your OWN failure to distinguish between

the written pfal and the Mikean doctrine is demonstrated here. You can't tell that

"CRUDE APPROXIMATION" does NOT appear in the pfal class nor its collaterals,

but only in the Mikean doctrine. That is YOUR failure.

Go on, prove me wrong-cite the book and page#, many of us still have all our books....

Or, try to dodge the issue by attacking Catcup directly. Guess which direction

Mike goes?

quote:

The next weakness you exposed is the depth of learning you achieved. You may have gotten the wording right when called upon to reissue doctrines we were taught, but the depth of understanding wasn't and still isn't there. I'm talking about Dr telling us that "Believing Equals Receiving" was a "crude approximation of a law."

He never said that! Prove me wrong by citing the book and page where he said it was

a "crude approximation of a law!"

quote:

I'm going to show you TWO places where he put it in writing.

GET OUT! You're REALLY going to show us where switch from calling believing a

"law" to a "crude approximation of a law"? I won't believe it until I see it!

I expect to see you throw up misdirection and end up NEVER showing even ONE place,

LET ALONE TWO. But, hey-let's see-I may be wrong. Show us, Mike, where vpw calls

believing a "crude approximation of a law."

quote:

Again, I point out that if you had really gone to the books as Dr urged us repeatedly, and mastered them as he also urged us, THEN you would have recognized the truth of my use of the phrase of "crude approximation."

Just show us you have some steak, Mike, THEN maybe the sizzle will mean something.

Where does vpw use the words "crude approximation of a law"?

quote:

But first, I want to include others in this indictment. WordWolf is a leading writer here of how well he "mastered" the books. He has stated on numerous occasions how hard he studied and how well he did on the AC test. Yet he, you, and many others who may have done well in such settings are far from a deep understanding of what is written.

We've demonstrated our skills. You've claimed to demonstrate yours. But you have

a golden opportunity here-where did vpw use the words "crude approximation of a law"

when speaking of his false "law of believing"?

quote:

I loved the AC test. I was surprised at how easy was, and how refreshing it was. In those days I spent an enormous amount of time in the books. I commuted by train to my job then and had AT LEAST three hours of study time per day, plus my job was wide open to reading time being available. It was years later that I drifted from these habits, and drifted (like everyone else) from the accuracy of IT IS WRITTEN. But when I took the AC test it was not only a breeze, it was like a teaching, a reminder of many items I loved. I was Roman Catholic, so I was set free of many deep prisons that religion had shackled me in. I paid deep attention to the contents of the books, especially in the areas where I was set free. I paid deep attention to areas that looked too good to be true, like "heaven bound." I paid deep attention to areas that were scarey to me, like "Jesus Christ is not God." I did not merely memorize sentences so that I could parrot out answers like I now see people like you and WW must have done.

We've demonstrated an understanding of the meanings, not just the terms. Stop insulting

us and show us where vpw called believing a "crude approximation of a law".

quote:

Two years ago I challenged posters here for MONTHS to find the chapter, the ENTIRE CHAPTER, where Dr taught about "time travel." I dangled this challenge and teased posters for months to find this chapter, yet no one could.

We were disinterested in your "challenges" and have seen nothing to qualify you as

our instructor. Furthermore, the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the person making the claim of

the existence of something. If Mike claims green monkeys fly out of his posterior,

it is not up to me to prove they do NOT-it is for Mike to prove they DO.

You've misapprehended all this and are now claiming we looked and were unable to

find something. We just said "get to the point."

Speaking of "get to the point", where does vpw use the words

"crude approximation of a law" when referring to his disproven "law of believing"?

quote:

Like your assertion that Dr never taught "crude approximation," they all insisted I was crazy and there was no such chapter.

No, we said "just get to the point." Until you show that he used the term

"crude approximation of a law", Catcup's point still stands.

quote:

The reason no one could find in the corroded recesses of their minds that chapter was because I slightly altered the terminology. If I had used the words "caught away in time" then I'm sure many of the shallow parrot "masters" of the material would have remembered that chapter in WWAY. Because they had only a shallow comprehension of the material, their biological search mechanisms couldn't find it.

I answered this already. Piling on insults and puffing up your own knowledge may

impress YOU, but we're mostly adults here and you just look like that's all you have

to offer. Now, about this "crude approximation of a law" thing you claim vpw

said...

quote:

I strongly suspect that there are now AI computer programs that can "read" all of Dr's books and then answer my "time travel" question correctly. Yet no one here could.

