Step A is the 5-senses mastery of the physical collaterals for senses understanding.
Step B is the spiritual understanding Father gives us as we work Step A to the best of our ability.
If you want to skip around step A then you will be deceiced by the spirit of error.
I want nothing of your error, so I am not meek to you at all. I hear none of your warnings nor instructions. I don't want to hear of your methods. You have not earned my respect.
You wrote: “Oh... and dooj's analogy with the hammer/chisel/coconut was a good one, there were tools and there was food. __ Your analogy was a nice try, but not the same comparison. You took food that could be used as a tool and compared it... a different thing all together.”
Doojable deliberately took tools that could not be eaten to illustrate her argument, not prove it.
Doojable deliberately chose TOOLS - period. I wasn't purposely skewing the logic to fit my analogy. Food that is used as a tool is still food - at least that is the way I see it.
My problem with you using different sources is that it seems like the pool of what you deem as God-breathed changes. I would just like to limit the argumment to written works... authored by vpw.That shouldn't be a problem. Is it?
Mike I can't quote you much of what Dr said in private or on tape. I do know that a lot of what he said in private was damn near vulgar - from first hand experience.
Mike… I won’t even begin to discuss so many of the things you blurted out, but I will respond to a few:
Even credible posters can read their own beliefs into a subtle conversation they had many years ago. And when they refuse cross examination they’re credibility on that issue drops a bit.
That’s one of the reasons you’ve lost (past tense) any credibility you might have ever had.
With a private conversation a similar mistake is even easier to make, since the context can be so easily lost in the shuffle. With page 83 I can point out the words that are continually ignored.
Then why do YOU cite private conversations?
I do have such stone tablets.
Where do you keep them? Could you please post a picture of said stone tablets?
The principle is “It Is Written,” the motto of the Way Corps.
“Be Prepared” is the motto of the Boy Scouts. The Way Corps motto was not referring to PFAL.
It’s obvious that Dr’s teaching evolved over the decades from spoken to written. The written is the final end-product of the 1942 promise where Dr was to “teach others.”
Your opinion Mike. Some of us believe that it was the end result of decades of plaigerism.
What you really mean to say here, though, is:
I apologize, I forgot that you had developed the ability to presume know what I meant to say.
Rationality has it's limitations too. It presumes a lot.
This evidently is something you’ve learned by experience.
I want nothing of your error, so I am not meek to you at all. I hear none of your warnings nor instructions. I don't want to hear of your methods. You have not earned my respect.
(hands over ears) NA NA NA I can’t hear you NA NA NA
C’mon Mike, it’s a “discussion” board, not a “lecture” board.
Most posters here can't face the collaterals. I can and found it enjoyable.
Shucks -- I can face them, believe some of them, and toss out some of them as well.
What I don't believe -- is that they are *God's Word re-invented*. Nor do I believe that anything in print (from vpw) should be held as doctrine, nor do I think that Jesus will descend from on high, teaching from pfal.
Do I face, and believe some of what is written there? Yes.
Does my rejection of some of them mean I am not *facing them*?? No.
On the contrary, it proves I am facing them, and making a valid judgement. :)
I want nothing of your error, so I am not meek to you at all. I hear none of your warnings nor instructions. I don't want to hear of your methods. You have not earned my respect.
This post has been edited by Mike: Today, 03:24 PM
Hmmmm. We have been saying the same thing, all along.
C’mon Mike, it’s a “discussion” board, not a “lecture” board.
This from Tom, says it all. We are trying to discuss, and you are trying to lecture.
Step out from behind the pfal podium, and have a discussion, won't cha??
But then again -- we've asked you to do that for years now, haven't we? :(
One of the things that really drew me into PFAL and twi was that when vpw said that God would teach him the word - I believed that God would also teach ME the Word.
You know what? He did! I studied and I was faithful to adhere to sound research principles and I learned much more than I was directly taught by man/men.
Ask any corps person who was serious about their research paper and they will tell you the same. (I realize that some were just trying to get through it - But I was serious)
You don't know me at all, Mike but I can assure you that as fun loving an Italian as I can be - I am also very serious when it comes to study. I was raised Catholic by a dad that was raised in an Italian monastery. So it was very very important to me that I learn not only what the truth was but how to find the truth and how to test what men were telling me. That is what has shaped and informed me for the past 29 years.
So the bottom line for me is that while I do not doubt that God can teach the scriptures and open up the Word to us - I do not agree , I cannot agree that Dr's writings are God-breathed.
You come dangerously close to doing with vpw's words what many accuse the churches of doing with the scriptures - making vpw''s words say what you want them to say.
I can read into his words too. I can make it seem that he was a completely different man than you describe. This is a very slippery slope. It's not sound logic - nor sound research.
I have long said that when we all see Jesus we will all - every one of us - be surprised. God himself will tell us what He meant and what we got wrong.
We have people who have asked vpw this( according to Raf - raf can you get a quote on this?) - and he has answered - but you will not take this because it's not written down somewhere. Do you really think he would have written this down????
Now there is much that can be learned from pfal if we could drop this subject and move on to the text - without claims of "inspiration." This subject has caused an impasse. It seems to me that it would be wiser to drop that and move on to text and details of pfal.
Either end that subject or end the thread - because too many of us won't be changed and neither will you - so discussion just causes frustration and arguments. You don't need to drop your convictions to take a detour - and neither will the rest of us.
You could OTOH write a research paper on your subject. Start with a thesis statement and build your argument. State the need for your paper and come up with common misconceptions before you make your primary argument. I recommend that you use Bible scripture as well as vpw's words to write your paper. Make it about 25-30 pages in length and submit it online. You'll spend much less time and have much less frustration than this method of playing cat and mouse.
You come dangerously close to doing with vpw's words what many accuse the churches of doing with the scriptures - making vpw''s words say what you want them to say.
Dangerously close?
That's like saying Brokeback Mountain came dangerously close to being about gays.
A thesis paper would be a good idea, but he'd never do it for the same reason Satan never wrote a book: he would have to commit himself to its contents.
Dooj: I do not have a quote, but note that Mike didn't challenge the fact. He knows my citation is genuine; he just doesn't accept it because to do so would effectively end his thesis. He's essentially calling someone a liar. The person I'm referring to hasn't posted in a while. His handle was HCW.
On that same thread as dmiller's HCW link was this eventual response by me.
Mike Feb 17 2005, 07:47 PM Post #210
HCW,
As a preparation for our discussion, could I ask you to think through the setting in which Dr's comments occurred?
I'm not only interested in the EXACT words he said that you paraphrased, but also anything he said just prior and just following your reported words. I also want to know exactly what you said in that conversation.
I even would find it helpful to know a few of the other topics that were discussed that day, as well as any similar topics that came up in previous days.
In other words, I'm seeking exact wording he used AND the EXTREMELY exact context in which the whole conversation occurred.
I'm mentioning this up-front to give you time to think it through now, instead of surprising you with such a challenge deep into a debate.
You mentioned that you had a photographic memory, and I am hoping that the auditory components of your memory may be of similar sharpness. I know that this may possibly not be the case, since the human brain has far more space devoted to visual information than to auditory, but whatever you can remember an then bring to the table would be extremely helpful in a thorough discussion.
Mike, my mother has been dead for 40 years and I still remember her voice and many of the things we spoke about. I not only remember them as a picture I remember them like they are a movie running on the screen of my mind. I was 4 when she got sick and 8 when she died - oops! just gave away my age - pooh!
Important words stand out. This conversation was important for HCW to remember and presumably the question was important enough for him to ask. It certainly was a big deal - that's not the type of conversation that you confuse. I feel like to tend to minimize other people's input.
Can we move on???
I think you will get farther if you put it all down in one paper that is well researched and the arguments set in order - without all the noise of the forum.
also anything he said just prior and just following your reported words. I also want to know exactly what you said in that conversation.
hmmmmmm yes and you have never ripped phrases out of context? Not that HCW did but you sure did.
Might want to rethink these-
"every word I have written to you is true"
"I didn't write the book"
And clarify how you arrived at such a conclusion that you have applied these phrases to mean something totally different then what they were intended to mean.
As a preparation for our discussion, could I ask you to think through the setting in which Dr's comments occurred?
I'm not only interested in the EXACT words he said that you paraphrased, but also anything he said just prior and just following your reported words. I also want to know exactly what you said in that conversation.
I even would find it helpful to know a few of the other topics that were discussed that day, as well as any similar topics that came up in previous days.
In other words, I'm seeking exact wording he used AND the EXTREMELY exact context in which the whole conversation occurred.
That which you demand of others should be required from you.
Written revelation doesn't have to be all divine dictation. In fact, in the Thessalonians University of Life, Dr TWICE mentions in covering verse 1:1 for both of these epistles, that there is a reason why there are three names mentioned as authors: Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy. At these two points Dr teaches that written revelation is usually NOT divine dictation, but first the revelation to Paul was discussed between the three, and then later put into written form. In I Peter 1:20-21 we see the WRITTEN scripture mentioned in verse 20 as coming from a process where (next verse) holy men of God SPAKE.
You can bet if VPW had told HC that PFAL was God-breathed, Mike would latch onto that as further proof of his position.
I can't imagine anything ambiguous about a conversation with VPW concerning whether or not the PFAL books are God-breathed. "I didn't write the book." Please. We know he didn't write the book. Stiles did. And Bullinger, and Kenyon, and... :)
Yes, Raf, if there is something said in private that fits in with the public printed record, I’d accept it. If it contradicts then I must decide which takes precedence and the vote goes to the public printed record. SOMETHING has to take precedence, and it’s GOT to be the public printed record.
My policy of not leaning on private conversations with Dr is well thought through and firm.
One of the reasons it is in place is because in private Dr should have been allowed the freedom to brainstorm, and think things through with a little company. He should also be allowed to the freedom to be wrong, to have a bad day.
It’s entirely within the realm of expectations of normal humans that they have self doubts and question the track they are on. I would expect that there were days when Dr was discouraged with the progress of the ministry or with his own spiritual growth. On such an occasion he could easily say out loud that he thought some genuine revelation was less merely senses reasoning. He’d be dead wrong, but anyone in earshot might be sore pressed to believe him if they weren’t locked onto what had been already put in print.
***
dojable, the idea of me doing a manifesto has come up several times. I’d rather just get into the contents of the books, though. Most of the posting here is still focused on me.
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
Mike
George,
Rationality has it's limitations too. It presumes a lot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
You just can't face the truth Mike. Victor Paul Wierwielle couldn't either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
CM,
Most posters here can't face the collaterals. I can and found it enjoyable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Yeah well I faced them and beat em.
Burn em and you will see what holds up.
Not many are willing to try their faith.
They rely on books and wisdom of the world,
and applied techniques of scripture study.
How about the heart Mike. What really can it see?
You want to dare to look or hide behind your books?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
CM,
I've been over this with you many times already.
Step A is the 5-senses mastery of the physical collaterals for senses understanding.
Step B is the spiritual understanding Father gives us as we work Step A to the best of our ability.
If you want to skip around step A then you will be deceiced by the spirit of error.
I want nothing of your error, so I am not meek to you at all. I hear none of your warnings nor instructions. I don't want to hear of your methods. You have not earned my respect.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Well tough **** fella, you are here and I'm a talkin' to ya.
Put me on ignore cuz you can't handle what I got.
It's too Hot for you! VPW couldn't do it either.
VPW turned his back against the truth.
And you don't know what you are talking about,
as far as the rest of what you just said.
You have not got a clue.
Already done this. And what you think is the Father - isn't.
It don't work, it will never work....EVER.
That is if you really want Truth.
And you don't have any authority to dictate anything to me.
I have the FREEDOM to choose what and who to listen to.
You do not.
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Doojable deliberately chose TOOLS - period. I wasn't purposely skewing the logic to fit my analogy. Food that is used as a tool is still food - at least that is the way I see it.
My problem with you using different sources is that it seems like the pool of what you deem as God-breathed changes. I would just like to limit the argumment to written works... authored by vpw.That shouldn't be a problem. Is it?
Mike I can't quote you much of what Dr said in private or on tape. I do know that a lot of what he said in private was damn near vulgar - from first hand experience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Mike… I won’t even begin to discuss so many of the things you blurted out, but I will respond to a few:
That’s one of the reasons you’ve lost (past tense) any credibility you might have ever had.Then why do YOU cite private conversations?
Where do you keep them? Could you please post a picture of said stone tablets?“Be Prepared” is the motto of the Boy Scouts. The Way Corps motto was not referring to PFAL.
Your opinion Mike. Some of us believe that it was the end result of decades of plaigerism.I apologize, I forgot that you had developed the ability to presume know what I meant to say.
This evidently is something you’ve learned by experience.(hands over ears) NA NA NA I can’t hear you NA NA NA
C’mon Mike, it’s a “discussion” board, not a “lecture” board.
Edited by Tom StrangeLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Shucks -- I can face them, believe some of them, and toss out some of them as well.
What I don't believe -- is that they are *God's Word re-invented*. Nor do I believe that anything in print (from vpw) should be held as doctrine, nor do I think that Jesus will descend from on high, teaching from pfal.
Do I face, and believe some of what is written there? Yes.
Does my rejection of some of them mean I am not *facing them*?? No.
On the contrary, it proves I am facing them, and making a valid judgement. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
This from Tom, says it all. We are trying to discuss, and you are trying to lecture.
Step out from behind the pfal podium, and have a discussion, won't cha??
But then again -- we've asked you to do that for years now, haven't we? :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Mike,
One of the things that really drew me into PFAL and twi was that when vpw said that God would teach him the word - I believed that God would also teach ME the Word.
You know what? He did! I studied and I was faithful to adhere to sound research principles and I learned much more than I was directly taught by man/men.
Ask any corps person who was serious about their research paper and they will tell you the same. (I realize that some were just trying to get through it - But I was serious)
You don't know me at all, Mike but I can assure you that as fun loving an Italian as I can be - I am also very serious when it comes to study. I was raised Catholic by a dad that was raised in an Italian monastery. So it was very very important to me that I learn not only what the truth was but how to find the truth and how to test what men were telling me. That is what has shaped and informed me for the past 29 years.
So the bottom line for me is that while I do not doubt that God can teach the scriptures and open up the Word to us - I do not agree , I cannot agree that Dr's writings are God-breathed.
You come dangerously close to doing with vpw's words what many accuse the churches of doing with the scriptures - making vpw''s words say what you want them to say.
I can read into his words too. I can make it seem that he was a completely different man than you describe. This is a very slippery slope. It's not sound logic - nor sound research.
I have long said that when we all see Jesus we will all - every one of us - be surprised. God himself will tell us what He meant and what we got wrong.
We have people who have asked vpw this( according to Raf - raf can you get a quote on this?) - and he has answered - but you will not take this because it's not written down somewhere. Do you really think he would have written this down????
Now there is much that can be learned from pfal if we could drop this subject and move on to the text - without claims of "inspiration." This subject has caused an impasse. It seems to me that it would be wiser to drop that and move on to text and details of pfal.
Either end that subject or end the thread - because too many of us won't be changed and neither will you - so discussion just causes frustration and arguments. You don't need to drop your convictions to take a detour - and neither will the rest of us.
You could OTOH write a research paper on your subject. Start with a thesis statement and build your argument. State the need for your paper and come up with common misconceptions before you make your primary argument. I recommend that you use Bible scripture as well as vpw's words to write your paper. Make it about 25-30 pages in length and submit it online. You'll spend much less time and have much less frustration than this method of playing cat and mouse.
Just some thoughts...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Dangerously close?
That's like saying Brokeback Mountain came dangerously close to being about gays.
A thesis paper would be a good idea, but he'd never do it for the same reason Satan never wrote a book: he would have to commit himself to its contents.
Dooj: I do not have a quote, but note that Mike didn't challenge the fact. He knows my citation is genuine; he just doesn't accept it because to do so would effectively end his thesis. He's essentially calling someone a liar. The person I'm referring to hasn't posted in a while. His handle was HCW.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
well, would HCW mind if you quoted him?
and yes I knew I was understating - it was the figure of speech "opposensio" LOL
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Now Raf... that movie was about Love between to folks who just happened to be gay...
P.S. seen any good cones lately?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It's not that HCW would mind. It's that it would take a lot of work to find this post right here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Excellent!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
On that same thread as dmiller's HCW link was this eventual response by me.
Mike Feb 17 2005, 07:47 PM Post #210
HCW,
As a preparation for our discussion, could I ask you to think through the setting in which Dr's comments occurred?
I'm not only interested in the EXACT words he said that you paraphrased, but also anything he said just prior and just following your reported words. I also want to know exactly what you said in that conversation.
I even would find it helpful to know a few of the other topics that were discussed that day, as well as any similar topics that came up in previous days.
In other words, I'm seeking exact wording he used AND the EXTREMELY exact context in which the whole conversation occurred.
I'm mentioning this up-front to give you time to think it through now, instead of surprising you with such a challenge deep into a debate.
You mentioned that you had a photographic memory, and I am hoping that the auditory components of your memory may be of similar sharpness. I know that this may possibly not be the case, since the human brain has far more space devoted to visual information than to auditory, but whatever you can remember an then bring to the table would be extremely helpful in a thorough discussion.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Mike, my mother has been dead for 40 years and I still remember her voice and many of the things we spoke about. I not only remember them as a picture I remember them like they are a movie running on the screen of my mind. I was 4 when she got sick and 8 when she died - oops! just gave away my age - pooh!
Important words stand out. This conversation was important for HCW to remember and presumably the question was important enough for him to ask. It certainly was a big deal - that's not the type of conversation that you confuse. I feel like to tend to minimize other people's input.
Can we move on???
I think you will get farther if you put it all down in one paper that is well researched and the arguments set in order - without all the noise of the forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Yes Mike....
hmmmmmm yes and you have never ripped phrases out of context? Not that HCW did but you sure did.
Might want to rethink these-
"every word I have written to you is true"
"I didn't write the book"
And clarify how you arrived at such a conclusion that you have applied these phrases to mean something totally different then what they were intended to mean.
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Mike
That which you demand of others should be required from you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
dmiller
this was Mike using u of life to make a point
Your points are valid in Mike world even.
Don't know if that's good or bad.
Anyway vp has said similar words that
you quoted from u of l on many occasions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You can bet if VPW had told HC that PFAL was God-breathed, Mike would latch onto that as further proof of his position.
I can't imagine anything ambiguous about a conversation with VPW concerning whether or not the PFAL books are God-breathed. "I didn't write the book." Please. We know he didn't write the book. Stiles did. And Bullinger, and Kenyon, and... :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yes, Raf, if there is something said in private that fits in with the public printed record, I’d accept it. If it contradicts then I must decide which takes precedence and the vote goes to the public printed record. SOMETHING has to take precedence, and it’s GOT to be the public printed record.
My policy of not leaning on private conversations with Dr is well thought through and firm.
One of the reasons it is in place is because in private Dr should have been allowed the freedom to brainstorm, and think things through with a little company. He should also be allowed to the freedom to be wrong, to have a bad day.
It’s entirely within the realm of expectations of normal humans that they have self doubts and question the track they are on. I would expect that there were days when Dr was discouraged with the progress of the ministry or with his own spiritual growth. On such an occasion he could easily say out loud that he thought some genuine revelation was less merely senses reasoning. He’d be dead wrong, but anyone in earshot might be sore pressed to believe him if they weren’t locked onto what had been already put in print.
***
dojable, the idea of me doing a manifesto has come up several times. I’d rather just get into the contents of the books, though. Most of the posting here is still focused on me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites