There are quite a few examples, but one that comes up for me immediately is the role of suffering in the life of a believer. I remember having questions about Acts 16, for example, when Paul and Silas obeyed the Lord and went to Macedonia to preach the gospel and then got thrown in jail and beaten for their faith and obedience.
ex10, can you elaborate? How did the discussion go on that record, and it's meaning(s)? Thanks.
P.S. I know I'm not contributing much to the other discussions, so I hope this all fits with the thread topic. Come to think of it, what wouldn't? :)
It's hard to for me to remember, sometimes, the exact circumstances and settings of things. Some are crystallized in my brain forever, other things, not. Details get fuzzy, ya know, and I have the egocentric habit of remembering my questions, more than anything else.
I hope this makes sense.
I worked in the teacher's room alot, and you know how intense it could get could during a big teaching event, like corps night or something. Don't even mention ROA. But anyway, sometimes after lesser important teaching events, it was actually possible to have a semi-private conversation with VPW. He would ask for feed back. Or sometimes after one of those informal sharing smaller group things, it was actually possible to ask questions.
It was risky, though, cause one never quite knew what would set him off, or really touch him.
Anyway, all's I remember is asking the question about Act 16, in the BRC backroom. It must've had something to do with the teaching. I remember Vince F. was there. And he looked at me like I had 3 heads.
It was really bugging me, in my waybrain, "law of believing" mode of thinking, that Paul and Silas got beaten and thrown in jail for obeying the "Macedonian Call." I mean, yeah, the angel busted them out of jail, but couldn't they have done it before the beating?
Looking back on it, I had alot of nerve, (without realizing it) and totally put VPW on the spot. But, he liked me. :blink: And never seemed to mind my questions. (A habit that got me into no end of trouble at Emporia, btw.)
I don't want to make it sound like I was some kind of inner secret, special person that had VPW's ear all the time or anything. Or I was some kind of great bible scholar. That was NOT the case. I was just a kid, that was very naive, who worked in the backroom.
As I recall, we talked a little about suffering, he quoted that verse about persecution following those who live godly in Christ Jesus. And said more work needed to be done on the subject. I believed him. I actually thought that somebody who had a research brain was gonna look into it. <_< And the question did come up again, later in a bigger more formal setting. Same answer.
I was appeased for the moment. But not really. :(
I hope this recounting of my foggy memory helps. I thought about pm ing my reply. But maybe somehow, if I share it in front of God and everbody, it will help somebody put the pieces together. :unsure:
Oh, and I should add, I didn't always work the back room. Sometimes my job was to sit by the light switch that was on the wall of the BRC halfway between the front and back on the right. I had the illustrious honor of flipping the switch off when way prod played, and switching it back on, after they finished. :o
I never could figure why that switch was where it was.....
I don't want to make it sound like I was some kind of inner secret, special person that had VPW's ear all the time or anything. Or I was some kind of great bible scholar. That was NOT the case. I was just a kid, that was very naive, who worked in the backroom.
As were we all. And I bet you were the BEST at switching that switch. What year was that?
I think you're example explains why LCM ended up buried in athletic metaphors. In a warfare, there's casualties, victors, defeats, spoils, captures and prisoners. People get hurt. There's strategy, the enemy gets routed and decimated.
In athletics there's winners and losers. Nobody gets killed or seriously injured - unless they leave the competition, in which case you're a GREASEspot, ya puh-nk!
Short answer - both apply to our lives, in different ways (and not all of the ways LCM taught IMO )
I think it does warrant study though. But the essence of it isn't too hard to understand at this point, I think. Then, I dunno.
Regarding my Barth analogy you wrote: “Since we only have vpw's word on this incident, I can't trust it any more than any other incident- and vpw's track record on inventing incidents is too long for me to trust it.”
VPW’s word on this incident is only incidental to the point I was making, which was that we need a theological makeover. You either missed that point or occluded it.
[i got the point you were trying to make. It was not worth commenting on.
"We need a theological makeover."
That's the position of most Christians in most organizations,
leaders, laymen and the people playing the music.
HOWEVER, you based this reason on an apocryphal incident (tall tale) of vpw.
THAT was worth commenting on.]
***
vpw spent the entire time of twi and pfal insisting that it was better than ANYTHING the Christian church can offer outside of twi and pfal. (Since it was a composite of the works of a few other Christians, this was-at least-an outright lie and a deception. Mike is perfectly comfortable with this, and keeps saying that God WANTED it this way-God wanted vpw to plagiarize...”
STOP! Hold it right there!
Mike is perfectly comfortable with this, and keeps saying that God WANTED it this way-God wanted vpw to UTILIZE...
Big difference. God was the REAL owner of the intellectual property and God wanted Dr to utilize said material.
[No, same thing. Try reading slower. When you admitted to the
plagiarism, you said "it was ok because the others approved", then
when that was disproven, you switched to "it was ok because God
Almighty instructed vpw to plagiarize." That's what I SAID you said.
pfal IS the composite of the works of a few other Christians.
This "God can endorse breaking the law" thing is perfectly fine
with you-although it violates the Bible, but hey, what else is new?]
And you forgot how Dr had to OMIT lots of material too... by revelation,
And you forgot how Dr had to omit lots of other teachers from the process too... by revelation.
[Actually, vpw didn't OMIT. vpw started with a base class-Leonard's,
and a base book-Stiles. With each, vpw began by including the complete
contents, neither adding nor subtracting.
That was version 1.0 of both. Period.
From there, vpw then proceeded to NOT take out anything,
and to ADD from OTHER SOURCES.
That's why Leonard's one class became a 3-part class under vpw-
there was material added.
That's also why editions after the first RTHST book got bigger-
as Bullinger's stuff was added.
He didn't OMIT diddly.
He ADDED other Christians' works as it suited him.
In some cases, he added error-
like "the difference between the kingdom of heaven and the
kingdom of God" when there is none.
This means he either added error "by revelation" or made his
additions without revelation.
Guess what most people will say?]
And let’s strike me being comfortable with “...an outright lie and a deception, OK? ! If I thought it was an outright lie and a deception I’d reject it. So, stop mis-representing me.
[Let's see. vpw claimed-the entire history of pfal and twi-that NO other
Christians can POSSIBLY match up. vpw's claim was supposedly based on
and validated by the strength of the material. vpw got the material
from other Christians. vpw KNEW his sources. vpw KNEW other Christians,
therefore, had the SAME material. Therefore, vpw KNEW other Christians
had-at WORST-comparable "weight". His claims otherwise, therefore,
were false, and known-by him-to be false at the times he made the
claims. Therefore, they were outright lies. Since the purpose of the
outright lies was to get others to believe them, this was also a
deception.
So far, I'm documented.
You're comfortable with pfal being a composite and said God wanted it
that way, and plagiarized. (That is, it was not wrong to leave out ALL
the citations.) That's also documented-in this post, among other
places. My comment was that you were comfortable with this
being a composite, which you are. You are comfortable with how
he did it-and are uncomfortable with the lie and deception being
CALLED a lie and deception,
and prefer they be called something else.
Just so we're clear on that.]
***
You wrote: “God WANTED vpw to leave out footnotes, etc. Virtually everything in twi was an advertisement for pfal- or something that advertised pfal (like the wow program) or otherwise centralized power to vpw (like the corps.)”
Yes. It was right and proper for Dr to have absolute power over everything that was done in HIS ministry. And since PFAL was of God it was right and proper to promote it.
[And it was "right and proper" for God to contradict the Bible in the
process-which vpw expressly spoke against and said was IMPOSSIBLE.
And it was "right and proper" for vpw to disregard copyright safeguards
when it came to anyone else's books, but when it came to his own-
composed of copyright violations-he insisted on full protection of the
law. This is called "hypocrisy" if anyone other than vpw does it.
If vpw does it, this is called "right and proper."]
***
You wrote: “Mike, see, views that tape as a damning indictment of everybody in twi except vpw.”
