I had a history prof once who sternly warned our class that if any one of us got a D in his class that it would be on our record and would follow us wherever we go. Like it's the end of the world if I get a D in a community college class.
Doesn't sound like much of a teacher if he thinks that a D has that big of an effect on the rest of your life. But then again, I've dealt with stupid instructors before.
You say you are an atheist, but you believed Romans 10:9 once and you spoke in tongues and that's going to be on YOUR record like forEVER! So what are you gonna do if this turns out to be true?
So-o-o, you think that Romans 10:9 is tantamount to a 'D'? I can imagine God in heaven saying "Gee Johniam, thanks a LOT!"
But seriously, I never said I was an atheist. I am not, however, a believer in fundamentalist Christianity, as a lot of that stuff I threw out after taking a serious, analytical, 'getting over of being afraid of some rabid deity striking me down for even daring to think of scrutinizing it' look at it. But hey, that's me, and I realize that different people come to different beliefs from looking at the same information.
Are you going to get before God and tell Him no thanks I don't want eternal life because you let Wierwille get away with all that stuff and your eternal life isn't good enough for me.
Ya know, a few years back I would have agreed with you on this point, but I began to realize the flaw of your argument. For one thing, spending eternity with all those who were abusive/hurtful/even murderous, ... and they get eternity in heaven anyway?? What kind of paradise is that?
I've heard one person in TWI about 20 years ago say that if Ghandi wasn't born again, and if Hitler was, that despite what respective good/evil they might have done, Hitler would be enjoying heaven, and Ghandi would be frying in the fiery depths of hell, and that's just the way God would have it; too bad, so sad, deal with it!
:blink: And *I'm* the stupid one for not wanting (what I would call) a Stepford Wives like situation like that? Better yet, I think I would call that nothing less than Orwellian. ... Thanks, but no thanks, I want nothing to do with that kind of life! Heaven my a**!
P.S.,
Why not just enjoy what life you have left.
Thank you, as I am doing just that, ... by avoiding theologies like yours.
You conveniently limit your definition of "context" to to an individual post.
When I say context I mean the whole thread, or at least that vicinity of pages if it's a long thread.
Context can be far reaching also, it the exact same topic is discussed on other threads.
The ease you describe in finding things in my record here is exaggerated.
I tried to look up the quotes here and was frustrated by no ability to make big jumps in the page numbers. Because I have dial-up, that can take a long time. I gave up. It would take me a while to search my saved copies too, because they fill many CDs, and CD players on computers, or at least mine, take forever and a day to re-read the directory of a newly inserted disk.
I repeat:
It's not easy to see the context of my quotes the way you present them.
Only the most determined and the more wealthy in leasure time can do it.
When I say something quirky, it could be a figure of speech.
You don't care to see the intent of my tiny number of quirky comments.
You only want to hang me with them.
You have no intent of seeing how they fit into the canon of my other posts.
The quirky to lucid ratio in my overall posting is surely .00001 or something like that.
You focus only on what you can use to destroy my credibility to new people.
Such focus demands you not allow or discourage the quirky to stand in the field of lucidity they sit.
I think 'quirky' is THE LEAST of the adjectives that we can use to describe your comments.
:wacko:
Here is but one example:
You have no intent of seeing how they fit into the canon of my other posts.
Canon?? So your posts are now at PFAL's (supposed) level of God Breathed, ehhh? ..... Uhmmmmm YAH!
And 'lucid'?? Frankly, I think you got that 0.00001 ratio backwards, chief.
P.S.,
Only the most determined and the more wealthy in leasure time can do it.
THAT'S the problem!! Most of us haven't enough leisure time! We're too busy with mundane and non-'spurchel' crap, .... like jobs and real life friends, to devote to understanding your ... 'quirks'. Thanks for the heads-up!
If I got the ratio backwards you wouldn't have understood that line or any of the others.
***
It's a common figure of speech to use "canon" instead of "body of collected work."
Google it.
I found first off:
canon - a rule or especially body of rules or principles generally established as valid and fundamental in a field or art or philosophy; "the neoclassical canon"; "canons of polite society"
I've used canon for things from Shakespeare to Sherlock Holmes.
Hi Garth..then one would have to begin to ponder on what heaven contains and how it functions and how God has set it up (and I think that would be quite an egotistical and foolish thing to do )
To be honest I think much of what happened here on earth by many will be lost in insignificance really when suddenly faced with eternity, paradise, eternal health and joy etc..
quote: I've heard one person in TWI about 20 years ago say that if Ghandi wasn't born again, and if Hitler was, that despite what respective good/evil they might have done, Hitler would be enjoying heaven, and Ghandi would be frying in the fiery depths of hell, and that's just the way God would have it; too bad, so sad, deal with it!
Rev. 21:4 - And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are all passed away.
Too good to be true?
I recently read the Reader's Digest interview with Tom Cruise. He said he thought it was beyond arrogance to think we're the only ones, that there's nothing out there (on other planets). Yet somehow it's not arrogant to think there's no God? Go figure.
You conveniently limit your definition of "context" to to an individual post.
[it's called 'practicality'.
Now you claim you can't be understood in the post-
only in the examination of the SURROUNDING posts,
thus the individual posts lack individual merit?
You're admitting to a lack of clarity there...]
When I say context I mean the whole thread,
[You've gone on for hundreds and hundreds of 8 1/2 x 11 pages in these threads.
You're saying nobody can understand you without reading DAYS of material.
First of all, there's no payoff for hours and hours of reading,
second, we have JOBS. ]
or at least that vicinity of pages if it's a long thread.
[5 or 6 hours rather than days. That's STILL ridiculously long.
But, it allows you to claim you were "misunderstood" anytime
someone defeated you in debate, or quoted you saying something
outrageous like the earth shaking when vp walked.]
Context can be far reaching also, it the exact same topic is discussed on other threads.
[ The rest of us communicate normally and take responsibility
for what we write, for better or worse.
The kids ask for 'do-overs'.
Feel free to join us adults whenever you're up to it...]