We yawned and said "get to the point." You missed that there like you miss

so much else.

quote:

You're correct, Catcup, Dr never did use the exact phrase "crude approximation" when speaking of the deficiencies of the sentence "Believing Equals Receiving." He used different wording, but with the same deep meaning. I have posted several times here on one such spot, and then the other day I saw a second.

SO YOU LIED WHEN YOU SAID YOU'D SHOW US "TWO PLACES WHERE HE PUT IT IN WRITING"!

And you're admitting it!

I'm more surprised that you admitted it than that you lied.

Am I misreprsenting Mike, people? Scroll up this same post. What did he say?

"I'm going to show you two places where he put it in writing."

Then

"Dr never did use the exact phrase 'crude approximation'..."

Now he's going to try to convince us an entirely different term is identical to

"crude approximation of a law". Note that this is the same guy who claimed we were

unqualified to understand the meanings of words. (Top of this post.)

quote:

"Believing Equals Receiving" was a mnemonic slogan to help the memory with a simple, short rhyme, but it in no way was the full teaching Dr gave us on the subject. It was only a very abbreviated portion of one aspect, and Dr said so... that is he WROTE so.

And these words "this is only a very abbreviated portion of one aspect"

where "Dr said so".... what BOOK and PAGE did he say so? Or is this another incident

that Mike invented and put in vpw's mouth like the "crude approximations" we

discussed so recently?

quote:

If you had done what Dr told you to doing his final instructions you would have spent time in BTMS and eventually seen page 29. But by that time you had you own agenda, like we all did, and missed seeing what Dr WROTE on this subject. It's not on a tape or in a class. It's not even in a chapter. It's in the Introduction to Part II of the Blue Book.

Ok, this has the phrase "very abbreviated portion of one aspect" in it?

Or was that a fabrication of Mike's, attributed falsely to vpw?

quote:

Many people did use the collaterals for teachings, especially in the earlier years. But only those serious about MASTERING the books ever saw the introductions or prefaces after their initial exposures to the books.

Just get to where he uses the phrase "very abbreviated portion of one aspect",please,

and stop insulting us.

quote:

Page 29 of BTMS reads "The law of believing is dynamically powerful, yet so simple. The law, simply stated, is that what we believe for or expect, we get. This applies in every realm: physical, mental, material, spiritual."

Hm.

Again,

the phrase "very abbreviated portion of one aspect" was missing.

Can this be another example of something Mike made up and attributed to vpw?

Is Mike really unable to tell the difference between what is written in vpw

and what his own inventions are? Or is he aware and deliberately deceiving us,

hoping we can't read the difference?

quote:

(((BTW, I wonder if it EQUALLY applies to all three realms. This is what I was thinking out loud about in yesterday's post. My suspicion is that it's only in the spiritual that it ALWAYS works with no interference. This is the frontier of my learning here, so far.)))

To say that "what we believe for or expect, we get" is to only SIMPLY state the law. If I were to say that the law of gravity says "everything falls" then I'd only be stating a very simple, abbreviated form of that law.

actually, any scientist should tell you that is a FALSE version of the law of

gravity based on a misunderstanding of how gravity works. It was believed true once

when scientists were still learning, just as it was believed the earth was the center

of the universe. Neither was true, but both were believed true. No real scientist

would say "everything falls" is a "simple, abbreviated" form because it is WRONG.

If it was NOT wrong, then it would be technically true that "everything falls".

Please take this up with the scientists on board.

quote:

If I wanted to avoid this "crude approximation" I'd say that "gravity exerts a force that is reciprocally proportional to the distance squared of the product of the mass and the Earth's mass multiplied by a scaling factor of such-and-such a well known magnitude.

You'd STILL be wrong because your explanation is dependent upon the EARTH.

Gravity on Jupiter is greater than gravity on Earth, and Earth is insignificant in

its discussion. Gravity on Mercury has nothing to do with the Earth, also.

Gravity in the Andromeda Galaxy has NOTHING to do with Earth. Therefore, your

"crude approximation" is ALSO incorrect.

Since you're not a physicist, this is not a big deal-unless you're trying to

rely on your misstatement to say something else,

as you do here.

quote:

If we say that "Believing Equals Receiving" is the law of believing, then it MUST be kept in mind that this is only a SIMPLE stating of the law. It's approximate. If it were bandied about in a TVT long enough, without the other factors, though, then it's a CRUDE approximation.

And here's where Mike switched the words

"crude approximation"

in his vocabulary

with the words

"simply stated"

in vpw's vocabulary.

He then concluded the terms were equivalent, and went on his way. Is he intentionally

deceiving us in this, or has he convinced himself these terms are the same without

ever discussing their differences?

(Not to mention where he lied in saying he'd show us where vpw used the term...)

quote:

You seem to be unaware (or not forthcoming) of one such crucial factor when you wrote in the same post: "I don't care what you believe with all your heart, just because you believe it does not make it so."

Well, OF COURSE just believing doesn't make it so, it's only believing a promise of God that makes it so.

Blue Book, page 43-44.

"You may believe rightly or wrongly. Believing works both ways, and you bring to

yourself whatever you believe." Nothing about "you must believe a promise of God"

there.

page 44.

"Fear, worry and anxiety are types of believing. If you worry, have fear and are

anxious you will receive the fruit of your negative believing which is defeat."

There's a promise of God that fear, worry and anxiety brings to pass?

What Mike said above is NOT what the Blue Book says. Mike has added to the Blue

Book. That is "private interpretation."

Mike needed to add to it to try to salvage its erroneous contents. The "law of

believing" fails to stand on its own merits, so Mike must "prop it up" by adding

content NOT in the Blue Book or class.

In doing so, he takes from our CRITICISMS of the Blue Book's failures,

then lies and claims they are mentioned there somehow.

quote:

"Believing a promise of God equals receiving" is a much more accurate formulation,

Page 44.

"The law of believing works equally effectively for both the sinner and the saint..."

Mike is contradicting the Blue Book.

quote:

but is loses the rhyme and the brevity that "Believing Equals Receiving" supplies, so it can't be used as a positive slogan for a quick reminder of the overall law.

So,

the supposedly God-breathed Blue Book lacks any mention of a promise of God in that

chapter on "what you believe, you get" because it looks stupid on a bumper-sticker????

quote:

I remember when JAL was on the rampage in the late 80's an early 90's and he accused Dr of failing to teach this important factor of including the "promise of God" in our understanding of of the law of believing.

The pfal class-both the tapes AND the books-miserably fail to include it,

but found room for imaginary mothers to kill their kids by worrying,

and to include corny jokes. Apparently, they were more critical to include.

Since God supposedly directed the contents, God decided to omit references to

BELIEVING HIMSELF when discussing BELIEVING.

quote:

I pointed out to him ten places in the class where Dr absolutely DID include and emphasize that crucial factor.

Here we go again.

Mike, if these TEN PLACES supposedly EXIST, in the actual class and books,

not just in Mike's mind,

then tell us where they are.

TEN PLACES where they are INCLUDED and

EMPHASIZED,

you said.

The Burden of Proof is on you.

Otherwise, it looks like another thing you manufactured, like the

"crude approximations"

that vpw mentioned

"twice"

and still fail to actually produce-

in fact, you admitted it was a lie.

quote:

It was HE (and many others) who were guilty of committing it. He brushed off my correction of his criticism, just like I suspect you will here of my correcting you. You all answer to God, though.

We'll both answer to God. I may "brush off" spurious claims of information that

vpw supposedly wrote that he never wrote- like you did here.

I have no proof you didnt make up the accounts to JAL, earning a "brush-off".

Your track record is unimpressive in this regard.

Instead of pronouncing God's Judgement on us for ignoring the word of Mike,

how about giving us some SUBSTANCE?

quote:

The other place where Dr wrote that "Believing Equals Receiving" cannot be taken as a full understanding of the law (and hence is a

crude approximation

for those who think it is the fullness) is in GMWD page 79. There we see:

"The great things of this world are available to men and women who know how to operate one of God’s laws, namely the law of 'believing equals receiving.' And this law includes 'believing equals action.' Great accomplishments are not necessarily just for people with great intellectual ability; they are attainable by men and women who believe to receive. It doesn’t hurt to have a few brains, but it doesn’t help unless one operates this universal law of believing. Many operate the law of believing without even having a knowledge of God’s Word, for this law of believing works for saint and sinner alike.

See? vpw said sinners ignorant of God's Word (and therefore, God's promises)

operate his 'law of believing'. You said otherwise.

quote:

But for those who haven’t been operating and therefore benefiting from the law of positive believing, a knowledge of it from God’s Word can open the door to change course and set sail on the new, better way."

But, as he states it, they were capable of operating it without that knowledge.

You contradicted vpw again.

quote:

But instead, many want to say stuck in the old not-so-better way. Not me. I seek a deep understanding of all the is written.

You'll never get it by contradicting what's written,

and changing words and phrases.....

quote:

That's where the treasure is. It's in getting a deeper than parrot-like understanding of the words. God will help us restore all that was lost and more as we seek this new better way to be found in mastering the written forms of PFAL.

You can insult our understanding all you want,

but taking the jar of pickles, and labelling it "apple-butter" in no way changes

the pickles on the inside of the jar.

[Catcup]

I never said I couldn't be wrong about anything. I just know that I am right about you.

A wise man loves reproof. This is true.

But what you gave was not Godly reproof. It was instruction in unrighteousness and an invitation to consider idolatry.

I'm wise enough to spot it. Heck, a FOOL could spot your worship of the words of a mere man.

[WordWolf]

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:

Catcup,

I urged you to deepen your comprehension, AND to do it with mastering the written forms, not recalling from faulty memory the spoken forms.

I showd you two places where Dr DID say (in essence) that "Believing Equals Receiving" was only a crude approximation of the law of believing.

Maybe you missed that long post of mine to you above, BEFORE WW's post.

So, is Mike really convinced that

"crude approximation of a law"

is synonymous with

"simply stated"?

He appears to.

[WordWolf]

quote:

Originally posted by Catcup:

quote:

Maybe you missed that long post of mine to you above, BEFORE WW's post

You mean that long harangue where you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel? The one where YOU came off as the anal retentive chef even before you accused WW of it?

Yeah, I read it.

I just don't think it justifies an answer.

BUT I DID-so I did. *snicker*

[wingnut]

I think the problem may lie in there is something to the “law of believing”, but its not the end all law for getting God working in your life. To place all the emphasis on it while not nearly as much time on things like the “law of love” has lead to the many evils. Seeing that the teaching was if you were spiritual enough, had your believing big enough; you could have sex with whom ever you desired. But, this trumps the law of love that commands to treat women as your sisters.

To say the “law of believing” governs what you receive from God while ignoring all the variables involved in this thing we call life is a sort sighted, black and white blind look at what is going on with your self and around you.

[Catcup]

Lets all just take a minute to get quiet now, and deeply consider the profound truths of the words of Mike, and what they reveal:

quote:

When we want to know what Dr meant in his writings, is is HIS vocabulary that the inspired Word of God is expressed in

Peepull, can't you just see it? It's so beeeyooteeful. It just sits there...

...like a duck...

[Mike]

WW,

You wrote: "So, is Mike really convinced that "crude approximation of a law" is synonymous with "simply stated"? __ He appears to."

It is synonymous WHEN and WHERE someone latches onto the "simply stated" law, thinking it is the full form of the law, and forgetting the many other crucial aspects.

Persons with such a perspective only have a crude approximation in mind.

I did say essentially this, but you missed it. Again, it's the searching deeper for meaning and intent that you fall short of. You need to stop looking for word combinations that will help you in nailing me, and try to get the message understood. you're so intent on semantically naling me that yo can't see what I'm talking about.

[WordWolf]

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:

When I see WW's long posts, like the one above, I can't help but see that old SNL skit where Dan Ackroid plays "The Anal Retentive Chef."

This, I take it, is the Mikean version of "literary criticism."

quote:

I get the giggles when he posts that way and wonder how many readers skip over his posts with a yawn.

Fewer than skip over yours, from what I hear.

See, I can go on all day and make a lot of points in plain English. People can spend

an hour and come away saying "That made sense."

People can spend an hour on your posts and see little beyond sycophantic worship

of a man and the books he cut-and-pasted from others, and insults to anyone who

disagrees with you, and what most come away with is a sense or idolatry and

insults. Of course, those who have the same worship and level the same insults

will be unable to detect the difference.

HCW has written some lengthy posts with much material as well. People read them

and come away having gotten considerable substance. That's what's supposed to

happen when you write that much.

[Mike]

No, no, no.