Not so. I think it was in my post above to doojable that I mentioned the inefficiencies that hurt when a prophet sins. As to the meltdown in 1986-89, that was all of our (especially the clergy and then the Corps) doing. There was no reason for the whole thing to fall. If leadership had done what “Followers of Us” urged as I posted above, then it would have straightened out.
[That means it was "everybody's fault." Thank you for
backing up my comment while attempting to deny it.]
And I never said Dr was never the cause of any problems. You again misrepresent me.
[When it comes to "the fall of the ministry",
you deny vpw had any ulterior motives in how said ministry
was set up, you deny vpw had any ulterior motives in how
said ministry was run, you deny the wow program and the corps
were designed and executed-by vpw-with gross deficiencies,
and you've had some interesting rationales when it's been
brought up that vpw raped, molested and drugged women.
Your track record is that you claim
"vpw had problems, but none that affected the running of
the ministry, NOR its deficiencies. That's the fault of all
the people he trained and appointed-but he can't be blamed
for that either."
Again, I represented you CORRECTLY-which is not how you
WISH to be represented.]
***
You wrote: “So, Mike blames us all collectively and individually. And if you never met vpw, then you lack sufficient experience and are too moronic to comprehend what Mike's talking about without such experience- which is the ONLY thing that allows one to agree with Mike.”
Another lying misrepresentation.
[Another overblown claim.]
I never said meetig Dr was crucial. Seeing Dr’s ministry when it was thriving is crucial to seeing through the BS you are so prolific with.
So, instead of saying you needed to have "met vpw",
you said you needed to have "seen vpw operate while alive,
and address it and interact with it when alive."
That's similar to, but not identical to, what I said.
Not the same thing, but hardly a "lying misrepresentation."
But of course, Mike's too busy slapping that label on EVERYTHING
he doesn't like...]
Seeing Dr’s ministry when it was thriving is crucial to seeing that the PFAL is more important than focusing on endless soap operas.
[As you all might remember,
"endless soap operas" means
"the evil actions vpw performed personally upon people,
destroying some lives, humiliating others, raping and covering
his tracks, and making himself look the pious servant of God
in the process." Hardly sounds like the same thing,
but that's a Mike-ism.]
And just in case you want to misrepresent on this, I said “crucial,” not “sufficient.” It is necessary for most grads to see this, but there are other factors that must be in place too.
***
You wrote: “vpw makes commercial after commercial for pfal. And many of us, without hearing them, had set out to "master" pfal on our own-which is why some of us can recite sections of the books without having read them for DECADES.”
That should read “some of us can recite SOME VERY LIMITED sections of the books while remaining totally ignorant of many more others.”
[No, it read correctly. We remain "totally ignorant" of the special
occulted messages Mike claims to have found by discarding the clear
reading of the contents of the books. Those messages require the
discarding of clear thinking and logic, and selling out to Mike's
message before STARTING. Funny how most of us don't want
our heads shaved...
(That's a figure of speech.)]
***
You wrote: “Regarding the "new rules" that Mike claims that others are imposing on Wierwille, the pertinant rule dates from the Ten Commandments, if not before. It's simple, basic honesty, as illustrated in the commandment to not bear false witness. Wierwille represented other people's work as his own.”
First of all it was not so much the work of other people as it the work of God, working in them.
[And when it was printed, even before the copyrights were
applied, it was THEIR work.
Everyone EXCEPT Mike and vpw adherents can see that clearly.]
Second, Dr did not represent “other people's work as his own.”
[Yes, he did.]
I remind you of this:
(With my re-formatting and truncation
in re-presenting the following quotes)[/size]
First dmiller wrote:
Docvic (plain and simple) took from other's works,
and passed it off as his own.
“Lots of the stuff I teach is not original.
Putting it all together so that it fit -- that
was the original work. I learned wherever
I could, and then I worked that with the
Scriptures. What was right on with the
Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.”
Victor Paul Wierwille,
1972 The Way Living In Love
Elena Whiteside page 209
The previous statement by VP disproves that he “passed it off as his own.”
[That disproves NOTHING.
As we've gone over lots of times,
when you write something-and vpw learned this
in school, many, many times- in the body of work
you are writing, you are LEGALLY and MORALLY
required to cite your sources.
When it came to the Orange Book itself,
there are NO citations to Leonard NOR Bullinger.
What is there? A statement on pages 119-120
that
"I decided to quit reading around The Word, Consequently,
I have spent years studying The Word-its integrity, its
meaning its words."
In the sentence preceeding this, he says he hauled thousands
of books to the city dump.
So, IN the Orange Book, he cites NO other author,
says he trashed his books by other authors, and spent
his time reading the Bible itself.
(That it's the Bible ONLY is clear from the preceeding
paragraphs, which I can reproduce again if needed.
So, in the Orange Book, his message is clear:
this book is by me and no other human.
What about the White Book?
First of all, the early editions mention an anonymous
man who put the material together for him.
Later editions leave this man out completely-which
means he MEANT to hide that he had ANY source there.
What he DID say, in the introduction:
"I prayed that I might put aside all that I had heard and
thought out myself, and I started anew with the Bible as
my handbook as well as my textbook."
That's ALL he says about his sources in the White Book,
except the preceeding paragraphs say that other Christians
are no-nothings on the subject.
So, what was his stance in the White Book?
The book was constructed by vpw and vpw only,
using the Bible and the Bible only.
Now, what "official acknowledgement" says otherwise?
You have to completely discard whatever the Orange
Book AND the White Book say about themselves.
You have to get a copy of TW:LiL.
You have to turn to page 209.
There you will find-what, a confession that he retyped
Stiles' book with Bullinger's books to make the White Book?
No.
You find him say
"Lots of stuff I teach is not original."
Which means what?
It doesn't mean "I copied these books entirely from others.
Lots of stuff EVERYBODY teaches is not original. That does not
say ANYTHING about plagiarizing other books.
"Putting it together so that it fit"
means what?
Well, Leonard's class fit itself. Bullinger and Stiles' books
fit themselves. Adding them to Leonard was a sort of
"putting together", but they already fit before he did anything.
"I learned wherever I could, and worked that with the Scriptures.
What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't,
I dropped."
What does that mean?
To anyone reading the plain meaning, that means the rather
common statement:
"I read what they said, then I looked it up for myself.
Then I made up my own mind. Sometimes I agreed with
them, sometimes I didn't."
That's what many Christians do all the time.
That's NOT what happened with the books, however.
He didn't "work" anything except his xerox machine.
He did a cut-and-paste of their work, period.
The plain meaning of this passage essentially tells us
NOTHING.
"Oh, I've read some other Christians write some stuff.
I went to Scripture to check it out. When I concluded they
were wrong, I disagreed, when I concluded they were right,
I agreed."
That falls FAR short of admitting plagiarism or admitting
taking entire books of other people and mixing them together
to make your "own" book.
And even if it WAS an attempt to admit such a thing
(if so, it's a pitifully faint attempt),
it would STILL have to be in the ORIGINAL WORKS,
and not buried on the 209th page of a book completely
unrelated to either.
Later editions of both books included NO such correction.
In fact, when vpw hid the one vague reference to Stiles,
he acted to FURTHER obscure his sources.
vpw did the OPPOSITE of admitting his plagiarism.]
In 1972 he said it wasn't original; ... if you don't believe he said that,
there it is, right before your eyes.
My explanation of how plagiarism works isn't "original" either.
That's NOT the same as saying I copied the explanation of someone
else and claimed it was my own.
What he said was nothing like what happened when he took the
complete books of others and added them to each other.]
He deserves credit for not passing it off as his own,
but rather saying “lots of the stuff I teach is not original.”
[No, he "passed them off as his own" entirely.
Page 209 of TW:LiL was not pasted in to copies of the White or Orange Books.]