The ease you describe in finding things in my record here is exaggerated.
[it was relatively easy for ME...]
I tried to look up the quotes here and was frustrated by no ability to make big jumps in the page numbers.
[Don't blame me for your lack of understanding in how to make big jumps
in the page numbers. ]
Because I have dial-up, that can take a long time. I gave up.
[i have it, too. It did NOT take a long time.
Unless you get a drop-off, which is not my fault. ]
It would take me a while to search my saved copies too, because they fill many CDs, and CD players on computers, or at least mine, take forever and a day to re-read the directory of a newly inserted disk.
[One might wonder why it's worth all this effort to
try to pretend you didn't say Jesus Christ would be
teaching from the Orange Book when he returns.
We discussed this for pages. Personally, until someone
asked you and you asserted it was true,
I had thought it HAD to be a joke, since it was too
silly to be true.
Next time,
if you don't MEAN something, don't say it.
Next time,
if you don't want to admit to your doctrine,
KEEP YOUR EMBARASSING DOCTRINE TO YOURSELF. ]
I repeat:
It's not easy to see the context of my quotes the way you present them.
[Nor should it be necessary, since they speak for
themselves. Your invoking "context" is only with a
view towards OBSCURING and NEGATING the content
of the posts. ]
Only the most determined and the more wealthy in leasure time can do it.
[if everyone was at your level of 'skill', that would be true.
Further, why bother spending hours reading a thread you're on,
to read ONE post you wrote on ONE page?
You are NOT that important to virtually all of us. ]
When I say something quirky, it could be a figure of speech.
You don't care to see the intent of my tiny number of quirky comments.
You only want to hang me with them.
[ Actually,
I don't even COUNT when you're being cheeky or attempting humour.
What you say in SERIOUSNESS hangs you all by itself.
All I do is make sure it's not missed by the others.
Plus, I hardly mention it all-
have I been bringing up your assertions that 'mastering PFAL'
can defeat death? Have I?
And you were serious about THAT... ]
You have no intent of seeing how they fit into the canon of my other posts.
[Your posts hardly qualify as 'canon' by any normal definition of
the word. Of course, I'm sure you have a new, secret definition
you will use-and change-when it suits you.
You always invoke that when you make no sense and
are called on it.
Either you have a cabalistic definition,
or you spew insults,
or you just deny entire discussions.]
The quirky to lucid ratio in my overall posting is surely .00001 or something like that.
[ I'd like to see the OBJECTIVE standard used to determine this... ]
You focus only on what you can use to destroy my credibility to new people.
[ I call that "quoting your own words."
They destroy your credibility all by themselves.
If I never quoted them, your NEW posts would do it all by themselves-
I'm just saving time for the new people. ]
Such focus demands you not allow or discourage the quirky to stand in the field of lucidity they sit.
[ Once upon a time, there was a faraway kingdom,
where Mike's posts stood in a field of lucidity.
Occasionally, furry animals and cute little duckies
would nibble the plants near the field...]
(snip)
canon - a rule or especially body of rules or principles generally established as valid and fundamental in a field or art or philosophy; "the neoclassical canon"; "canons of polite society"
[ Again, I say that Mike's posts fall far short of a 'canon'...
Naturally, Mike missed it even posting this definition...]
You conveniently limit your definition of "context" to to an individual post.
When I say context I mean the whole thread, or at least that vicinity of pages if it's a long thread.
Context can be far reaching also, it the exact same topic is discussed on other threads.
Much of what you say, Mike, can be read and understood in the one-liners you throw out and expect others to believe as Gospel.
I'm thinking that if you really believed and were convinced of what you said your own self, you wouldn't have to *hide* behind context being from an entire page, and entire thread, or other threads where the *exact same topic* might be being discussed.
(and it puzzles me why *the exact same topic* would have several threads about it, when one would suffice).
Personally -- I think WordWolf has done a stellar job of quoting you (AND providing documentation) and your attempts to belittle his efforts will amount to naught since it seems you have a hard time facing an issue head-on, and utilize *duck and dodge* techniques at every opportunity.
He provides quotes, and documentation.
You provide supposition, and no documentation.
But of course -- to fully understand what you have said, we must:
read it in the verse;
read it in the context;
read it in it's previous usage;
(and I suppose this applies too---)
read to whom it was written.
And no -- I do not have the *leisure time* to read all your stuff, or try to figure out where you are being facetious vs. serious.
If yer trying to *fun us* (in your terms), let us know ahead of time so you don't get blamed for anything needlessly, ok?
I'm thinking that if you really believed and were convinced of what you said your own self, you wouldn't have to *hide* behind context being from an entire page, and entire thread, or other threads where the *exact same topic* might be being discussed.
Hmmm -- guess I did. Surely enough you are convinced in your own mind, but there must be some nagging doubt back there somewhere since you continue to make excuses, rationalize away disputations, and (yes) move the goalposts whenever an accurate accusation is leveled your way.
If you were 100% convinced, you wouldn't be *waffling* like you are (these days).
The waffling you perceive is in your wishful thinking, just like WW's false charge of my turnabout on plagiarism. He STILL hasn't proved his conjecture true. You folks just can't stand my message and can't deal with it directly so you all go after me.
I'm tired of talking about me. My message speaks for itself and to those who want to know. Those who only want to justify their rebellion against God, their rejection of PFAL, will have to answer to Him.
The waffling you perceive is in your wishful thinking, just like WW's false charge of my turnabout on plagiarism. He STILL hasn't proved his conjecture true. You folks just can't stand my message and can't deal with it directly so you all go after me.
I'm tired of talking about me. My message speaks for itself and to those who want to know. Those who only want to justify their rebellion against God, their rejection of PFAL, will have to answer to Him.
...and by the way, I can reject PFAL as a primary source for truth without rejecting any truth that may be contained in it.
There are things in it that are true, some that he plagiarized, some that he came up with on his own. Nonetheless, Wierwille, in my opinion, discredited himself as someone that I would trust to present me the truth.