It's the Tom Strange form of literary criticism that I was adopting... temporarily.

[Catcup]

And yeah, WW, he finally admits VP never actually said those words. The man is a friggin looney.

I think Mike probably retemorizes Wierwille's words to the tune of The Bear Went Over The Mountain...

[WordWolf]

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:

WW,

You wrote: "So, is Mike really convinced that "crude approximation of a law" is synonymous with "simply stated"? __ He appears to."

It is synonymous WHEN and WHERE someone latches onto the "simply stated" law, thinking it is the full form of the law, and forgetting the many other crucial aspects.

Persons with such a perspective only have a crude approximation in mind.

I did say essentially this, but you missed it. Again, it's the searching deeper for meaning and intent that you fall short of. You need to stop looking for word combinations that will help you in nailing me, and try to get the message understood. you're so intent on semantically naling me that yo can't see what I'm talking about.

You haven't read my full answer.

You declared-by divine fiat or other unquestionable authority-

that the 2 terms were identical, and gave no basis for anyone to conclude they ARE.

They are NOT identical, and the differences are more substantial than, say,

the modern meanings of "throughly" and "thoroughly".

I pointed out they're NOT equivalent the other day, and you're continuing as if

everyone agreed they ARE.

I understand what you're saying FAR more than you claim, and FAR more than you

understand what I say.

Disagreeing is not misrepresenting,

and insulting is not rebutting.

You might want to consider that-they're 2 differences between our posting styles.

[Mike]

I was often accused of worshiping Paul by Red-Letter 4-Square fundamentalists. I ignored such accusations because I knew that Paul's words were not Paul's words, but God's.

I respect the prophetic foretelling of the crookeder-than-a-dog's-hind-legs Balaam, yet I know that Balaam is not any object of my worship.

If Dr's writings were by inspiration of God, then respecting Dr's words is no more idolatry than respecting Paul's Epistles or Balaam's prophecy. God can give His Word to sinners. In fact, he has no choice BUT to give His Word to sinners.

[WordWolf]

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:

Catcup,

You accept correction just like LCM.

Literal translation according to usage, Ebonics version:

"Catcup,

yo' mama!"

====

Literal translation according to usage, Elizabethan Pharisee version:

"Catcup,

you are a Samaritan, and hath a devil!"

[Catcup]

Paul's letters and Balaam's words and actions are actually part of biblical canon.

Victor Paul Wierwille's words are not.

Your treating them as if they are, is idolatrous.

That you cannot see this does not surprise me in the least, because idolatry is blinding.

You're blind as a bat.

[Mike]

The biblical canon is not part of the biblical canon, either. Ever think about THAT one. Try it for a couple of decades like I have before shooting off a glib answer.

Who told you that the biblical canon is right?

It IS something worth thinking about.

Know why I have GREAT respect for the traditional canon? Because VPW convinced me to. Try thinking about THAT one for a while, too.

[WordWolf]

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:

The biblical canon is not part of the biblical canon, either. Ever think about THAT one. Try it for a couple of decades like I have before shooting off a glib answer.

Who told you that the biblical canon is right?

It IS something worth thinking about.

Know why I have GREAT respect for the traditional canon? Because VPW convinced me to. Try thinking about THAT one for a while, too.

The same man with "GREAT respect for the traditional canon"

has been quoted as referring to it as

"unreliable fragments"

and

"tattered remnants".

His definition of "GREAT respect" is not one most people use.

But, he feels free to redefine the REST of the English language,

so is this news?

[Catcup]

The pharisees thought they had great respect for the scriptures as well. Jesus reproved them constantly and they were so blind they couldn't see it.

They paid tithe with the greatest detail with even the grains of spices, yet ignored the weightier matters of the law.

Mike wants to parse the Words O'Wierwille, but ignore the dishonesty of his theft, the corruption of his morals, and the wake of devastation he left in young girls' lives.

Yep, WW, so what else is new?

[Danny]

Catcup

Everything was fine and well until you use the phrase "it sits there like a duck".

Bash Mike leave the ducks alone.

[Mike]

Catcup,

I do deliberately put on biblically based blinders:

Plp. 4:8  Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

There are times and places, not usually public though, where sorting through sin is necessary. It's GOOD to minimize that.

When I read Balaam's prophecy I do NOT usually think of his dishonesty, but rather the One he saw.

When I read Paul's epistles I usually think NOT of his deprogramming techniques that included death.

When I read David's Psalms I usually think NOT of his sins which included murder.

This kind of thinking is not easy. It takes work, but it's worth it.

I see that you are not practiced at this one bit. It's not too late to start, though.

[Catcup]

Yeah, it takes a lot of hard work for you to dodge and ignore the truth, Mike, but you are quite practiced at it.

Doesn't change a daggone thing.

I gave up the practice of idolatry when I left that cult.

You kept it. And work hard at keeping your idolatrous point of er... view.

Blinders you have. Biblical they are: The Word talks much about how idolatry blinds the idolator.

And you admit you have blinded yourself deliberately. So sad... reminds me of a Greek tragedy.

You are such a shining example, you should be proud of yourself.

[Mike]

If God didn't give an abundance of revelation to Dr, then you are correct.

It all comes down to what GOD Himself actualy decided to do, not what you think He did, or worse, what you demand He did not.

If God DID give Dr that abundance of revelations, then regardless of what you deduce from facts, YOU are the idolator.

You may be sure of some facts, but are you willing to bet your life and rewards and family on the accuracy of your deduction?

Remember, it's not the accuracy of the facts, it's the accuracy of what YOU think those facts demand of God.

Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen.

P.S. - remember how sure you were when you bet everything on Craig in the late 80's.

[Ham]

Catcup, you will never get through on a doctrinal level. The lack of results among thousands of bug eyed, devoted followers of the class, following the message down to the real heart of it, and following every micro-detail is the most convincing argument.

One that I have not seen adequately addressed.

Not one person has been raised from the dead- not one. And that is the personal experience of many hundreds of grads I had acquaintance with.

Not a stinking one. I know Jo*n L*nn tried it once, but the corpse refused to cooperate.

Not one "real deal" healing.. I mean one that really shook the community to the foudations or anything. Sure, I prayed for people and they "felt better"- that's nice, but still rather inconsequential.

A few have reported something like that, in all fairness it very well could have happened, and a handful were documented- but what happened to the promise that we could be walking Christs and clean out the hospitals, so to speak?

Where are the miracles?

What a "cute" strategy. Promise the world, promise that "you too can do the works of Jesus Christ (i.e. the miracles, the healings, etc)".

Then if anybody asks where all the activity went, they are now bad. Bad, bad, bad. Bad Thomas, "remember the lesson of Thomas", how he was such a rotten scoundrel for even thinking about questioning Jesus' credentials.

"We are supposed to believe then see" is then wielded as some form of reproof..

Ptooie.

I didn't make the claims. If you can claim you can jump over the moon, by all means, let's see YOU do it first. Don't tell me that I have to do it, I've TRIED. Believe me- I tried, again, and again, and again..

I estimated- AT LEAST seventy times through that stinking class, and I still can't even raise a stinking rat from the dead.

And that was me at my BEST. The BEST years of my life, the highest level of "believing" and commitment. The most sincere and dedicated effort to understand and apply the materials.

What more do you want out of me?

I have no more to give.

The only thing I have NOT given, Mike, is my physical life. "Unfortunately", that is NOT available.

Its just not worth it.

Sorry for such a long post, I hope somebody gets something out of it..

[Mike]

Not one grad took Dr's final instructions to heart. Not one. It was uterly lost on leadership. Just today I informed another clergy member of the last/lost teaching of vpw who had NEVER even heard of it.

Not one AC grad took Dr's '79 instructions to master RHST seriously. Not one.

Not one... until very recently.

You see, Mr Ham, we never quite finished taking the class, or receiving the class. The results line up with our performance in refusing to learn past a certain shallow point. JAL is the epitome of this arrogant refusal to learn.

[rascal]

Mike, scripturaly, wierwille`s actions brand him as a *man of the flesh* so my betis placed on wierwille as a false prophet and judging from the pain, suffering and destruction left in the wake of his ministry....that it sure as heck wasn`t God whisperin in his ear.

[Mike]

You are conveniently ignoring the THOUSANDS who are still very blessed with PFAL. That wake you FOCUS on is tiny compared to the good.

Every man's actions brand them as flesh.

The question is, what can God do when people rise up, even if temporarily out of this cesspool.

Try it yourself. Try rising up above the flesh that dominates your life with God's Word and see how well God can ignore your flesh.