If he was trying to hide something, and pass off all of this as his own,
[Which he WAS]
he would not have made the previous statement,
[Which addressed his plagiarism in NO way, shape or form,
making the passage IRRELEVANT to the discussion,
AND it was buried in a side-comment in one book]
nor have other authors' books,
from whence he learned, selling in the Way Bookstore for all to read.
Stiles' book was never carried in the Way Bookstore.
Bullinger's books that he completely ripped off-except
"How to Enjoy the Bible" were NEVER carried in the Way Bookstore.
And there were MANY of those. Now that the internet exists, it's EASY
to find them and see what was done with them.
But I agree that the ABSENCE of their presence in the bookstore
You misrepresented me again. You wrote (with my bold fonts) that this is my position: “...anyone who looks at Wierwille's written works with an open mind and sees it for what it is automatically and by definition becomes an ‘unfit researcher.’”
I say that to see it for what it is requires a lot more work than you do. You assume it’s not God-breathed and then you pronounce what it is. You ignore the totality of what it says it is. You are unfit to work with me using my method because you violate my method. I refuse to use your method and assumptions.
At this point, I honestly believe Mike has reached a state of
delusion and hallucination great enough to make this an UNINTENTIONAL
vicious lie-as opposed to the INTENTIONAL vicious lie it would be
otherwise.
Raf never "assumed" that PFAL is "not God-breathed".
Raf took the clear meaning of the text for what it was.
When Mike came in with his claim that the plain meaning of the
text was to be discarded in favour of "HIDDEN" messages that
declare pfal to be God-breathed,
Raf took the standards GIVEN IN PFAL and applied the TO PFAL
and proved that PFAL falls FAR short of God-breathed.
To those who find pfal useful, this is NOT a shock.
It's only upsetting news to those who have replaced their
Bibles entirely with pfal as a new Bible.
So, Mike-again-lied-again-about Raf's method-again,
after having been corrected about that MANY TIMES.
However, I suspect his delusions divert the plain meaning
of any such correction, so Mike is more to be pitied for his
delusions than blamed for his lies.
Of course, it is MIKE who ignores the totality of what it says.
The Orange Book says "this is a book on keys".
Mike ignores that, and says it is a Bible REPLACEMENT,
and not a tool for understanding the Bible.
Raf refuses Mike's method because Mike's method
requires one to discard linear thought.
Mike refuses to use Raf's methods because the results are
ones Mike has decided he will never accept.
Never mind that the "method" in question was outlined
IN PFAL to begin with.][/b]
doojable,
You wrote: “Ok I just can't seem to figure out what an "OLG" is __ please explain”
It stands for Older Leadership-like Grads.
By older I mean those who were around to see that PFAL and the ministry DID work well at one time.
By leadership-like I mean any grad who led at anything, or went WOW, or took the AC, or made coffee for twig. Basically it means any grad with a minimum of motivation, love, and brains.
[unless that motivation, love and brains leads them to conclusions other
than those Mike proposes-
then they are "unfit researchers", "crybabies", etc.]
By older I mean those who were around to see that PFAL and the ministry DID work well at one time.
By leadership-like I mean any grad who led at anything, or went WOW, or took the AC, or made coffee for twig. Basically it means any grad with a minimum of motivation, love, and brains.
Well, I THOUGHT it worked well at one time. Time proved it different.
You wrote: “...he's completely wrong with the basis of his doctrine, as well as how the ‘written pfal’ is supposedly superior to the ‘taped pfal’...”
Anyone who worked with Dr know that he put much more time and effort, as well as employing the additional efforts of staff, into the written product compared to the taped and videoed product.
[Just going by what they posted here, they said that the
written pfal WAS the taped pfal, with THEM editing the thing,
not vpw. They did the best job they could accurately reflecting
what was on tape-content and intent.
You said HE put in the time and effort. They said THEY put in
the time and effort. THEY were eyewitnesses, primary sources.
Therefore, whose account should I believe?]
Plus, there’s more material in the books than in the film class. The “time-travel” of Paul to the third heaven in the film is on the order of a few sentences, while it is an entire chapter in WWAY.
[The Orange Book is separate from THIS statement.
THAT was them condensing his stuff.
As to the "time-travel" thing, I'm surprised you're bringing that up,
since that entire chapter contains a rather glaring error-
Paul talking about someone he knew once who saw a vision
of the future suddenly morphs into Paul himself-
and can ONLY be correct if one discards vpw's basic assertion
that Christians after the First Century church lost "The Truth".
The ONLY possible defense of this glaring error is to go to
church history, and find that-several centuries AFTER the
First-a few Christian writers believed that was actually Paul
rather than the account being explained "in the verse where
it is written."
PFAL's professed study techniques-when applied to this chapter-
say this chapter is wrong. The only way to save it is to discard
the techniques taught IN pfal, AND accept that vpw was
completely WRONG about Christians descending into error-
then finding the ones that agree with this chapter-
AND IGNORING THOSE WHO DON'T.
In short, you must accept that what you want to believe is
true, is actually true-then seek the documentation to
back it up. This method was derided BY vpw many times,
and supposedly is a hallmark of the "inferior" Christians
in denominations.]
Plus, the human brain has much more real estate devoted to processing visual material compared to auditory.
[so, the VIDEOS would be more important, if we were discussing
neurosurgery.]
Plus, when reading is involved, most (if not all) people sub-vocalize the words and therefore also involve the auditory portions of their brain. Result, more is understood and remembered when reading is involved.
[sub-vocalizing would mean that the readers were silently reading
WHILE MOVING THEIR LIPS.
Do "most (if not all)" people really do that?]
***
You wrote: “Mike has met vpw a few times, and has constructed a detailed personality of him, based on those and his entire PUBLIC PERSONA. That's a completely different person than the one you've met. Mike loves the persona he's constructed.”
Actually, I’ve testified here that I had some difficulties liking the man when he was alive.
[Right-and thus your image of him is based-not on the
face-to-face encounters-
but on what I already stated.]
Why have you forgotten that? Deliberate or just sloppy?
[False dilemma. I pick Door Number 3-I was correct as stated.]
Why have you forgotten that I compared him to Mickey Mantle and other residents of the “better” tail of some bell curves? Does my complete explanation of him shaking the earth not fit in with your smear campaign, and THAT’S why you deliberately omit my explanitory comments on this subject? You are swamped in dishonesty. You are blind to your own personal attacks on me? All you want to do is smear, not represent my position accurately and fully.
[Actually,
I was GOING to spare you the FULL recall, since it wasn't
fully germane, and HUMILATING you isn't a goal of mine,
but if you insist....
To those joining us late,
Mike has discussed vpw.
Now, vpw, as many of you know,
was a fair student as far as grades went, but lazy.
That's why he consistently picked the softest options possible
from his available choices (minister over business,
homiletics over Bible languages, etc.)
If he'd applied himself more, perhaps he'd have been
a better student and less inclined to cut corners.
vpw was a fair athlete as well, playing on his high school
basketball team, but not his college one. He did like the
atmosphere, though, and associated himself with a local
professional team around that time.
Now then,
Mike has characterized this man as follows:
"He was born with an overabundance of brains and brawn."
He was "gifted, even overgifted."
"When he walked, the earth shook."
Mike genuinely believes this-that vpw was some sort
of EXTREME GENIUS and EXTREME ATHLETE,
and that his raw believing shook the earth.
I didnt want to KEEP mentioning this, since to bring this
up is to make Mike look delusional. However, Mike seems
insistent that this SUPPORTS his case somehow.
So, there you have it. Mike believes vpw was some
sort of genius, gifted physically and intellectually.
Now then, Mike has attempted to defend his statements
by saying that there are professional athletes who are
famous for being gifted, and it is no different when
discussing their millionaire careers in athletics with
the games of basketball occasionally played by vpw
on an amateur level. Supposedly, it is perfectly reasonable
to compare the two, and me NOT bringing that up
DIMINISHES Mike's case.
Further, Mike's DEMANDING I include the comments
about vpw shaking the earth. vpw-whose own
inability to assert his believing over his own body
to counteract the poor health he was giving it-
supposedly shook the EARTH with his believing.