So, mastering PFAL? Mastering any other of Wierwille's writings? I don't think so.
Again, does that mean that I think it's all false? Not at all. Do I think it's not useful on some level? No. Can I deny that PFAL was a vehicle for many people to learn how to read the bible and to some extent understand it? Of course not.
The plagiarism, the lying, the invented definitions of Greek and Hebrew words, the unsupported assertions all make it difficult to accept PFAL as something that should be utilized, let alone mastered. Wierwille's presentation of himself as a scholar of biblical languages was not true, and his understanding of some of his primary sources, like Bullinger, was incomplete.
Frequently Wierwille's premises are false, rendering any conclusions based upon them false as well. "Working the Word" and "checking it out for oneself" takes more work than most of us ever put into it, or were even equipped to do.
I do deny now, and did then deny then, that what is perecived to be the sin and crime of plagiarism was committed by Dr in producing the PFAL books.
There's no change in my policy.
What you folks perceive as plagiarism I deny IS plagiarism.
This has been my stand all along. Maybe someday I'll take the time to locate all my posts to prove this to anyone who wants, but I doubt it. It's not that important a subject to me.
WW, you're confusing my denial of the perceived phenomena with a denial of the phenomena.
There's no denial that many passages in PFAL are very close to passages in other writings.
I never denied this phenomenon years ago, and I do not deny it now.
What I deny now (as always) is that the phenomenon constitutes the sin or even the crime of plagiarism.
THIS denial I have posted on in spades, and I stand by it now.
I have covered this denial of guilt on Dr's part from many angles, and it is THESE angles that you refuse to deal with. Instead you focus on me. The record you are leaving is one of refusal to consider God's perspective.
Your perception of plagiarism being committed by Dr is wrong and your perception of my waffling is wrong.
Let me again state my consistent position: Dr did not commit plagiarism in producing the PFAL books. I don't care what any of you posters think about it, nor what any pointy headed lawyer nor any human court says on this, because I know Who the real owner is and what His court says about the matter.
It is possible for God to call a man to service and that man to stray - once the man has strayed God's people are not indebted to follow that man. - Namely - Saul, Solomon, Baalam, Jonah (although he didnt even give the people in question the chance to reject or follow him - until after he got it back together.) :) ) Then it would stand to reason that since God understands that we are but dust AND he knows our propensity for sin and error - he would NOT require us to regard VPW as God's only man - nor has he EVER required allegiance to a man over the Word or Himself.
I'm sorry - but the plagerism is there and cannot be equivocated away. I personally think it would have added more credence to VPW to cite various sources - would have really shown how he pulled together a variety of sources and took what worked and rejected the rest - you know - research! Oh and THE BIBLE is to be our primary source for truth - not PFAL. PFAL was always just to be a means to an end.
PFAL simply cannot be new scripture - unless I have misunderstood Jesus Christ when he said that no jot or tittle would be added or subtracted. Besides - there's no real "WORD" to it. It is simply a guide to researching. Now granted, I am very thankful for the research skills I have learned. Oh and didn't VPW himself ask Chris Geer to re-work the section on Believing and Faith? At the very least you have to admit that he did not feel up to the task. I thnk that speaks volumes on more than one level. (at least 2 new threads there!)
No matter how bad our lives were in TWI - it just may NOT be the fault of the class - even with the plagerism and the inaccuracies. There really is no telling what cr*p may have befallen many of us had we stayed on the road we were on. Men with power turn to garbage. The only way things work is when we remember that only God has the true power. Not defending TWI - just pondering.
God and Jesus Christ just might very well be very interested in PFAL and JCNG - because they both profess to be the truth about THEM. I know if someone were to write something about me I would be interested - though I might not agree with it all - or any of it for that matter. I might declare it all to be out and out lies - Then I would REALLY be interested in it! They just happen to be more patient than we are because they know the truth and they know its coming!
In short:
I am certain that in many ways many of our discussions and arguments will prove to be "tempests in a teacup" for no matter what we believe God has a truth that is unchanging. I am positive that each and every person - Christian and non-Christian- will be surprised when we meet Jesus face to face. Some more than others - but we still see through a glass darkly. Our mission here on earth is to attempt to see more clearly -but I don't see any Spiritual Lasik surgery coming until we hear trumpets -(probably the subject of another thread that I'm NOT gettng into )
You all have one thing in common - you are passionate about your beliefs. That's a start. (OK don't bite my head off for saying that someone out there has somethng in common with someone else. I need my head right now.
Your perception of plagiarism being committed by Dr is wrong ...
I think our definitions of plagiarism vary, but I do think he plagiarized some.
Some believe (I believe erroneously) that plagiarism is not noting or citing in writing, where someone got every single specific thought, idea or concept.
Others believe it is a word for word extraction of specific written text, without giving proper written acknowledgement where the word for word extraction came from.
I believe the latter is correct.
If you believe as I do, then VP did plagiarize some paragraphs.
WHY he didn't simply cite those few paragraphs he plagiarized, I don't know.
Thank you (and oldiesman) for steering your thread back on topic and away from me.
I often think of the quandary the relatives of Uriah were in, and for many generations afterward. The revelations God gave to David were untainted by his sin, yet the reception of David's Psalms were certainly a challenge to Uriah's family. Some of them rose to the level of seeing through David's still stinging sin and embrace the authority God gave to David in spite of that sin.
***
The "re-working" of PFAL that Dr called for, if viewed in light of the many other things he said about the same subject, had to be a re-working in the mind of the student, not a re-working of the WRITTEN material, junking it and printing changed material.
***
A point of confusion that often arises when talking about PFAL is whether it's the film class or the collateral books that are being talked about. I've seen confusion here at GSC often stem from this slight ambiguity.
The "re-working" of the film class was something that was in the works in 1977, but then Dr pulled the plug on it.
Many people had relatively mastered the film class sound track, and "re-working" the exact wording of THAT material could mean either switching focus to the books and re-working the film class perception of a subject to attain the written view, or it could mean re-working the film class into a new video that more tracks with the written record.
