Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

VPW's Source for the Law of Believing


Bob
 Share

Recommended Posts

I do not understand your question.

If you're saying that I'm deliberately misrepresenting Mike to make a funny, I wish I were joking.

If you're saying those items do not constitute misrepresenting God or Christ and idolizing VPW, then I respectfully disagree.

If you're saying that it's ridiculous to suggest you pore over tons and tons of doctrinal discussions, I feel your pain. :)

Edited by Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

Did you or did you not say " at the return Jesus Christ will be holding the PFAL book?"

That doesn't need a whole context to explain or defend your real position.

Unless you were JOKING!!!

:lol:

The "search" function on this site still works.

(I liked the old one better, but I can get approximate results here now.)

Look at the commands at the upper right.

I provided comments in quotes.

You can sort by poster name (Mike) and by one or more words specified there.

Almost all of them are still in the archives.

(For which Mike should pay for the data storage.)

===

I'll make your search on this one easily.

Please check and confirm for the rest of the new people that he said this.

Mike 2/2/04, 12:17am eastern.

"When you see Christ in his glory he will be holding a PFAL book in his hand and teaching from it."

It is a one-sentence post, so there's nothing else I CAN add to give context.

The question as to whether or not he was joking comes up on the same thread,

2/3/04, 7:51pm eastern.

"So, Mike, you weren't kidding about JC coming with a PFAL book in his hand."

It is a one-sentence post, so there's nothing else I CAN add to give context.

Mike, 2/3/04, 7:53pm eastern, replied.

"Totally serious. I've already seen him this way more than once."

That was the entire text of that post so there's nothing else I CAN add to give context.

=====

Actually, when he first made that comment, I certainly thought he was joking, and I

expect others said the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi bliss,

I'm not on trial here, and I refuse to act as if I were.

My time is valuable and I must make wise decisions where to spend it and how.

If I WERE on trial and faced consequences if convicted, then I'd have to spend the time to defend myself.

But since I'm not on trial, I can afford to browse around to see who might be willing to listen more to my message and less to my accusers. The only real consequences here are TO YOU if you get deceived by the prosecution and ignore my message from God, OR if you get deceived by me and my message is false.

If you want to have a civil conversation with me, either here in public or in private by e-mail I'm willing.

Either way I may decide to respond in detail to your earlier post to me, and maybe to some points brought up by others. When I operate this way it's more for future readers and not so much for the idle curiosities of posters here that I deal with what I deal with.

I'd love to discuss these matters with you, but I am not inclined to have others mold and shape your responses to me. If we do talk it will not be on their terms.

We might start off with me asking you if you are aware of Dr's last teaching. I'm not talking about "The Hope" which is often thought to be his last. His last teaching occurred two weeks later, but it was universally ignored by all leadership. It's the smoking gun as to why the ministry meltdown occurred, and it opens up a HUGE true life detective mystery.

Because they stand to loose much in the ego and prestige categories, many posters here still try to suppress this information along with a ton of other stuff. You've just received the first wave of suppression. If you learned anything from the ministry meltdown, you have to watch out for those who want to deceive.

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not on trial here, and I refuse to act as if I were.

You put your posts out in public, you take your chances with the rest of us.

You don't see me chasing you all over cyberspace, do you?

My time is valuable and I must make wise decisions where to spend it and how.

When he's got the advantage, he prefers to respond. When not, he makes vague statements

as to being misrepresented.

For example, Tom challenged him to dispute ANY of his claims or my direct quotes,

in response to Mike's standard claim of being misrepresented.

For the record, I've NEVER misrepresented Mike, unless "misrepresented" means

"show him as he does not WISH to be seen." I accurately reflect his CONTENT.

If I WERE on trial and faced consequences if convicted, then I'd have to spend the time to defend myself.

His posts are on a public messageboard.

Thus they stand or fall on their own merits, and face possible ridicule when they are

blatantly foolish.

But since I'm not on trial, I can afford to browse around to see who might be willing to listen more to my message and less to my accusers.

Translation: I prefer to run my commercials rather than discuss the faults of my error-ridden doctrines.

Speaking of which, here's my commercial:

The only real consequences here are TO YOU if you get deceived by the prosecution and ignore my message from God, OR if you get deceived by me and my message is false.

Actually, this is an improvement on his usual commercial.

Normally, he prefers to not even allow for the possibility that he might be deceived.

He's learned SOMETHING the past few years.

If you want to have a civil conversation with me, either here in public or in private by e-mail I'm willing.

You're an adult and can choose to communicate with whoever you want.

There are women who are penpals of murderers in prison, also, and claim to fall in love with them.