(But could not shake some cells.) His athletic
prowess also was NOT reflected into later years,
despite some UNexceptional athletes playing into
their SEVENTIES, but vpw didn't stay in shape.
Mike has also said that he thinks it is in no way
idolatrous nor hero worship to consider the man
exceptional both physically and intellectually,
the paragon of human potential.
Supposedly, me NOT bringing this up means I'm
"swamped with dishonesty."
Well,
there's 2 points of view.
A) I'm accurately reflecting Mike, and he's delusional or
lying when he says I'm not.
B) Mike's accusations are accurate, and I'm NOT
representing him fairly.
Feel free to read for yourself and draw your own
conclusions. ]
You wrote: “pfal didn't work, twi didnt work.”
Wrong and right.
We didn’t fully work PFAL, and then TWI failed as a result.
[The so-called "Law of Believing" is not a law. It fails as
stated in the video. It fails as stated in the book.
It fails as practiced by people.
Its failure to sustain vpw's life really doesn't count as
news around here anymore-and he was the supposed
master of believing- and had sufficient amounts of it
to "shake the earth".
pfal didn't work, therefore twi failed US.
Small wonder twi failed overall.]
***
You wrote: “He has declared by fiat that it wasn't vpw's fault, but everyone else's. (That wasn't just "Passing of the Patriarch-Mike's said it also.) Therefore, like PoP did, Mike blames every leader and every corps person. It's all YOUR fault. vpw is blameless- a pox on you and your ancestors! And your mother dresses you funny. And you killed vpw. And so on.”
You mix fact with error.
VPW had faults and he suffered consequences because of them. So did we.
[but according to you, those faults did not bring down the ministry.
That's the point I made-which YOU'VE made, and for some reason
are now DENYING.]
The grand scale fall of the ministry is because we had no spiritual power developed yet, being only casual students of the class on power.
[And not because it was designed and implemented wrong,
nor because its founder committed felonious sins,
according to you. I said that and you accused me of lying.]
POP was a lot more accurate than Geer wanted it to be. Dr rode circles around Geer and had him indict himself along with all the other top leaders. Search out all Dr’s usages of the word “fact” in that document, put them all together using a prior mastery of Dr written teachings on facts being 5-senses and not spiritual, and you will see that Geer unwittingly indicted himself as fact bound and not spiritual able to handle truths.
I don’t know if you saw this or anyone else, but I woke up this morning with the scenery of “A prophet is not without honor” in my head. I could see that in the machinations of the logic in my post to you that I neglected to note an exception.
The process by which that verse comes to pass in most cases was well described by me, where a prophet sins and the adversary seizes on the opportunity to besmirch the Word that prophet speaks.
Well, obviously that doesn’t work for Jesus, who spoke that verse. (He may have been quoting an OT verse: I don’t know) That didn’t thwart the adversary, though. He simply used Jesus’ family to besmirch by proxy. (I’m still groggy, with little sleep accomplished, so I don’t even know if I used “proxy” right.)
Anyway, I just woke up knowing I needed to note that. Now, if I don’t decide to go back to sleep, I’ll read the responses here and see if anyone caught my oversight.
Nice try, but it's STILL not a reflection of what the verse meant.
You wrote: “My intention was explicit: to show that it does not live up to its own definition of ‘God-breathed.’”
Well first you have to “find out” that it doesn’t live up to its own definition of “God-breathed” before you can “show” it, and you skipped that part.
For instance, you didn’t first do an exhaustive study of all the items that showed up in the Blue Book, searching them all out in all of Dr’s other writings before making your pronouncements in your published BTMS study. What you did was a limited analysis at items you felt comfortable with shooting from the hip at, and praising some sections, giving your work an appearance of objectivity.
[Actually,
he read vpw's explanation of how "God-breathed" worked,
then applied it.
Any high school graduate COULD easily do the same.
No secret initiation required.
He "read what it said". That particular technique,
many of us recall, is right out of pfal. According to vpw,
more than 85% of the Bible is explained right where it is
written. If pfal supposedly IS a Bible, that would apply
as well-MORE THAN 85% would be understood by plain
reading-without interjecting opinion like
"well, I think the good seed is"
or "well, the secret meaning of this is different"]
***
You wrote: “You've turned off your ciritical thinking on this one, and, not surprisingly, you're proud of that fact.”
You forget to mention that I spent 27 years with that critical thinking turned ON, and more than most grads around me. It got me into trouble with them at times and with God at times, me not applying what He wanted me to do as taught to me from PFAL.
[Actually, that's YOUR claim.
Objective eyewitnesses have NOT stepped forward
to substantiate it.
Since you've lied about us, what we've written and done,
and what everyone ELSE has written and done,
I'm skeptical when you're the only eyewitness to something.]
I’m not proud of turning off THAT ONE ELEMENT of my critical thinking, just relieved that I finished that course and now can FINALLY commit the rest of my life to something. I often envied the commitment that I saw others have toward PFAL and Dr, but now in hindsight I can see their commitment some of it was not well rooted and grounded and they got blown away in the frenzy that followed Dr’s death. Mine is rooted and grounded.
[Well, it's COMMITTMENT, at any rate.]
***
You wrote: “But the truth that there are errors in PFAL is there, it's documented...”
No, the product of your investigation, with your methods in place, had said that there are errors in PFAL. You can’t equate your investigation as thorough, though, because you have not utilized the research methods Dr taught us within PFAL. He taught us them so that we could eventually use them on the PFAL texts.
[Actually, he DID. You deny he did because you didn't
like the results. So far, your supposed ability to resolve
errors has yet to even substantially address any from the
previous discussion, let alone refute any of them.]
***
You wrote: “What's it been, two, three years since we all worked through that thread? And .. you... have... yet...to...resolve...a...single...error.”
Not to YOUR satisfaction have I done that, but your methods are not my methods. I tried it BOTH your way and my way, while you have only tried it your way. I have seen the subject with a larger number of eyes than you.
[You have yet to resolve a single error.
At all. Claims you have do not count.
Present a substantial case to refute ANY of them.
If it is more than moonbeams, it will stand on its own,
I had written: “Now that this thread is underway, in order to limit the size of this thread (so as to not offend those with understandable PFAL phobias), and to compartmentalize sub-topics as they emerge, maybe we could discuss having an entire forum for focusing on PFAL matters. Just a suggestion.”
You wrote in response: “Mike, you're the only one who wants that. Go ahead and make your OWN messageboard for that. If people REALLY want to discuss it, and you invite them, they'll show up.”
Oh, like they DON’T show up here when I make a post or start a thread?
[That has nothing to do with my point.
Try reading what is written.]
***
I had written: “At first I thought an entire forum would be too much, and I was bothered by the idea of rules, but Modaustin’s handling of the intro went farther than I expected, and neatly deals with some aspects I hadn’t thought through very well.”
You wrote: “Well, you DO want to control the microphone. You can do that when you control the forum.”
No, you DO want to think evil of me and you succeed. The main reason I suggest an entire PFAL forum here is in the quote of mine above this one where I say: “...in order to ... compartmentalize sub-topics as they emerge, maybe we could discuss having an entire forum for focusing on PFAL matters.”
[You are the only one that wants that, Mike.
I said that already. You missed it already.
You want an entire messageboard for that.
Fine-you can make a messageboard on anything you
want-so long as you do not violate its Terms of Service
or break the law in the process (which is usually mentioned
IN the Terms of Service.)
So, go ahead and make your own messageboard.
The rest of the GSC crowd does not want one.
The admins/mods of the GSC crowd do not want one.
So, there will be none at the GSC.
You also DO want to control the microphone. Why pretend
you don't?
Also, I don't get emotional enough about you to think
evil of you. I consider you misguided, deluded, possibly
chemical-imbalanced, and I consider it a shame your free
time is dedicated to your concept that pfal is a new Bible
rather than on something actually FROM God.