***
For "re-working" to mean junking the written material and changing the content of the collaterals would mean a HUGE contradiction on Dr's part. This is still possible, him being human, but if that were the case I'd go with the consistently held forth written position Dr described and I'd toss the spoken.
Why would Dr tell Geer to change (re-work) the written collaterals and then turn right around and tell him(with all others) to master the collaterals? Why hasn't anyone seen this is a contradiction?
***
I disagree with your limiting of PFAL to being a means to only one end. It was that, but it is more now. Because I came back to written PFAL it is the case that I enjoy a fresh view of it. I see it as foretelling prophecy that may have had some great benefits decades ago, but that it's application NOW is much, much greater. It fortells and deals with the situation we are in right now.
Before it was a means to see how the ancient scriptures worked. Now it is a means to see the new administration where God is revealing His Son, first to us grads and later to the rest of the world. The ONLY people who can see this are the very few who literally obey the frequent urgings of Dr to master the written aspect of the class. So far, all leadership has done everything but this.
The levels of mastery we accomplished decades ago was wonderful then. It helped us see what we were supposed to see, but it was not then available to see Christ. Now it is. We must come back and re-work our perception of what is in those books to see what is available now.
Back then our strong focus was on the KJV. Now we need to focus on PFAL. Back then we did KJV word studies. Now we need to do PFAL word studies, tracking words as they are used in the PFAL texts like we used to do in the KJV with our Young's Concordances. We don't have concordances for PFAL... yet. But we can do our best with what we have.
Little to none of our collateral study has included the idea that they are God-breathed. When we adopt that attitude we will see much more than before.
Far from being exhausted of their value, the PFAL writings are an absolute treasure, and they attract all of the adversary's forces of influence to blow us all away from our calling with great ferocity. It takes great determination to obey Dr's instructions to master PFAL in it's written form, but God will help those who want to rise above tradition. So far only a very small number have dared re-open, re-work the writings we were given by God.
Um - Mike - Dr told Chris Geer to work on Beleiveing and Faith within the last few years before his death.
"The "re-working" of PFAL that Dr called for, if viewed in light of the many other things he said about the same subject, had to be a re-working in the mind of the student, not a re-working of the WRITTEN material, junking it and printing changed material."
I feel fairly sure that this is a major assumption and at least for me defies logic. - Sorry
I disagree with the expansion of PFAL to being new scripture - I simply cannot buy that one.
It seems to me that God would never limit himself regarding seeing Jesus Christ. OMG - he gave prophesies, stellar signs, angels and much more to help people see the Christ THE FIRST TIME. Why hide him now in an obscure class?
If I understand you right you're approach to this subject is like the finding of the scriptures and the rebuilding of the wall.
Ezra, and Nehemiah all over again - but this time it is PFAL that is to be rediscovered. I really fo have some problems with that - so if my eyes are blinded - well then pray that they be opened - but I'm not revisiting any of it at this time. God HIMSELF would have to tell me to do so. I went through major healing to get away form worshipping the work of research - that is an addiction I will only revisit with clear and present orders. Not with "God told me to tell you..."
I found contradictions in the class when I was a new grad. can't remeber them now - I just overlooked them because I accept contradictions from men.
Not trying to focus on you. I have just read way too much CS Lewis in my time and I took this class on logic - so this is just not jiving on so many levels that my red flags are blinking faster than the tailight on my car that is out.
The questions you ask are often asked of me. The first one is pretty easy: start by opening the books and reading them a lot and only them. That's the first step to mastering anything, right?
I've also just mentioned word studies. In the past I've included many tips, and that mastering PFAL is just like what we did as we worked our KJVs. We can memorize the chapters and section titles, along with key passages. The HOW of mastering is not difficult, once the books are opened and being read. If yo or anyone wants to START mastering, saddle up alongside with any other grads who are dong the same thing. I'll gladly start a thread on mastering techniques or PM with anyone on it, once their books are opened and focused reading is taking place.
You second question, how to know when we're finished is odd. Why do you even want to know that? I look at it as a lifetime thing. It's more the attitude of mastering than the accomplished tasks that are important. Each person has differing abilities. When we are highly focused on doing our best to master the writings then God can fill in any gaps we need filling.
***
doojable,
Thank you again, for you willingness to dismiss me as the topic and focusing on what we came here for.
I realize Dr's "re-work" remarks to Chris were late in the game, but so was his last teaching where he clearly and publicly put on tape TWICE that we all needed to master the written materials that come with the class.
I know that when I came back to the collaterals I had a lot of re-working to do in my head. You'll see the same thing if you take a close peek.
It takes repetition to make a new idea fit in when contradictory ideas were in place for may years prior. If you think it through how many times Dr told us to master the collaterals, right up to the end, then why would Dr also say to junk those collaterals? It doesn't make sense. It DOES make sense if the many urgings of Dr's are not held in mind. Most grads are totally unaware of them.
Many posters here have claimed that Dr never told us to have the attitude toward the collaterals I hold forth, yet it's in the record that Dr said on microphone and wrote to that effect often. The attitude I take regarding the collaterals being new revelation given in modern English regarding THIS time is one I received FROM the collaterals themselves. It takes study to see that they say this.
When you are fully aware of all that Dr said on this subject, then the "re-work" comments can only mean re-worked in our minds, and not on paper, junking the old printed materials.
I will leave a little wiggle room for the possibility that Dr erred on the day he told Chris to re-work believing/faith, thinking that he had blown it in his printed texts. Dr was human, and could have had a bad day and was discouraged, thinking that we had to start all over. But then we see him bouncing back in that last teaching, but it was ignored by Geer and everyone else.
***
You seem to think that we have an official Bible to fall back on. We don't. All we have is a collection of men's opinions as to what the ancient scriptures might have said. It's not authoritative nor inerrant.
If PFAL is not God-breathed then we have no God-breathed documents from which to study at all, and expecially in English. Approximates, yes, but exact and authoritative, no. Can you point to a single book, version, or manuscript in your library that's inerrant? I mean a book that you dare not change one word from and that you can bet your life on every passage as it is printed? No, you have to intervene often in every book you have with your own authority and/or the authority of any scholars you select to trust, to fix the errors.
The contradictions you think are in PFAL will evaporate just like apparent Bible contradictions evaporate when the correct attitudes are brought to bear on them. It takes work. I used to think PFAL had error until I saw that my attitudes and techniques for working it were inadequate. When I re-work PFAL the contradictions disappear.
I trust PFAL to be God-breathed, and I have abundant documentation (and can supply it) of Dr saying this is what we are supposed to think about them. If he's wrong I'm going down with that ship. If PFAL is not God-breathed, there are no other ships.
God will verify these things, but we must first get around to start mastering what He already has given us. God will give us the second drop after we have received the first.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
45
44
64
30
Popular Days
Feb 9
42
Dec 12
39
Dec 8
35
Dec 13
33
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 45 posts
WordWolf 44 posts
Mike 64 posts
doojable 30 posts
Popular Days
Feb 9 2006
42 posts
Dec 12 2005
39 posts
Dec 8 2005
35 posts
Dec 13 2005
33 posts
GarthP2000
Johniam,
Doesn't sound like much of a teacher if he thinks that a D has that big of an effect on the rest of your life. But then again, I've dealt with stupid instructors before.So-o-o, you think that Romans 10:9 is tantamount to a 'D'?
I can imagine God in heaven saying "Gee Johniam, thanks a LOT!"
But seriously, I never said I was an atheist. I am not, however, a believer in fundamentalist Christianity, as a lot of that stuff I threw out after taking a serious, analytical, 'getting over of being afraid of some rabid deity striking me down for even daring to think of scrutinizing it' look at it. But hey, that's me, and I realize that different people come to different beliefs from looking at the same information.
Ya know, a few years back I would have agreed with you on this point, but I began to realize the flaw of your argument. For one thing, spending eternity with all those who were abusive/hurtful/even murderous, ... and they get eternity in heaven anyway?? What kind of paradise is that?I've heard one person in TWI about 20 years ago say that if Ghandi wasn't born again, and if Hitler was, that despite what respective good/evil they might have done, Hitler would be enjoying heaven, and Ghandi would be frying in the fiery depths of hell, and that's just the way God would have it; too bad, so sad, deal with it!
:blink: And *I'm* the stupid one for not wanting (what I would call) a Stepford Wives like situation like that? Better yet, I think I would call that nothing less than Orwellian. ... Thanks, but no thanks, I want nothing to do with that kind of life! Heaven my a**!
P.S.,
Thank you, as I am doing just that, ... by avoiding theologies like yours.
B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WW,
You conveniently limit your definition of "context" to to an individual post.
When I say context I mean the whole thread, or at least that vicinity of pages if it's a long thread.
Context can be far reaching also, it the exact same topic is discussed on other threads.
The ease you describe in finding things in my record here is exaggerated.
I tried to look up the quotes here and was frustrated by no ability to make big jumps in the page numbers. Because I have dial-up, that can take a long time. I gave up. It would take me a while to search my saved copies too, because they fill many CDs, and CD players on computers, or at least mine, take forever and a day to re-read the directory of a newly inserted disk.
I repeat:
It's not easy to see the context of my quotes the way you present them.
Only the most determined and the more wealthy in leasure time can do it.
When I say something quirky, it could be a figure of speech.
You don't care to see the intent of my tiny number of quirky comments.
You only want to hang me with them.
You have no intent of seeing how they fit into the canon of my other posts.
The quirky to lucid ratio in my overall posting is surely .00001 or something like that.
You focus only on what you can use to destroy my credibility to new people.
Such focus demands you not allow or discourage the quirky to stand in the field of lucidity they sit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I think 'quirky' is THE LEAST of the adjectives that we can use to describe your comments.
:wacko:
Here is but one example:
Canon?? So your posts are now at PFAL's (supposed) level of God Breathed, ehhh? ..... Uhmmmmm YAH!And 'lucid'?? Frankly, I think you got that 0.00001 ratio backwards, chief.
P.S.,
THAT'S the problem!!
Most of us haven't enough leisure time! We're too busy with mundane and non-'spurchel' crap, .... like jobs and real life friends, to devote to understanding your ... 'quirks'. Thanks for the heads-up!
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No, Garth.
If I got the ratio backwards you wouldn't have understood that line or any of the others.
***
It's a common figure of speech to use "canon" instead of "body of collected work."
Google it.
I found first off:
canon - a rule or especially body of rules or principles generally established as valid and fundamental in a field or art or philosophy; "the neoclassical canon"; "canons of polite society"
I've used canon for things from Shakespeare to Sherlock Holmes.
Nice try... NOT!
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Nice try Mikey, but the way YOU use the concept of 'canon', it fits right within my post.
... back to you.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Hi Garth..then one would have to begin to ponder on what heaven contains and how it functions and how God has set it up (and I think that would be quite an egotistical and foolish thing to do )
To be honest I think much of what happened here on earth by many will be lost in insignificance really when suddenly faced with eternity, paradise, eternal health and joy etc..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: I've heard one person in TWI about 20 years ago say that if Ghandi wasn't born again, and if Hitler was, that despite what respective good/evil they might have done, Hitler would be enjoying heaven, and Ghandi would be frying in the fiery depths of hell, and that's just the way God would have it; too bad, so sad, deal with it!
Rev. 21:4 - And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are all passed away.
Too good to be true?
I recently read the Reader's Digest interview with Tom Cruise. He said he thought it was beyond arrogance to think we're the only ones, that there's nothing out there (on other planets). Yet somehow it's not arrogant to think there's no God? Go figure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
...and of course it's not arrogant to think you have the nature of God and his (or her) dealings with man all figured out
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[WordWolf in boldface and brackets again.]
[ Again, I say that Mike's posts fall far short of a 'canon'...
Naturally, Mike missed it even posting this definition...]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Much of what you say, Mike, can be read and understood in the one-liners you throw out and expect others to believe as Gospel.
I'm thinking that if you really believed and were convinced of what you said your own self, you wouldn't have to *hide* behind context being from an entire page, and entire thread, or other threads where the *exact same topic* might be being discussed.
(and it puzzles me why *the exact same topic* would have several threads about it, when one would suffice).
Personally -- I think WordWolf has done a stellar job of quoting you (AND providing documentation) and your attempts to belittle his efforts will amount to naught since it seems you have a hard time facing an issue head-on, and utilize *duck and dodge* techniques at every opportunity.
He provides quotes, and documentation.
You provide supposition, and no documentation.
But of course -- to fully understand what you have said, we must:
read it in the verse;
read it in the context;
read it in it's previous usage;
(and I suppose this applies too---)
read to whom it was written.
And no -- I do not have the *leisure time* to read all your stuff, or try to figure out where you are being facetious vs. serious.
If yer trying to *fun us* (in your terms), let us know ahead of time so you don't get blamed for anything needlessly, ok?
I'd hate to see that happen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
PS -- did I really say this?????
Hmmm -- guess I did. Surely enough you are convinced in your own mind, but there must be some nagging doubt back there somewhere since you continue to make excuses, rationalize away disputations, and (yes) move the goalposts whenever an accurate accusation is leveled your way.
If you were 100% convinced, you wouldn't be *waffling* like you are (these days).
Either stand by what you said, or say nothing.
(I guess the last is too much to expect, eh?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
The waffling you perceive is in your wishful thinking, just like WW's false charge of my turnabout on plagiarism. He STILL hasn't proved his conjecture true. You folks just can't stand my message and can't deal with it directly so you all go after me.
I'm tired of talking about me. My message speaks for itself and to those who want to know. Those who only want to justify their rebellion against God, their rejection of PFAL, will have to answer to Him.
Get off me and onto the topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mike seems unable to have read my response.
Anyone want to bet money that-if I magically produce the
quotes-
that he will deny he ever denied he said them?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
In the interests of making sure I am being absolutely clear
and leaving out wiggle-room,
when I posted this....
And said that Mike denied the plagiarism outright,
what I'm specifically saying is that we discussed
how vpw took the work of other Christians-
Leonard's class, Stiles' book, Bullinger's books-
and made the voluntary decision to take material
from them and "write"/plagiarize books with his
own name as the author.
Initially (2002), Mike arrived and claimed that
God gave vpw the substance of the books-
that they were a collaboration between vpw
and God, and no books/classes from the
others were involved. Any resemblance to
the contrary was due to God giving, say,
Bullinger revelation, then later giving the
SAME revelation to vpw, who never
touched the Bullinger book, and thus,
never committed the moral and legal CRIME
of plagiarism.
Is it starting to sound familiar, Mike?
Or are you going to categorically deny
you ever claimed exactly that?
=========
The "moving the goalposts" thing and
rewriting history has come up a number
of times.
For example, I once quibbled with Tom
Strange as to the placement of 2 words
in Tom's synopses of Mike's posts.
(Which would be welcome right about
now, BTW.)
I wanted the synopsis he posted to be
as perfect as possible, so I questioned
Tom as to 2 words. Mike had NEVER
questioned their placement.
IMMEDIATELY Mike wove an elaborate
tale about how he'd left that unchallenged
for months "to give Tom enough rope to
hang himself." As it turns out, I later
agreed with Tom's usage once Tom
ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
Mike dropped the non-issue that,
supposedly, hung Tom.
Another time, I was fond of quoting
an error in one of vpw's books,
which I referred to as
"the Amazing Morphin' Man!"
In one chapter, Paul speaks of a man
he knew years ago, and then the
chapter suddenly applies the
description to Paul himself.
This lead to an interesting
discussion in the Doctrinal forum
(which Mike did NOT participate in.)
Someone claimed that there exist
historical documents from Church
Fathers
(documents which Mike normally
would eschew,
since Mike said The Word was LOST
in the First Century,
and these writers wrote AFTER the
First Century AD)
that suggest Paul WAS that man.
If one is to "read what's written"
(a PFAL tool), then the Church
Father was wrong, and it was
"private interpretation",
which means that vpw's book
had an error, which means
it's not Scripture.
If the Church Father was right,
then the PFAL tool of all Scripture
explaining itself in the verse right
where it's written, and the disdain
for the early church documents-
and Mike's position that the Word
was LOST to the 2nd/3rd/4th
Century AD Christians-
are all in ERROR.
I can call it either way.
However, either one disqualifies
Mike's basic doctrines.
Mike, of course, missed ALL the
implications,
saw that someone posted a
rationale that might explain
away the error,
and now announced that he'd
known all along about that
church father's comment,
and that this is why he never
answered my claims there
was an error in the chapter.
It would not surprise me to see that
Mike remembers the exchange
completely differently.
However, it's all in the forums.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
...and by the way, I can reject PFAL as a primary source for truth without rejecting any truth that may be contained in it.
There are things in it that are true, some that he plagiarized, some that he came up with on his own. Nonetheless, Wierwille, in my opinion, discredited himself as someone that I would trust to present me the truth.
So, mastering PFAL? Mastering any other of Wierwille's writings? I don't think so.
Again, does that mean that I think it's all false? Not at all. Do I think it's not useful on some level? No. Can I deny that PFAL was a vehicle for many people to learn how to read the bible and to some extent understand it? Of course not.
The plagiarism, the lying, the invented definitions of Greek and Hebrew words, the unsupported assertions all make it difficult to accept PFAL as something that should be utilized, let alone mastered. Wierwille's presentation of himself as a scholar of biblical languages was not true, and his understanding of some of his primary sources, like Bullinger, was incomplete.
Frequently Wierwille's premises are false, rendering any conclusions based upon them false as well. "Working the Word" and "checking it out for oneself" takes more work than most of us ever put into it, or were even equipped to do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I do deny now, and did then deny then, that what is perecived to be the sin and crime of plagiarism was committed by Dr in producing the PFAL books.
There's no change in my policy.
What you folks perceive as plagiarism I deny IS plagiarism.
This has been my stand all along. Maybe someday I'll take the time to locate all my posts to prove this to anyone who wants, but I doubt it. It's not that important a subject to me.
WW, you're confusing my denial of the perceived phenomena with a denial of the phenomena.
There's no denial that many passages in PFAL are very close to passages in other writings.
I never denied this phenomenon years ago, and I do not deny it now.
What I deny now (as always) is that the phenomenon constitutes the sin or even the crime of plagiarism.
THIS denial I have posted on in spades, and I stand by it now.
I have covered this denial of guilt on Dr's part from many angles, and it is THESE angles that you refuse to deal with. Instead you focus on me. The record you are leaving is one of refusal to consider God's perspective.
Your perception of plagiarism being committed by Dr is wrong and your perception of my waffling is wrong.
Let me again state my consistent position: Dr did not commit plagiarism in producing the PFAL books. I don't care what any of you posters think about it, nor what any pointy headed lawyer nor any human court says on this, because I know Who the real owner is and what His court says about the matter.
Next subject.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Ok a few points have hit me here:
It is possible for God to call a man to service and that man to stray - once the man has strayed God's people are not indebted to follow that man. - Namely - Saul, Solomon, Baalam, Jonah (although he didnt even give the people in question the chance to reject or follow him - until after he got it back together.) :) ) Then it would stand to reason that since God understands that we are but dust AND he knows our propensity for sin and error - he would NOT require us to regard VPW as God's only man - nor has he EVER required allegiance to a man over the Word or Himself.
I'm sorry - but the plagerism is there and cannot be equivocated away. I personally think it would have added more credence to VPW to cite various sources - would have really shown how he pulled together a variety of sources and took what worked and rejected the rest - you know - research! Oh and THE BIBLE is to be our primary source for truth - not PFAL. PFAL was always just to be a means to an end.
PFAL simply cannot be new scripture - unless I have misunderstood Jesus Christ when he said that no jot or tittle would be added or subtracted. Besides - there's no real "WORD" to it. It is simply a guide to researching. Now granted, I am very thankful for the research skills I have learned. Oh and didn't VPW himself ask Chris Geer to re-work the section on Believing and Faith? At the very least you have to admit that he did not feel up to the task. I thnk that speaks volumes on more than one level. (at least 2 new threads there!)
No matter how bad our lives were in TWI - it just may NOT be the fault of the class - even with the plagerism and the inaccuracies. There really is no telling what cr*p may have befallen many of us had we stayed on the road we were on. Men with power turn to garbage. The only way things work is when we remember that only God has the true power. Not defending TWI - just pondering.
God and Jesus Christ just might very well be very interested in PFAL and JCNG - because they both profess to be the truth about THEM. I know if someone were to write something about me I would be interested - though I might not agree with it all - or any of it for that matter. I might declare it all to be out and out lies - Then I would REALLY be interested in it! They just happen to be more patient than we are because they know the truth and they know its coming!
In short:
I am certain that in many ways many of our discussions and arguments will prove to be "tempests in a teacup" for no matter what we believe God has a truth that is unchanging. I am positive that each and every person - Christian and non-Christian- will be surprised when we meet Jesus face to face. Some more than others - but we still see through a glass darkly. Our mission here on earth is to attempt to see more clearly -but I don't see any Spiritual Lasik surgery coming until we hear trumpets -(probably the subject of another thread that I'm NOT gettng into
)
You all have one thing in common - you are passionate about your beliefs. That's a start. (OK don't bite my head off for saying that someone out there has somethng in common with someone else. I need my head right now.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Some believe (I believe erroneously) that plagiarism is not noting or citing in writing, where someone got every single specific thought, idea or concept.
Others believe it is a word for word extraction of specific written text, without giving proper written acknowledgement where the word for word extraction came from.
I believe the latter is correct.
If you believe as I do, then VP did plagiarize some paragraphs.
WHY he didn't simply cite those few paragraphs he plagiarized, I don't know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
doojable,
Thank you (and oldiesman) for steering your thread back on topic and away from me.
I often think of the quandary the relatives of Uriah were in, and for many generations afterward. The revelations God gave to David were untainted by his sin, yet the reception of David's Psalms were certainly a challenge to Uriah's family. Some of them rose to the level of seeing through David's still stinging sin and embrace the authority God gave to David in spite of that sin.
***
The "re-working" of PFAL that Dr called for, if viewed in light of the many other things he said about the same subject, had to be a re-working in the mind of the student, not a re-working of the WRITTEN material, junking it and printing changed material.
***
A point of confusion that often arises when talking about PFAL is whether it's the film class or the collateral books that are being talked about. I've seen confusion here at GSC often stem from this slight ambiguity.
The "re-working" of the film class was something that was in the works in 1977, but then Dr pulled the plug on it.
Many people had relatively mastered the film class sound track, and "re-working" the exact wording of THAT material could mean either switching focus to the books and re-working the film class perception of a subject to attain the written view, or it could mean re-working the film class into a new video that more tracks with the written record.
***
For "re-working" to mean junking the written material and changing the content of the collaterals would mean a HUGE contradiction on Dr's part. This is still possible, him being human, but if that were the case I'd go with the consistently held forth written position Dr described and I'd toss the spoken.
Why would Dr tell Geer to change (re-work) the written collaterals and then turn right around and tell him(with all others) to master the collaterals? Why hasn't anyone seen this is a contradiction?
***
I disagree with your limiting of PFAL to being a means to only one end. It was that, but it is more now. Because I came back to written PFAL it is the case that I enjoy a fresh view of it. I see it as foretelling prophecy that may have had some great benefits decades ago, but that it's application NOW is much, much greater. It fortells and deals with the situation we are in right now.
Before it was a means to see how the ancient scriptures worked. Now it is a means to see the new administration where God is revealing His Son, first to us grads and later to the rest of the world. The ONLY people who can see this are the very few who literally obey the frequent urgings of Dr to master the written aspect of the class. So far, all leadership has done everything but this.
The levels of mastery we accomplished decades ago was wonderful then. It helped us see what we were supposed to see, but it was not then available to see Christ. Now it is. We must come back and re-work our perception of what is in those books to see what is available now.
Back then our strong focus was on the KJV. Now we need to focus on PFAL. Back then we did KJV word studies. Now we need to do PFAL word studies, tracking words as they are used in the PFAL texts like we used to do in the KJV with our Young's Concordances. We don't have concordances for PFAL... yet. But we can do our best with what we have.
Little to none of our collateral study has included the idea that they are God-breathed. When we adopt that attitude we will see much more than before.
Far from being exhausted of their value, the PFAL writings are an absolute treasure, and they attract all of the adversary's forces of influence to blow us all away from our calling with great ferocity. It takes great determination to obey Dr's instructions to master PFAL in it's written form, but God will help those who want to rise above tradition. So far only a very small number have dared re-open, re-work the writings we were given by God.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Mike, if what you say is true, that folks need to master PFAL: how does one go about mastering it, and how does one KNOW they have actually done it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Um - Mike - Dr told Chris Geer to work on Beleiveing and Faith within the last few years before his death.
"The "re-working" of PFAL that Dr called for, if viewed in light of the many other things he said about the same subject, had to be a re-working in the mind of the student, not a re-working of the WRITTEN material, junking it and printing changed material."
I feel fairly sure that this is a major assumption and at least for me defies logic. - Sorry
I disagree with the expansion of PFAL to being new scripture - I simply cannot buy that one.
It seems to me that God would never limit himself regarding seeing Jesus Christ. OMG - he gave prophesies, stellar signs, angels and much more to help people see the Christ THE FIRST TIME. Why hide him now in an obscure class?
If I understand you right you're approach to this subject is like the finding of the scriptures and the rebuilding of the wall.
Ezra, and Nehemiah all over again - but this time it is PFAL that is to be rediscovered. I really fo have some problems with that - so if my eyes are blinded - well then pray that they be opened - but I'm not revisiting any of it at this time. God HIMSELF would have to tell me to do so. I went through major healing to get away form worshipping the work of research - that is an addiction I will only revisit with clear and present orders. Not with "God told me to tell you..."
I found contradictions in the class when I was a new grad. can't remeber them now - I just overlooked them because I accept contradictions from men.
Not trying to focus on you. I have just read way too much CS Lewis in my time and I took this class on logic - so this is just not jiving on so many levels that my red flags are blinking faster than the tailight on my car that is out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
oldiesman,
The questions you ask are often asked of me. The first one is pretty easy: start by opening the books and reading them a lot and only them. That's the first step to mastering anything, right?
I've also just mentioned word studies. In the past I've included many tips, and that mastering PFAL is just like what we did as we worked our KJVs. We can memorize the chapters and section titles, along with key passages. The HOW of mastering is not difficult, once the books are opened and being read. If yo or anyone wants to START mastering, saddle up alongside with any other grads who are dong the same thing. I'll gladly start a thread on mastering techniques or PM with anyone on it, once their books are opened and focused reading is taking place.
You second question, how to know when we're finished is odd. Why do you even want to know that? I look at it as a lifetime thing. It's more the attitude of mastering than the accomplished tasks that are important. Each person has differing abilities. When we are highly focused on doing our best to master the writings then God can fill in any gaps we need filling.
***
doojable,
Thank you again, for you willingness to dismiss me as the topic and focusing on what we came here for.
I realize Dr's "re-work" remarks to Chris were late in the game, but so was his last teaching where he clearly and publicly put on tape TWICE that we all needed to master the written materials that come with the class.
I know that when I came back to the collaterals I had a lot of re-working to do in my head. You'll see the same thing if you take a close peek.
It takes repetition to make a new idea fit in when contradictory ideas were in place for may years prior. If you think it through how many times Dr told us to master the collaterals, right up to the end, then why would Dr also say to junk those collaterals? It doesn't make sense. It DOES make sense if the many urgings of Dr's are not held in mind. Most grads are totally unaware of them.
Many posters here have claimed that Dr never told us to have the attitude toward the collaterals I hold forth, yet it's in the record that Dr said on microphone and wrote to that effect often. The attitude I take regarding the collaterals being new revelation given in modern English regarding THIS time is one I received FROM the collaterals themselves. It takes study to see that they say this.
When you are fully aware of all that Dr said on this subject, then the "re-work" comments can only mean re-worked in our minds, and not on paper, junking the old printed materials.
I will leave a little wiggle room for the possibility that Dr erred on the day he told Chris to re-work believing/faith, thinking that he had blown it in his printed texts. Dr was human, and could have had a bad day and was discouraged, thinking that we had to start all over. But then we see him bouncing back in that last teaching, but it was ignored by Geer and everyone else.
***
You seem to think that we have an official Bible to fall back on. We don't. All we have is a collection of men's opinions as to what the ancient scriptures might have said. It's not authoritative nor inerrant.
If PFAL is not God-breathed then we have no God-breathed documents from which to study at all, and expecially in English. Approximates, yes, but exact and authoritative, no. Can you point to a single book, version, or manuscript in your library that's inerrant? I mean a book that you dare not change one word from and that you can bet your life on every passage as it is printed? No, you have to intervene often in every book you have with your own authority and/or the authority of any scholars you select to trust, to fix the errors.
The contradictions you think are in PFAL will evaporate just like apparent Bible contradictions evaporate when the correct attitudes are brought to bear on them. It takes work. I used to think PFAL had error until I saw that my attitudes and techniques for working it were inadequate. When I re-work PFAL the contradictions disappear.
I trust PFAL to be God-breathed, and I have abundant documentation (and can supply it) of Dr saying this is what we are supposed to think about them. If he's wrong I'm going down with that ship. If PFAL is not God-breathed, there are no other ships.
God will verify these things, but we must first get around to start mastering what He already has given us. God will give us the second drop after we have received the first.
Edited by MikeLink 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.