So_crates

Then why did you say there was? You said God hid it because otherwise nobody would move it over the world. Like I said, that's using deception and trickery. Not to mention, it suggests God doesn't trust us. There's a spiritual war going on? Why wasn't I told? "Soup is soup, apple butter is apple butter" and deception is decption. Because I call a spade a spade. The bible says God is not a man, he caannot lie. Yet your claiming he used deception, trickery. and lied--all methods of the devil And where do you think that angst is coming from? And what do you think is causing that angst? As I said in the above post, you should look at those times when you cry lighten up. What was it you said about attacking the messanger? Maybe the return message is a little too much for you to handle

And we're more interested in debating "Christ formed", so? Besides you haven't completed the last topic: God using deception and trickery

No, I won't consider the word of someone who says God uses the devil's tactics--deception and trickery.

How convenient, now you never have to answer to the claim that God used deception and trickery--like the devil.

My original comments in black Mikes in red My response in BF and large type Mike's response in blue My new comments in **bf and large type The whole first century church had the same spirit, yet they also were stuck with a natural man mind, and the whole thing fell apart within one generation. I call it the Golden Calf Effect. And that has what to do with your claim God decieved us and tricked us? .Why do you call it deception? Suppose you buy a CD and SURPRISE! It has a bonus track not mentioned on the cover. Are you angry for being deceived? Lighten up. **Bonus track on a CD? More like the CD's cover claimed Elvis singing gospel, but when it was played Twisted Sister came blaring from the speakers. Then, upon investigating, you find Twisted Sister intentionally put on the Elvis cover to boost their sales. That's deception and trickery, not to mention false advertising. As far as lightening up, your the one that made the assertation that God used deception and trickery, not me. We were told PLAF was one thing; now your claiming it's another and we were lied to to get it out: that's trickery and deception. STOP! We're both right. It's two, two, two classes in one. Yes, it's a candy mind. Yes, it's a breath mint. I always tell people to pay special attention when someone ridicules rather than answers. .Lighten up. I'm not ridiculing you. I'm forcing my response to break far away your glum, stern, in-my-face, churchlady holierthanthou evil eye. **Says the person with the glum, stern, in-your-face, church lady holierthanthou attitude. Which one of the two of us thinks only they have the truth and refuses to look at anything contrary to their beloved thesis?Which one of the two of us refuses to answer questions that would cast doubt on their beloved thesis? And which one of the two of us starts ridicling when a point is made? And which one of the two of us starts crying lighten up whenever there are questions they can't answer? Now if you feel that is ridicule, I have 2 suggestions. (1) Look away while I'm cheering myself up a little and entertaining any readers who also think that your glum, stern, in-my-face, churchlady holierthanthou evil eye is not a fun read at all. **I just find it interesting when you choose to entertain yourself. What was that you were saying about attacking the messanger? As you would claim, what's up the message too hard for you to take? As for my writing, if they can slog through those long post of yours that seem to go on forever (I find myself skimming) then I think they'll manage with my short posts. OR (2) you could lighten up a bit. Maybe if you tried to lighten up it would inspire me, and vice versa in some positive feedback? **As I recall, I did that several posts back, before your rubber cartoon mallet statements, you ridiculed me then too. So obviously you don't know how to recieve any feedback But please know I'm not ridiculing you. I'm not making light of anything in you that's inherent. It's your attack style that I feel unnecessary. **Feeling attacked? Maybe its your glum, stern, in-your-face, church lady holierthanthou attitude. Quite the ego you have their to think people are attacking you. Maybe you should look at what your really saying sometime instead of accusing other people of attacking you. You think I should just bend over and ask your for another demand or insinuation or evil intention suspicion? **I don't have to think that, you prove it when you post?

My original comments in black Mikes in red My response in BF and large type So, God, who trusts us with his spirit, and God, who trusts us with the greatest secret in the world (the Word of God is the will of God) has to trick us--like the devil would--to get his words out. The whole first century church had the same spirit, yet they also were stuck with a natural man mind, and the whole thing fell apart within one generation. I call it the Golden Calf Effect. And that has what to do with your claim God decieved us and tricked us? We were told PLAF was one thing; now your claiming it's another and we were lied to to get it out: that's trickery and deception. STOP! We're both right. It's two, two, two classes in one. Yes, it's a candy mind. Yes, it's a breath mint. I always tell people to pay special attention when someone ridicules rather than answers. I remember one tape where Saint Vic was ridiculing people who were saying he was using ministry money to party. How'd that work out for you? So God, the creator of the heavens and the earth, who could have just as easily wrote it across the sky, has to resort to deception? Is not telling the whole truth always deception? I think not. .He actually DID write it in the sky, but the same Golden Calf thing again, and eventually He had to abandon it, for an upgrade to Moses. Not telling the whole truth is lying, otherwise known as a sin of omission. In this case however its not, as you claim, not telling the whole truth. It's claiming something is one thing, to get your bidding done, when its really something else. Like that sweet old lady that wants you to help her get her suitcase through customs, then you find its full of cocaine. First, what makes you think we would have backed off shipping out God-breathe text? .People's reactions that I've seen, both here and even with proPFAL people. You gotta figure, it's at the top of the devils priority to get rid of the Word. God is strategic. He did that with The Mystery. No he didn't he made no claim what so ever about the mystery. Nor did he claim it was one thing when it was another. He certainly didn't tell christians it was a class, to get them to do his bidding, then suprise they find out he lied and then they found out what you claim it really was.

What? So, God, who trusts us with his spirit, and God, who trusts us with the greatest secret in the world (the Word of God is the will of God) has to trick us--like the devil would--to get his words out. We were told PLAF was one thing; now your claiming it's another and we were lied to to get it out: that's trickery and deception. So God, the creator of the heavens and the earth, who could have just as easily wrote it across the sky, has to resort to deception? Have I encapsulated your assertation correctly? First, what makes you think we would have backed off shipping out God-breathe text? What makes you think we, or some other group wouldn't have distributed it? Word over the world remember? Abomination? I think it be a shoulder shrug: Meh, we have another religious text to join all the other books being written about religion. And you can see that's the attitude about PLAF: Meh, another religious text to join the others.

Or maybe it wasn't there in the first place. We often see in text our preconceived notions. You mean the three cartoon rubber mallet statements? Roget's Theasaurus has more convincing Thus sayeth the Lord statements. Or he did a very good job characterizing the statement. You mis-characterized it by claiming it was good as scripture by claiming its God-breathe. Dude, of the statements you posted: the back of a Count Chocula box has more convincing thus sayeth the Lord statements. Another thing that undermines your Thus sayeth the Lord statement validity (in addition to Saint Vic's inability to recieve revelation and the verbal gymnastics your presenting) is why were these so-called Thus sayeth the Lord statements hidden? Saint Vic could have said Thus sayeth the Lord and no one would have batted an eyelash. So what was his motivation for hiding them? The usual reason for hiding something is you don't want it known: like Saint Vic's boozing and commiting adultry. So what was the motivation for hiding the so-called Thus sayeth the Lord statements?

Honesty and consistancy always helps. Otherwise someone reading this may think your trying to pull something over on someone. After all, Saint Vic was a con man.....

Once again your judging somebody, How do you know what goes on in his mind? How do you know his reason for rejecting the statement? Yet, when it comes to Saint Vic all his drunkeness, wantoness, and theif are beyond reproach, right? But that's all you do is write about you. Don't think so? Shall we put it to a vote? Go back over the 22 pages of this thread and tally the times God or Jesus Christ are mentioned and compare that to the times you say "I". You'll see the "I"s easily have it. So, this tread is about little old you, not God nor Jesus Christ. Here are a few examples off the top of my head: I disagree. Not the bible disagrees I don't accept those as errors. Not the bible says.... Read the paper I wrote on....Not this is what the bible or God wrote I'm trying to make my writing Mike-lite. Not quoting from the bible Yet, when Waysider or Twinky asks you to state one thing PLAF has done for you it's time to clam up and clam this thread isn't about you. Everybody reading this should start asking themselves if PLAF has done anything for Mike. If so, why the resistance?

Still judging and going on about Pure Evil Saint Vic. With all this fixating, I have to ask: Who are you trying to convince Saint Vic wasn't evil? Us? Or you? You obviously missed my post a few post back and I think a portion bears repeating My original comments in black Your response in red My answer in bf large type Once again your condemning others for judging Saint Vic's behavior, meanwhile you have no qualms judging their behavior. .I'm not intentionally trying to judge people here. I judge whether I want JOIN you in condemning behavior and I judge that action FOR ME to be not my cup of tea. I have MORE important things to do. Sorry. I got my priorities; you got yours. Yah, I see all that important stuff you have to do and your priorities, you'd rather judge people at GS, than Saint Vic. Your constantly judging people at GS, when you accuse us of attacking the messenger or throwing stones or pouncing. But let's not look at Saint Vic's behavior and certainly let's not judge that. You judge most when you try to sell the "pure evil" model. You don't know what's in the minds of all those proPLAF people who aren't posting, yet you know what's in the mind of all GS posters, right? As I told you a couple of posts back, I can't judge the person as a whole. However, I can judge their behavior. And I can see what the bible says is the results of that behavior. So, being a drunk, a theif, and an adulterer the bible says Saint Vic will not inherit the Kingdom of God, which includes revelation.

My origonal comments in black Mikes comments in red My final comments in BF . Didn't you say several post back that you had a proPLAF thread and not many people showed up? Again, if there are so many of these people where are they? .Lots of reasons. Not wasting time itemizing. Besides, it was 10 years ago! I forget a lot of why. It would take another waste of time to dig my memory up for it. Your the one claiming you know the GS audience better than anyone else. I thought you also said that thread was still up. Typically when you don't haave an answer you fall back on claiming you don't have the time. Once again your condemning others for judging Saint Vic's behavior, meanwhile you have no qualms judging their behavior. .I'm not intentionally trying to judge people here. I judge whether I want JOIN you in condemning behavior and I judge that action FOR ME to be not my cup of tea. I have MORE important things to do. Sorry. I got my priorities; you got yours. Yah, I see all that important stuff you have to do and your priorities, you'd rather judge people at GS, than Saint Vic. You judge all the time, when you accuse us of attacking the messenger or throwing stones or pouncing. But let's not look at Saint Vic's behavior and certainly let's not judge that. You judge most when you try to sell the "pure evil" model. You don't know what's in the minds of all those proPLAF people who aren't posting, yet you know what's in the mind of all GS posters, right? As I told you a couple of posts back, I can't judge the person as a whole. However, I can judge their behavior. And I can see what the bible says is the results of tha behavior. So, being a drunk, a theif, and an adulterer the bible says Saint Vic will not inherit the Kingdom of God, which includes revelation.

And what makes you think GS isn't helping people the way it is? Didn't you say several post back that you had a proPLAF thread and not many people showed up? Again, if there are so many of these people where are they? I think most of us are aware PLAF was a scam Once again your condemning others for judging Saint Vic's behavior, meanwhile you have no qualms judging their behavior.

Which it is, as you refuse to entertain any idea other than your worship of Saint Vic As I recall I showed you were in the bible Saint Vic was out of fellowship and could not recieve revelation. I further asked you "where the signs, miracles and wonders that follow the man of god like a tail follows a dog" were. You threw a hissy fit and refused to even consider it. You also refered me to a paper YOU wrote. Please show me "line by line and word by word" where it says in the bible someone out of fellowship can recieve revelation. Further, I cannot judge the person, however I can judge their behavior, which I have done repeatedly. You too have judge peoples behavior, accusing them of throwing stones and pouncing on you and attacking the messanger. So, if I say Saint Vic would not inherit the Kingdom of God, and therefore not recieve revelation, its his behavior I'm judging and stating what the bible says about the behavior. This pure evil model is a creation of yours. See above. Accually, this is the same point, see above. Now if you'd like to show me something contrary from the bible, I'm all ears.

Yah, you've hit our nerves. . That's why we're pointing out your message is "I have an ego the size of Betelguese" and everything else is being overshadowed by that fact. And what makes you think this message is hard to deal with. It's just Saint Vic elevated to demigod status. We dealt with The Way, I'm pretty sure we can deal with this. You, however,.... Then why all the "I"s? I'd think if your message was so important, you would have been prepared to deliver it. Which your not. However, you are prepared to tell us YOUR theories and refer us to YOUR writings

Shall we put it to a vote? Go back over the 20 pages of this thread and tally the times God or Jesus Christ are mentioned and compare that to the times you say "I". You'll see the "I"s easily have it. So, this tread is about little old you, not God nor Jesus Christ. Here are a few examples off the top of my head: I disagree. Not the bible disagrees I don't accept those as errors. Not the bible says.... Read the paper I wrote on....Not this is what the bible or God wrote I'm trying to make my writing Mike-lite. Not quoting from the bible As you can see, not all of the above examples can be taken in a spiritual context.

This situation reminds me of another story: The Pope and an atheist were arguing. The Pope finally got irritated and told the atheist: "Your just like a blindfolded man in a black room at night searching for a black cat that isn't there." The atheist responded: "We're more alike than you think. You too are like a blindfolded man in a black room at night searching for a black cat that isn't there. The difference between us is you found it."

For someone who decries that people need to get back to purity and simplicity, you sure know how to complicate things. You'll notice I posted part of Twinky's post. Why? What was that quote's theme? Searching for things in the wrong place. So what do you think the point of my post was? Searching for things in the wrong place. If your complicating something as simple as those two post, I have to wonder how much your getting away from that simplicity and purity you claim you've found in PLAF.

It reminds me of the story of the guy on his hands and knees on his front lawn. A passerby approaches him and asks if he's okay. "I'm fine," he says, "I'm just looking for the keys to my car." After them both searching for an hour, the passerby asks, "Are you sure they're here?" "I lost them in the house," the guy confesses. "Lost them in the house?!!" the passerby asks. "Then why are you looking for them here?" "The light's better out here."

**You too can see the hidden passages in PLAF. Get the Saint Vic decoder ring, only $19.99. **I knew somone who thought there were secret messages in his morning Alphabets. One day, he claimed his cereal was haunted because it was saying,"OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO." Long story short: He was eating Cheerios. **All were hidden like a bad report card. Say, you think they were hidden because God give Saint Vic all "F"s? **I'll save you a lot of work. Play PLAF backwards and it says, "If your hearing this, your playing the tape wrong." But seriously, folks.... Mike wrote: Can you see how my thesis is not at all absurd FROM MY POSITION? No, but I can see that the quality of the output really is determined by the quality of the input.

He hid them? Why? You hide things you don't want people to know. Like how Saint Vic hid the rapings and all the boozing. Why would he hide this? Christians are no longer persecuted. So there was no reason to hide them.

Mike, in MIT there's an electron microscope that can see down to a subatomic level. If you had that microscope, you still couldn't see how little I care about what you disapprove of. Who says you get to pick the methods for determining errors? You've researched it so well, that's why you haven't been prepared for some of the questions you were asked, right?

Here Saint Vic is encouraging us to search the scriptures, not PLAF

Mike in red My response in black When it comes to collecting ALL the private data on VPW's actions, both good and bad..... I would not trust anything you or anyone here could put together. I firmly believe no one can do that. Even if you could get all the private data, I would not trust anyone but God to do the judging as to who gets what. If you want to think you have a handle on the sin and spirituality of some other person, there are plenty of sin oriented churches that would receive your assessments. I do not. Well, if that's the case, how do you know God's not working in me to warn people about Saint Vic? For somebody who wants to tell others not to judge, you sure judged that pretty fast. That's waysider's opinion, but it's wrong, IMO. Uh-oh, there you go judging again. This is a relatively simple proof I'm giving here. The 3 sledgehammer statements should have convinced you that VPW was totally into the idea that his final written teaching of what God was teaching him was NECESSARILY going to be God-breathed, as per PFAL page 83. After the 3 sledgehammers, all these other 19 statements are ADMITTEDLY not in the sledgehammer category, but they do add to the weight of the 3 sledgehammers. First off, its not proof its an opinion. Proof would move the needle closer to the T column of the truth table. In other words, proof are statements that can be proven. All this does is state something that may or may not be true, as they're something that can't be proven. Once again, rather than refering to Saint Vic's writings, you should be refering to God's.

No, your not tracking what both Waysider and I are saying. Me: Saint Vic couldn't have recieved divinely inspired material as he was out of fellowship and never got back in as he never repented. Waysider: It's your opinion that these phrases are Saint Vic claiming he was giving us divinely inspired material There is nothing in which you showed us to suggest Saint Vic is saying this is divinely inspired, just an opinion and an attempt to read between lines. Your doing the same thing many English majors do. That's why we have so many thesises (thesi?) on what the white whale in Moby Dick means. If you asked Melville he'd probably tell you it sounded good. The same thing we were warned in PLAF not to do. Remember, "we prayed the holy spirit into the meeting"? "Praying in the holy spirit."