Some people here have opened communications with Mike and have not only regretted it, but they've

angrily demanded Mike stop trying to communicate with them, and use their personal histories

(edited for his advantage) in his posts.

But hey, for all you know, maybe I'm lying. Look around the site, though-I got all that from

their POSTS.

Either way I may decide to respond in detail to your earlier post to me, and maybe to some points brought up by others.

Only the ones he might have answers to, of course.

When I operate this way it's more for future readers and not so much for the idle curiosities of posters here that I deal with what I deal with.

He's toned down his insults. We used to be called "busloads of bozos" and other things.

I'd love to discuss these matters with you, but I am not inclined to have others mold and shape your responses to me. If we do talk it will not be on their terms.

But it WILL be on MIKE's terms, which should get your attention.

Do whatever you want.

We might start off with me asking you if you are aware of Dr's last teaching. I'm not talking about "The Hope" which is often thought to be his last. His last teaching occurred two weeks later, but it was universally ignored by all leadership. It's the smoking gun as to why the ministry meltdown occurred, and it opens up a HUGE true life detective mystery.

He's posted it here, and someone posted it in the other board of a twi innie recently.

It's called "the Joy of Serving". You can do a search on it if you don't want to wait for Mike to string

you along in suspense over it. It was posted BY Mike, of course, so you can use his name as a filter.

Because they stand to loose much in the ego and prestige categories, many posters here still try to suppress this information along with a ton of other stuff.

This giving you the thing to enter in the search engine, this is an example of me trying to

"suppress this information".

You've just received the first wave of suppression.

Us providing information and his own words when you weren't in the room is how he defines

"suppression", that is, "disagreeing with him".

If you learned anything from the ministry meltdown, you have to watch out for those who want to deceive.

Another thing you probably learned was to beware people who want to hide some of their comments

and keep controlling their image....

In case you don't want to bother reading the entire "last message",

here's a thumbnail sketch.

"Serving people is important for Christians.

Therefore, master all three levels of PFAL

and serve them that.

There are no answers outside the Way Ministry."

My initial response to it was that this was the closing remarks of a man with an overinflated sense

of his organization, and an underinflated sense of all Christians outside that organization.

Perhaps your response will be the same. Perhaps not.

Either way,

Mike looks like he might resume posting

DOCTRINAL posts outside the DOCTRINAL forum.

You wouldn't do that, would you, Mike?

----

GreasyTech editing only to find why the quotes are not quotes. No text changed.

Edited by GreasyTech
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, Wierwille's "law of believing" was, more than anything else, an attempted theodicy purporting to account for why tragedy, sickness and suffering exist under a good, just and omnipotent God.

Biblical writers did not, of course, offer any neatly packaged explanations of how God's purposes relate to the existence of natural and moral evil.

Edited by Cynic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WordWolf,

As for doctrinal threads, I put all of them in the Doctrinal section.

As for my doctrinal posts here, I made a comment to Peter Wade welcoming him here and was immediately hit with some doctrinal items, so I dealt with them and stepped aside encouraging the thread to resume.

Then the second doctrinal derailment occurred when rascal posted: "Oh, n you`d better read up on what Mike believes BEFORE jumping in and defending the rediculous belief system that he is attempting to foist off on folks here....vpw ...the old scoundrel himself would be spinning in his grave if he had ANY idea of the blasphemy (idolotrous swill to borrow a phrase) that mike spouts in his name....I imagine that you will feel pretty stupid."

So, I dealt with that one.

Now you want to lay the doctrinal derailment at MY feet? Please, your investigative skills are sorely lacking when the evidence is just screens away from you, so how can anyone trust your juggling of the deeper things of God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WordWolf,

Now you want to lay the doctrinal derailment at MY feet?

Please post the exact quote where I did that.

What I said spoke nothing of the present nor past.

Please, your investigative skills are sorely lacking when the evidence is just screens away from you, so how can anyone trust your juggling of the deeper things of God?

Your inability to read what was on the SAME screen has been demonstrated again, so

there is no need to announce it.

And I don't "juggle" when approaching the deeper things of God.

I don't plan to post them in this forum, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just received "Let Go and Let God" by Albert Cliffe. :)

Haven't had a chance to read thru it yet, but there's a chapter called "There is Magic in Believing"

A sentence from it reads...

We produce in our lives whatever we think, whatever we fear.

There's also a chapter called "The Law of Cause and Effect"

I'm going to read this book but I'd say that it sounds like it was a contribution to VP's ideas about the Law of Believing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just received "Let Go and Let God" by Albert Cliffe. :)

...

I'm going to read this book but I'd say that it sounds like it was a contribution to VP's ideas about the Law of Believing.

Gee, ya think?

I'm interested in seeing if there is plagiarism involved there, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that the copyright on "Let Go and Let God"

(which was a catchphrase in twi)

is 1951,

I'd suspect so.

I also think Albert Cliffe's book "Lessons in Successful Living"

(copyright 1953)

would be of MORE interest-

to YOU specifically.

That's because there are 3 chapters with interesting titles:

1) "Spiritual Healing"

(written by a man only nominally Christian who said he got his material

from dead people)

2) "Positive and Negative Thinking"

(session 1's only chart in the syllabus, and Question 1 of "Listening with a Purpose")

3) "TITHES AND THE LAW OF PROSPERITY."

You can cross off your scorecard the "where did he get tithing from" question.

(In case you're wondering, I posted this 2 days ago in a different thread...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tithing is a common belief. "Law of prosperity" is also fairly common. He probably got it from Cliffe, it would seem, but it's not something I would spend time on (except maybe to see if Cliffe was plagiarized as flagrantly as Stiles).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since he NAME-DROPPED Albert Cliffe, I would expect he either got something from him,

or wanted us to BELIEVE he got something from him.

A glance at Cliffe's stuff leads me to think Cliffe didn't have a reputation among powers

that be like, say, Karl Barth (whom he also name-dropped). Then again, we've

no signs he even used a catchphrase from KB.

(This week-maybe next week we'll find something.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey... where'd Mike go?

Raf... wouldn't you rather come over for a few Spatens at the Saucer than break down those books?

I can save you the time... the answer is yes, of course, why would these be any different?

Why keep hoping against hope that you'll someday find something that veepee wrote without plaigerizing? ...have a couple of beers instead!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey... where'd Mike go?

Raf... wouldn't you rather come over for a few Spatens at the Saucer than break down those books?

I can save you the time... the answer is yes, of course, why would these be any different?

Why keep hoping against hope that you'll someday find something that veepee wrote without plaigerizing? ...have a couple of beers instead!

:D

Raf's just being himself. Mr. Olmeda is a professional journalist. Like the best journalists, he's thorough and objective. That's one of the things we love about him. (Or is that two...?)

JerryB

Edited by Jbarrax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom Strange,

I'm not far, just not wanting to waste time.

There are SO many things I could say in retaliation to many items, but why waste the time? Much of it I've already said. Once in a while I feel inspired, knowing that sometimes the text I post is good for audiences other than here. Other times I know that just one here may get a tiny bit of the true story if I post. But many times I know it would waste my time, something your source of inspiration would love to see, I'm sure.

I don't play by the same rules you folks do, and it's obvious none of us want to change.

***

I can hardly believe that plagiarism is such a hot topic for you folks. It's just one more piece of proof that you folks didn't pay very close attention to Dr teachings. He so often admitted to collecting things from others FOR US. He even taught that originality is a crock when you view it spiritually.

There are just SO many things that none of you all got the first time around. Those who come back to PFAL are going to see that Dr collected things BY REVELATION and that the whole collection is 2000 years unique and it is worth mastering with meekness.

***

All the villains you all detest here had bad symptoms of their grave root error. You all have different symptoms (some are similar but just lacking a powerful punch) than those villains, but you all have the same identical grave error at the root: refusing to MASTER the written material of PFAL. What's it like to have so much in common with Geer and Craig?

***

I used the time travel taunting of two years ago to prove your lack of deep understanding to you. EVEN if WW were correct in his "morph" thread thesis (which he's not), it's STILL the case that my time travel taunting proves a lack of any kind of deep mastery of the material.

If I, instead of using the "time travel" nomenclature, had asked where the "caught up or caught away to another time" incident in PFAL was, then I'd expect many of you WOULD have passed the test. Many know the wording of PFAL, but few understand the heart.

***

You all look like a bunch of persnickety lawyer/politicians who are trying to hook someone with a technicality of the law and them besmirch them in the media. It's so obvious to any casual observer that you're working yourselves into a frenzy. WHY? You're all much more interested in swaying opinion than truth, just like corrupt politicians.

Why don't you, instead of tearing something down (which anyone can do with all the inspiration the world provides), why don't you try building something up? Try and see what positive things you can OFFER to people in general, which is difficult, instead of taking the easy and less useful road of WARNING people against some tiny tiny cult that went bad. If you all spent as much time in your KJVs you'd have much more light in your lives, instead of all the focus and search for darkness you're becoming specialists at.

When Chris Geer beat up Craig and the BOT for almost two years their eventual over reaction of retaliation was heinous. Ditto you you all. It's heinous to see you all over retaliating against genuine wrongs as if that's a noble lifestyle.

Try building something up, if you're up for the challenge. Just try.

Edited by Mike
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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...