I don't think EVIL of you, nor do I hate on you.
I think your doctrine is vile, but that's a separate issue.
Just because I expose errors in your doctrine is really
insufficient justification for you to make up accusations
about me.]
You see, your intent to besmirch me blinded you to my stated reason(s) for discussing such a forum, presumably to get the thought refined before approaching Pawtucket with the suggestion.
[You can save yourself the time. Paw will never go for it.
And your doctrine already does more besmirching of you than
I could if I tried. See, it be smirching you all the time.
Finally, I saw your intention, I just didnt think it
warranted comment, since it won't work. So, why waste
time on it when there are viable options?]
I sincerely think Pawtucket is NOT going to be tricked into giving me any control here, AND I don’t even want such a heavy responsibility, not for a second!
One of the sub-topics that can emerge needing compartmental organization, like a thread of their own, is the many “thus saith” statements I’ve been waiting for three solid years for someone to challenge me to produce, like you finally did in this area of this thread.
[i've been saying it for months, and you finally caught it this time
around. Actually, an exhaustive search isn't what I asked for-
just some typical examples so we can examine what they ACTUALLY
say as opposed to "Mike says they mean this."]
I think your challenge is several items down in my itinerary here, in your next post awaiting my commentary.
I discussed this wait of mine last year in a PT thread with several people, and I have written up 22 such statements so far. I refrain from posting them right now in this fray, because in addition to the 22 items getting lost in the shuffle, it seems that many here have a lot on their mind that’s unrelated to my 22 (and growing) items. A separate thread for them would be ideal organizationally, but it would give me absolutely no power, unless I simply wanted, by the existence of such a forum, to irk some here, which I don’t.
***
WW, I am in my business lull months now, so that’s why I am now addressing your long winded posts more. A slap on my wrist by Modaustin also got me out of a year long habit pattern of rarely responding to your posts, even to the point of avoiding reading them in their entirety sometimes.
If I had the time all year round I’d be taking you on point by point like this with no problem at all.
[You make that claim, but we'll see what we see.
And "taking me on point by point" means different things to
different people. Most people would take it to mean that
you're saying you could make a respectable showing of it,
and not come out on the bottom of every dust-up.
Just wanted to make you aware of the expectations you're
setting up.]
I like using posts from people like you to launch my ideas with greater gusto and greater reception than if I were posting them relatively alone in an unvisited thread.
[We've noticed little things like "relevance" don't mean much when you're
looking for an excuse, although I think you are only second-place at that
one.]
Your attacks arouse greater energy from me, and the fray draws in more readers.
[They're spectating the car wreck.
That HARDLY is a glowing testimonial to your product.
And reverse-psychology will not work on me-
although you may have convinced yourself already.]
Although I don’t fit the definition of a troll (validated by the highest authority)
[Definitions vary. You do not fit the definition used by staff at the GSC.
The "highest authority" would be a government agency, or God Almighty.]
I do see that the principle of “Don’t feed the trolls” has some applicability here, but is lost on you with your ego in place.
[swing and a miss!]
For years I kept this a secret, but in the last six months I’ve decided it’s no longer necessary to do so. In other words, I thank you for being such a useful antagonist, but I can’t at all guarantee there are any eternal rewards for you in it.
Mike said ... Although I don’t fit the definition of a troll (validated by the highest authority)
Wolf [Definitions vary. You do not fit the definition used by staff at the GSC.
The "highest authority" would be a government agency, or God Almighty.]
I caught the tail end of this, trying to catch wolf's comments ... and I brought up the troll thing first ... so I checked wikipedia ...
Attention-seeking trolls
This class of trolls seeks to obtain as many responses as possible and to absorb a disproportionate amount of the collective attention span.
What struck me was Mike's "bragging" about the record length of his earlier thread. He revels in garnering responses.
Wikipedia further states this about some internet trolls ...
Intentionally posting an outrageous argument, deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error. Often the poster will become defensive when the argument is refuted, but may instead continue the thread through the use of further flawed arguments; this is referred to as "feeding" the troll.
A subclass of the above is the flawed proof of an important unsolved mathematical problem or impossibility (e.g. 1 = 2); however, these may not always be troll-posts, and are sometimes, at least, mathematically interesting.
I see the Mike thread as "mathematically interesting" for a few posts. You can learn something "unproving" 1=2. But the idea that the written piffle is god breathed is just too silly to spend time on. Does Mike really believe that or does he use it as a hook to reel people in? I guess it doesn't matter, the attention seeking motivation is the point.
Mike said ... Although I don’t fit the definition of a troll (validated by the highest authority)
Wolf [Definitions vary. You do not fit the definition used by staff at the GSC.
The "highest authority" would be a government agency, or God Almighty.]
I caught the tail end of this, trying to catch wolf's comments ... and I brought up the troll thing first ... so I checked wikipedia ...
Attention-seeking trolls
This class of trolls seeks to obtain as many responses as possible and to absorb a disproportionate amount of the collective attention span.
What struck me was Mike's "bragging" about the record length of his earlier thread. He revels in garnering responses.
Wikipedia further states this about some internet trolls ...
Intentionally posting an outrageous argument, deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error. Often the poster will become defensive when the argument is refuted, but may instead continue the thread through the use of further flawed arguments; this is referred to as "feeding" the troll.
A subclass of the above is the flawed proof of an important unsolved mathematical problem or impossibility (e.g. 1 = 2); however, these may not always be troll-posts, and are sometimes, at least, mathematically interesting.
I see the Mike thread as "mathematically interesting" for a few posts. You can learn something "unproving" 1=2. But the idea that the written piffle is god breathed is just too silly to spend time on. Does Mike really believe that or does he use it as a hook to reel people in? I guess it doesn't matter, the attention seeking motivation is the point.
"For years I did nothing but read around the Word of God. I
used to read two or three theological works weekly for month
after month and year after year. I knew what Professor
so-and-so said, what Dr so-and-so and the Right Reverend
so-and-so said, but I could not quote you The Word. I had
not read it. One day I finally became so disgusted and tired
of reading around The Word that I hauled over 3000 volumes
of theological works to the city dump. I decided to quit
reading around The Word. Consequently, I have spent
years studying The Word- its integrity, its meaning,
its words.
Why do we study? Because God expects us as workmen to
know what His Word says."
Receiving the Holy Spirit Today pages ix to xi, 6th paragraph
The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all
that I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew
with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook.
I did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for,
the Word of God being the will of God, the Scripture must
fit like a hand in a glove.
How do the preceeding segments fit with:
“Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.”
They don't. Not really
The quotes from PFAL and RHST say that he studied theologians, but subsequently rejected them, and started "anew" using the bible as his handbook and textbook.
The quote from TW:LIL seems to say that he considered the works of others worth studying, but that he would decide what was worth keeping and what should be discarded.
Well first you have to “find out” that it doesn’t live up to its own definition of “God-breathed” before you can “show” it, and you skipped that part.
Your ability to accuse me of making the very mistakes YOU are making is astonishing.
Actually, I did not skip that part. You see, I went straight to that part with a simple equation (VPW just LOVED simple equations).
Here's the equation:
IF PFAL is God-breathed AND PFAL gives an explanation of the characteristics of God-breathed works THEN PFAL will exhibit those qualities.
The way I see it, the first IF is in question. For you, the first IF is already answered. That's why your method fails every time it's tried. Your version is "SINCE PFAL is God-breathed and..." The problem is, you can't say "SINCE" because you haven't proved your case. You're making an assumption, and a poorly reasoned one at that.
So, IF PFAL is God-breathed, surely it will stand up to its own test.
So, put PFAL to the test.
PFAL has been put to the test and been found wanting.
... The quote from TW:LIL seems to say that he considered the works of others worth studying, but that he would decide what was worth keeping and what should be discarded.
And as to what he said about what he decided was worth keeping, he said "lots of the stuff I teach is not original".
If he was trying to promote the idea that his teachings were original, i.e., learning from his own study exclusive from anyone else's, why would he tell us "lots of the stuff I teach is not original"?
And why would he offer stories about who he learned from, throughout the years?
And why would he have arranged for many of the books he learned from, to be in the Way Bookstore?
A person who hides his sources does not do these things.
I'm whispering so I don't interrupt everybody else. :mellow: It was summer 1978.
Yeah, the soldier vs. athlete thing makes total sense. Seems the soldier analogy got dropped somewhere along the way in favor of the athlete one. Yeah LCM got buried in it, but VP started it. When VP taught us Ephesians our last yr. in-rez, he used the athletics terms.
But didn't VPW teach Ephesians 6 in PFAL using the soldier analogy? not the athlete?
If he was trying to promote the idea that his teachings were original, i.e., learning from his own study exclusive from anyone else's, why would he tell us "lots of the stuff I teach is not original"?
That's a good question, Oldies. Another good question is: If he was claiming that he was a compiler of others' works, and a judge of what fit and what didn't, why would he say that he "decided to quit reading around The Word. Consequently, I have spent years studying The Word- its integrity, its meaning, its words."
and
"I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook."
And why would he offer stories about who he learned from, throughout the years?
same questions as above.
And why would he have arranged for many of the books he learned from, to be in the Way Bookstore?
I believe that the only thing that was offered in the Way bookstore was Bullinger, and he claimed that he came to his conclusions independent of Bullinger.
A person who hides his sources does not do these things.
I think you're assuming a lot there. Maybe you wouldn't, and I probably wouldn't either, but when you are in the position of unquestioned power than Wierwille was in, who knows?
Whether we agree about whether plagiarism was bad or not, or whether it affects the work itself, it is not arguable that Wierwille's works contained sections that were virtually word-for-word reproductions of publications by Stiles and Leonard, and others as well. You would think that having done this, he would make no mention of either man, but he does.
Why?
I have no friggin' idea.
But there is a contradiction. Some of it goes to the contradictions in Wierwille's life. Sometimes he wanted to portray himself as the apostle, the guy who was teaching the bible like it hadn't been taught since the days of Paul; other times he wanted to come across as the humble country preacher who was just reading what was written.
You wrote: “IF PFAL is God-breathed AND PFAL gives an explanation of the characteristics of God-breathed works THEN PFAL will exhibit those qualities.”
Don’t you see that the same applies to the ancient scriptures (KJV’s canon)?
IF the ancient scriptures are God-breathed ... THEN they will exhibit those same qualities of God-breathedness. I presume you have detected those qualities in them.
Many worldly scholars, however fail to detect those qualities in the same ancient scriptures, because the METHOD they use to examine them is flawed. They are not meek. When they encounter a flaw they fail to seek until they find it’s resolution.
If you want to detect these qualities in PFAL you will have to adopt the method prescribed within PFAL, not the method you use to sleuth out a news story as a journalist. PFAL claims to be God-breathed, just like the ancient scriptures, and both require patience and trust as apparent flaws are examined.
With the ancient scriptures, one huge problem facing meek researchers is the fact that we don’t HAVE them, only copies with some level of mis-copying, and translations with a higher level of man’s interference.
With PFAL the above problem of miscopying and translation is minimal, but there is a problem of memory.
Too many grad researchers of PFAL rely on their flawed memory of what is in there. Too many THINK they have a command on what is said in PFAL in memory, but it’s either not accurate (TVT problems) or it’s not complete. There are vast areas of PFAL that many grads have NEVER explored, such as the minute differences between a book chapter and it’s corresponding magazine article. Many grads have never even seen some magazine articles that are independent of the material covered in the books.
I’m sure, Raf, that if you were discussing the integrity of the ancient scriptures with someone who insists on only using the KJV for their research to “prove” there is no integrity to said scriptures, you’d rapidly distance yourself from their findings, and label this person as an unfit researcher.
Likewise, when I see someone already committed to attacking the integrity of PFAL who hasn’t come even close to cracking all the books and all magazine articles, getting the whole story on the table for close examination, let alone adopting the requires trust and patience to slog through the apparent errors, then I too ignore their research end product as hopelessly off the mark, and the researcher, because of his chosen methods, totally unfit for me to invest any time following their thesis.
You wrote: “IF PFAL is God-breathed AND PFAL gives an explanation of the characteristics of God-breathed works THEN PFAL will exhibit those qualities.”
Don’t you see that the same applies to the ancient scriptures (KJV’s canon)?
IF the ancient scriptures are God-breathed ... THEN they will exhibit those same qualities of God-breathedness. I presume you have detected those qualities in them.
There he goes changing the subject again. Mike, for the umpteenth time, if you want to start a thread on whether the BIBLE is God-breathed, have at it. This thread is about PFAL. Stop trying to change the subject.
Just out of curiosity, why does your exaltation of PFAL require you to attack the integrity of God's Word (The Bible is the Word of God: according to PFAL)?
P.S.
PFAL does not claim itself to be God-breathed. You are reading that into the text based on the flawed articulation of an imperfect work. PFAL directly sets itself in contrast with God-breathed, and no amount of lying or obfuscation on your part can change the plain reading of the text.
This whole sub-topic of Dr throwing out thousands of his books odd to me. Have you tracked down the TIMING of this event?
I remember working at HQ in the Bookstore and periodically seeing huge stacks of books piled up on Mrs. Allen’s desk. She told me they were all ordered by Dr.
Obviously after he threw out those books that led him around the Word he then started collecting books again, but with a different intent on his part and with a different flavor.
How do you incorporate these facts into this sub-topic of yours?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
89
149
306
85
Popular Days
Feb 10
62
Feb 20
61
Feb 11
46
Mar 2
45
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 89 posts
CM 149 posts
Mike 306 posts
Tom Strange 85 posts
Popular Days
Feb 10 2006
62 posts
Feb 20 2006
61 posts
Feb 11 2006
46 posts
Mar 2 2006
45 posts
Posted Images
ex10
That's it, socks! The enigma of it all, in my miind.
Thanks for the insight. Yes, what you shared makes total sense to me.
I must confess, after I re-read my last post tonight, I thought to myself, "what was in my coffee this morning?" :blink:
But you have supplied another piece of the puzzle for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
ex10, can you elaborate? How did the discussion go on that record, and it's meaning(s)? Thanks.
P.S. I know I'm not contributing much to the other discussions, so I hope this all fits with the thread topic. Come to think of it, what wouldn't? :)
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
It's hard to for me to remember, sometimes, the exact circumstances and settings of things. Some are crystallized in my brain forever, other things, not. Details get fuzzy, ya know, and I have the egocentric habit of remembering my questions, more than anything else.
I hope this makes sense.
I worked in the teacher's room alot, and you know how intense it could get could during a big teaching event, like corps night or something. Don't even mention ROA. But anyway, sometimes after lesser important teaching events, it was actually possible to have a semi-private conversation with VPW. He would ask for feed back. Or sometimes after one of those informal sharing smaller group things, it was actually possible to ask questions.
It was risky, though, cause one never quite knew what would set him off, or really touch him.
Anyway, all's I remember is asking the question about Act 16, in the BRC backroom. It must've had something to do with the teaching. I remember Vince F. was there. And he looked at me like I had 3 heads.
It was really bugging me, in my waybrain, "law of believing" mode of thinking, that Paul and Silas got beaten and thrown in jail for obeying the "Macedonian Call." I mean, yeah, the angel busted them out of jail, but couldn't they have done it before the beating?
Looking back on it, I had alot of nerve, (without realizing it) and totally put VPW on the spot. But, he liked me. :blink: And never seemed to mind my questions. (A habit that got me into no end of trouble at Emporia, btw.)
I don't want to make it sound like I was some kind of inner secret, special person that had VPW's ear all the time or anything. Or I was some kind of great bible scholar. That was NOT the case. I was just a kid, that was very naive, who worked in the backroom.
As I recall, we talked a little about suffering, he quoted that verse about persecution following those who live godly in Christ Jesus. And said more work needed to be done on the subject. I believed him. I actually thought that somebody who had a research brain was gonna look into it. <_< And the question did come up again, later in a bigger more formal setting. Same answer.
I was appeased for the moment. But not really. :(
I hope this recounting of my foggy memory helps. I thought about pm ing my reply. But maybe somehow, if I share it in front of God and everbody, it will help somebody put the pieces together. :unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Oh, and I should add, I didn't always work the back room. Sometimes my job was to sit by the light switch that was on the wall of the BRC halfway between the front and back on the right. I had the illustrious honor of flipping the switch off when way prod played, and switching it back on, after they finished. :o
I never could figure why that switch was where it was.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
As were we all.
And I bet you were the BEST at switching that switch. What year was that?
I think you're example explains why LCM ended up buried in athletic metaphors. In a warfare, there's casualties, victors, defeats, spoils, captures and prisoners. People get hurt. There's strategy, the enemy gets routed and decimated.
In athletics there's winners and losers. Nobody gets killed or seriously injured - unless they leave the competition, in which case you're a GREASEspot, ya puh-nk!
Short answer - both apply to our lives, in different ways (and not all of the ways LCM taught IMO )
I think it does warrant study though. But the essence of it isn't too hard to understand at this point, I think. Then, I dunno.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
At this point, I honestly believe Mike has reached a state of
delusion and hallucination great enough to make this an UNINTENTIONAL
vicious lie-as opposed to the INTENTIONAL vicious lie it would be
otherwise.
Raf never "assumed" that PFAL is "not God-breathed".
Raf took the clear meaning of the text for what it was.
When Mike came in with his claim that the plain meaning of the
text was to be discarded in favour of "HIDDEN" messages that
declare pfal to be God-breathed,
Raf took the standards GIVEN IN PFAL and applied the TO PFAL
and proved that PFAL falls FAR short of God-breathed.
To those who find pfal useful, this is NOT a shock.
It's only upsetting news to those who have replaced their
Bibles entirely with pfal as a new Bible.
So, Mike-again-lied-again-about Raf's method-again,
after having been corrected about that MANY TIMES.
However, I suspect his delusions divert the plain meaning
of any such correction, so Mike is more to be pitied for his
delusions than blamed for his lies.
Of course, it is MIKE who ignores the totality of what it says.
The Orange Book says "this is a book on keys".
Mike ignores that, and says it is a Bible REPLACEMENT,
and not a tool for understanding the Bible.
Raf refuses Mike's method because Mike's method
requires one to discard linear thought.
Mike refuses to use Raf's methods because the results are
ones Mike has decided he will never accept.
Never mind that the "method" in question was outlined
IN PFAL to begin with.][/b]
[unless that motivation, love and brains leads them to conclusions other
than those Mike proposes-
then they are "unfit researchers", "crybabies", etc.]
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Well, I THOUGHT it worked well at one time. Time proved it different.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[Just going by what they posted here, they said that the
written pfal WAS the taped pfal, with THEM editing the thing,
not vpw. They did the best job they could accurately reflecting
what was on tape-content and intent.
You said HE put in the time and effort. They said THEY put in
the time and effort. THEY were eyewitnesses, primary sources.
Therefore, whose account should I believe?]
[The Orange Book is separate from THIS statement.
THAT was them condensing his stuff.
As to the "time-travel" thing, I'm surprised you're bringing that up,
since that entire chapter contains a rather glaring error-
Paul talking about someone he knew once who saw a vision
of the future suddenly morphs into Paul himself-
and can ONLY be correct if one discards vpw's basic assertion
that Christians after the First Century church lost "The Truth".
The ONLY possible defense of this glaring error is to go to
church history, and find that-several centuries AFTER the
First-a few Christian writers believed that was actually Paul
rather than the account being explained "in the verse where
it is written."
PFAL's professed study techniques-when applied to this chapter-
say this chapter is wrong. The only way to save it is to discard
the techniques taught IN pfal, AND accept that vpw was
completely WRONG about Christians descending into error-
then finding the ones that agree with this chapter-
AND IGNORING THOSE WHO DON'T.
In short, you must accept that what you want to believe is
true, is actually true-then seek the documentation to
back it up. This method was derided BY vpw many times,
and supposedly is a hallmark of the "inferior" Christians
in denominations.]
[so, the VIDEOS would be more important, if we were discussing
neurosurgery.]
[sub-vocalizing would mean that the readers were silently reading
WHILE MOVING THEIR LIPS.
Do "most (if not all)" people really do that?]
[Right-and thus your image of him is based-not on the
face-to-face encounters-
but on what I already stated.]
[False dilemma. I pick Door Number 3-I was correct as stated.]
[Actually,
I was GOING to spare you the FULL recall, since it wasn't
fully germane, and HUMILATING you isn't a goal of mine,
but if you insist....
To those joining us late,
Mike has discussed vpw.
Now, vpw, as many of you know,
was a fair student as far as grades went, but lazy.
That's why he consistently picked the softest options possible
from his available choices (minister over business,
homiletics over Bible languages, etc.)
If he'd applied himself more, perhaps he'd have been
a better student and less inclined to cut corners.
vpw was a fair athlete as well, playing on his high school
basketball team, but not his college one. He did like the
atmosphere, though, and associated himself with a local
professional team around that time.
Now then,
Mike has characterized this man as follows:
"He was born with an overabundance of brains and brawn."
He was "gifted, even overgifted."
"When he walked, the earth shook."
Mike genuinely believes this-that vpw was some sort
of EXTREME GENIUS and EXTREME ATHLETE,
and that his raw believing shook the earth.
I didnt want to KEEP mentioning this, since to bring this
up is to make Mike look delusional. However, Mike seems
insistent that this SUPPORTS his case somehow.
So, there you have it. Mike believes vpw was some
sort of genius, gifted physically and intellectually.
Now then, Mike has attempted to defend his statements
by saying that there are professional athletes who are
famous for being gifted, and it is no different when
discussing their millionaire careers in athletics with
the games of basketball occasionally played by vpw
on an amateur level. Supposedly, it is perfectly reasonable
to compare the two, and me NOT bringing that up
DIMINISHES Mike's case.
Further, Mike's DEMANDING I include the comments
about vpw shaking the earth. vpw-whose own
inability to assert his believing over his own body
to counteract the poor health he was giving it-
supposedly shook the EARTH with his believing.
(But could not shake some cells.) His athletic
prowess also was NOT reflected into later years,
despite some UNexceptional athletes playing into
their SEVENTIES, but vpw didn't stay in shape.
Mike has also said that he thinks it is in no way
idolatrous nor hero worship to consider the man
exceptional both physically and intellectually,
the paragon of human potential.
Supposedly, me NOT bringing this up means I'm
"swamped with dishonesty."
Well,
there's 2 points of view.
A) I'm accurately reflecting Mike, and he's delusional or
lying when he says I'm not.
B) Mike's accusations are accurate, and I'm NOT
representing him fairly.
Feel free to read for yourself and draw your own
conclusions. ]
[The so-called "Law of Believing" is not a law. It fails as
stated in the video. It fails as stated in the book.
It fails as practiced by people.
Its failure to sustain vpw's life really doesn't count as
news around here anymore-and he was the supposed
master of believing- and had sufficient amounts of it
to "shake the earth".
pfal didn't work, therefore twi failed US.
Small wonder twi failed overall.]
You mix fact with error.
VPW had faults and he suffered consequences because of them. So did we.
[but according to you, those faults did not bring down the ministry.
That's the point I made-which YOU'VE made, and for some reason
are now DENYING.]
[And not because it was designed and implemented wrong,
nor because its founder committed felonious sins,
according to you. I said that and you accused me of lying.]
[Tell you what-
if you found some hidden messages in that,
let's hear them.
This might be interesting.
At worst, it will be different.]
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Nice try, but it's STILL not a reflection of what the verse meant.
Points for the attempt, however.
I WOULD recommend more sleep before posting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Mike said ... Although I don’t fit the definition of a troll (validated by the highest authority)
Wolf [Definitions vary. You do not fit the definition used by staff at the GSC.
The "highest authority" would be a government agency, or God Almighty.]
I caught the tail end of this, trying to catch wolf's comments ... and I brought up the troll thing first ... so I checked wikipedia ...
Attention-seeking trolls
This class of trolls seeks to obtain as many responses as possible and to absorb a disproportionate amount of the collective attention span.
What struck me was Mike's "bragging" about the record length of his earlier thread. He revels in garnering responses.
Wikipedia further states this about some internet trolls ...
Intentionally posting an outrageous argument, deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error. Often the poster will become defensive when the argument is refuted, but may instead continue the thread through the use of further flawed arguments; this is referred to as "feeding" the troll.
A subclass of the above is the flawed proof of an important unsolved mathematical problem or impossibility (e.g. 1 = 2); however, these may not always be troll-posts, and are sometimes, at least, mathematically interesting.
I see the Mike thread as "mathematically interesting" for a few posts. You can learn something "unproving" 1=2. But the idea that the written piffle is god breathed is just too silly to spend time on. Does Mike really believe that or does he use it as a hook to reel people in? I guess it doesn't matter, the attention seeking motivation is the point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
o come on Mike, you've been on here for a lot longer then that with your "secrets".
you're just trying to impress the new folks. should i list your secrets or do you want to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
i'll second this
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
The quotes from PFAL and RHST say that he studied theologians, but subsequently rejected them, and started "anew" using the bible as his handbook and textbook.
The quote from TW:LIL seems to say that he considered the works of others worth studying, but that he would decide what was worth keeping and what should be discarded.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Your ability to accuse me of making the very mistakes YOU are making is astonishing.
Actually, I did not skip that part. You see, I went straight to that part with a simple equation (VPW just LOVED simple equations).
Here's the equation:
IF PFAL is God-breathed AND PFAL gives an explanation of the characteristics of God-breathed works THEN PFAL will exhibit those qualities.
The way I see it, the first IF is in question. For you, the first IF is already answered. That's why your method fails every time it's tried. Your version is "SINCE PFAL is God-breathed and..." The problem is, you can't say "SINCE" because you haven't proved your case. You're making an assumption, and a poorly reasoned one at that.
So, IF PFAL is God-breathed, surely it will stand up to its own test.
So, put PFAL to the test.
PFAL has been put to the test and been found wanting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
And as to what he said about what he decided was worth keeping, he said "lots of the stuff I teach is not original".
If he was trying to promote the idea that his teachings were original, i.e., learning from his own study exclusive from anyone else's, why would he tell us "lots of the stuff I teach is not original"?
And why would he offer stories about who he learned from, throughout the years?
And why would he have arranged for many of the books he learned from, to be in the Way Bookstore?
A person who hides his sources does not do these things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Socks,
I'm whispering so I don't interrupt everybody else. :mellow: It was summer 1978.
Yeah, the soldier vs. athlete thing makes total sense. Seems the soldier analogy got dropped somewhere along the way in favor of the athlete one. Yeah LCM got buried in it, but VP started it. When VP taught us Ephesians our last yr. in-rez, he used the athletics terms.
But didn't VPW teach Ephesians 6 in PFAL using the soldier analogy? not the athlete?
Edited by ex10Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
and
"I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook."
same questions as above.I believe that the only thing that was offered in the Way bookstore was Bullinger, and he claimed that he came to his conclusions independent of Bullinger. I think you're assuming a lot there. Maybe you wouldn't, and I probably wouldn't either, but when you are in the position of unquestioned power than Wierwille was in, who knows?Whether we agree about whether plagiarism was bad or not, or whether it affects the work itself, it is not arguable that Wierwille's works contained sections that were virtually word-for-word reproductions of publications by Stiles and Leonard, and others as well. You would think that having done this, he would make no mention of either man, but he does.
Why?
I have no friggin' idea.
But there is a contradiction. Some of it goes to the contradictions in Wierwille's life. Sometimes he wanted to portray himself as the apostle, the guy who was teaching the bible like it hadn't been taught since the days of Paul; other times he wanted to come across as the humble country preacher who was just reading what was written.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Raf,
You wrote: “IF PFAL is God-breathed AND PFAL gives an explanation of the characteristics of God-breathed works THEN PFAL will exhibit those qualities.”
Don’t you see that the same applies to the ancient scriptures (KJV’s canon)?
IF the ancient scriptures are God-breathed ... THEN they will exhibit those same qualities of God-breathedness. I presume you have detected those qualities in them.
Many worldly scholars, however fail to detect those qualities in the same ancient scriptures, because the METHOD they use to examine them is flawed. They are not meek. When they encounter a flaw they fail to seek until they find it’s resolution.
If you want to detect these qualities in PFAL you will have to adopt the method prescribed within PFAL, not the method you use to sleuth out a news story as a journalist. PFAL claims to be God-breathed, just like the ancient scriptures, and both require patience and trust as apparent flaws are examined.
With the ancient scriptures, one huge problem facing meek researchers is the fact that we don’t HAVE them, only copies with some level of mis-copying, and translations with a higher level of man’s interference.
With PFAL the above problem of miscopying and translation is minimal, but there is a problem of memory.
Too many grad researchers of PFAL rely on their flawed memory of what is in there. Too many THINK they have a command on what is said in PFAL in memory, but it’s either not accurate (TVT problems) or it’s not complete. There are vast areas of PFAL that many grads have NEVER explored, such as the minute differences between a book chapter and it’s corresponding magazine article. Many grads have never even seen some magazine articles that are independent of the material covered in the books.
I’m sure, Raf, that if you were discussing the integrity of the ancient scriptures with someone who insists on only using the KJV for their research to “prove” there is no integrity to said scriptures, you’d rapidly distance yourself from their findings, and label this person as an unfit researcher.
Likewise, when I see someone already committed to attacking the integrity of PFAL who hasn’t come even close to cracking all the books and all magazine articles, getting the whole story on the table for close examination, let alone adopting the requires trust and patience to slog through the apparent errors, then I too ignore their research end product as hopelessly off the mark, and the researcher, because of his chosen methods, totally unfit for me to invest any time following their thesis.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
There he goes changing the subject again. Mike, for the umpteenth time, if you want to start a thread on whether the BIBLE is God-breathed, have at it. This thread is about PFAL. Stop trying to change the subject.
Just out of curiosity, why does your exaltation of PFAL require you to attack the integrity of God's Word (The Bible is the Word of God: according to PFAL)?
P.S.
PFAL does not claim itself to be God-breathed. You are reading that into the text based on the flawed articulation of an imperfect work. PFAL directly sets itself in contrast with God-breathed, and no amount of lying or obfuscation on your part can change the plain reading of the text.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oakspear,
This whole sub-topic of Dr throwing out thousands of his books odd to me. Have you tracked down the TIMING of this event?
I remember working at HQ in the Bookstore and periodically seeing huge stacks of books piled up on Mrs. Allen’s desk. She told me they were all ordered by Dr.
Obviously after he threw out those books that led him around the Word he then started collecting books again, but with a different intent on his part and with a different flavor.
How do you incorporate these facts into this sub-topic of yours?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Incorporating facts into the Wierwille mythology is like incorporating chocolate into a photo processing machine.
How's this: Wierwille lied about throwing 3,000 books away.
PFAL has been put to the test and found wanting.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Raf,
Your bias is showing.
How about this: he threw away all the books he collected while in academia, prior to 1942, all the books endorsed by traditional scholarship?
After that he started collecting books endorsed by God, or that God guided him to for seleted pieces.
See, your bias blinds you to this possibility because you WANT to think evil of him.
****
And I didn't change the subject above, just brought into the subject a facet you didn't like, again a bias problem.
I see you didn't address what I said at all, just threw it away.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites