WordWolf

Basically, it's a strategy of distraction. It says that: A) Some people have used atrocity propaganda in the past, therefore the Holocaust didn't happen. B) It claims there were eyewitnesses who did flybys of some sites, and they claim they didn't see atrocities, therefore no atrocities occurred anywhere. C) This was virtually unknown at the time, therefore it didnt happen. As to the first, it is a non-issue, and a distraction. Some people have lied in the past-that doesn't invalidate any truth. As to the second, as Abigail pointed out, it's missing SPECIFICS. WHO made these claims? WHERE did they claim to look? And so on. Heck, if a guy looked all over England and didn't see Jews being massacred, he could not honestly say this is proof they aren't being massacred in Dachau or any other location at that very moment. (I'm making an example.) As to the third, I've done some research. Some members of the Roman Catholic Church actually operated an "underground railroad" to try to get Jews out of Nazi occupied areas. There are photos of the 'railroad', the Jews, and the Churchmen. And the non-Jew I met, who had a number tattoed into his arm by the Nazis, he said NOTHING about ANYTHING being reported being exaggerated- but he spoke of much that he DID see... ========= OM, I would respect your candor a lot more if you just came right out and said you refused to seriously consider the vast majority of the MATERIAL EVIDENCE and EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS because you do not WISH to, and do not WISH to CHANGE YOUR MIND. It would at least be more intellectually honest than claiming that you've examined the cases for and against, and honestly can't tell where the preponderance of the evidence is.

Ok, let's see... Here's what I said... This just goes to show you that if you keep typing long enough (I've been posting on the GSC since before Y2K, IIRC), you can make a bad post. Now, I could do like Mike and pretend I never posted a mistake, and just go on, hoping it will blow over. Or, I could demonstrate a higher standard of behaviour, and internal consistency, 'fess up, and fix it, and say what I SHOULD have said. I chose the latter. Now, then, when I said "Those who interacted with vpw in his last few months", that was hyperbole, an exaggeration. What I SHOULD have said was "Those who were active in the ministry at the time". I'm so used to multi-tasking on Mike's posts, and with Mike contradicting the live witnesses, that I sorta typed this out of habit. That was wrong, and I should pay a bit more attention when I type. As for "and that came AFTER 'the Joy of Serving", that was incorrect and not what I MEANT to say. It's true-I made an error. I'll admit I finally made one on these threads. Since Mike's been loading them with logic fallacies, errors, mistakes and outright lies, and not admitting to them, I think it should be forgiveable that I made one (or 1 1/2, depending on how you call it) and owned up to it. I shall clarify what I MEANT to say. When I said " 'THE HOPE' was the last teaching he covered for people" THAT was COMPLETELY CORRECT. vpw SPECIFICALLY taught that for EVERYONE, and expected THAT to be his very last public teaching-his last teaching for everyone. When reviewing the opening of "the Joy of Serving", anyone can see that he specifically addressed it- not to everyone, or "the people" as I called them, but to COUNTRY COORDINATORS. He was NOT teaching with a view towards this one going out to the rank and file, Joe and Jane Believer. That's because he says in the opening-and Mike himself has attested to this: "Since this is the meeting here at this time of COUNTRY COORDINATORS --and of course, what I'm going to say SHOULD be applicable to every born-again believer, but ESPECIALLY to-- our coordinators.]" He also addresses himself shortly thereafter to leadership again- "That twig and twig area leader, and the country coordinators, leadership of the Corps, of the WOWs,..." So, my main point- that "THE HOPE" was the LAST teaching vpw intended for all the people to hear- that was CORRECT. My other point- that 'the Joy of Serving' was NEVER intended to be a last message FOR ALL THE PEOPLE, but Mike has built it up to be so, and has exercised various verbal gymnastics to attempt to make it so. So, vpw's comments about what he'd say to people if he knew he was going to never see them again, those comments- if they apply to ANY teaching, for EVERYBODY- those comments apply to "THE HOPE." Now, some people are paying attention and wonder where my comments about people mentioning this before come in. Well, some entire threads have been wiped out, and, unlike Mike, I have not been keeping an archive of the threads where Mike's idolatry has been discussed and exposed. However, deleted posts to the contrary, I WAS able to find the following comment, which did NOT exist in a void. (I don't have ALL the posts, but I found this one.) It was posted by Zixar, Jan 6, 2003, 5:12pm. "Another thing. One of the most basic keys to biblical interpretation that Dr. Wierwille taught was to get 'to whom it was written' straight. Reading your transcript of the 'Last' Teaching, it is PRIMARILY addressed to the Country Coordinators, and only SECONDARILY addressed to believers in general. That makes it his last teaching specifically only for Country Coordinators. Dr. Wierwille knew his true, public Last Teaching would be tape # 1275, 'The Hope'. It was addressed to all believers, and is his final message to TWI assembled. Therefore, unless you are a Country Coordinator, the advice to master the FC, IC and collaterals is not an absolute final mandate. Look to 'The Hope' for that." Mike's reply to that was to say it ONCE applied to them, but NOW applies to everyone. "My Daddy is blind to name tag status, He looks at believing." Now, then, THAT was what I MEANT to say. I got sloppy, and didn't post it originally. Thus, this correction. I shall try to make it ANOTHER 6 years before I make another. Meanwhile, I noticed Mike saw me refute him for several pages, but skipped over THOSE posts-and most of this one, actually- and seized on my first actual mistake, as if it was the only thing I've posted all year.... Now, this was sloppy of me, but not "incredibly irresponsible" of me. If I claimed, say, that "the greatest secret in the world today is that the Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God", and then spent the rest of my time saying that the Bible wasn't a Bible anymore, but a collection of books, tapes and magazine clippings were-in varying percentages- now the revealed Word and Will of God, and that the Bible that originally WAS claimed to be the revealed Word and Will of God is now "unreliable fragments" and "tattered remnants", then THAT would be "incredibly irresponsible" of me. That would be internal inconsistency of the first order, and it would be to my shame. However, if I was Mike, that type of internal inconsistency is just business as usual. Mike and I have different standards for an acceptable doctrine and an acceptable post. As for "huge errors" that "plague a mind", I'd say taking "the keys to Genesis to Revelation" and saying "this is Genesis to Revelation", and taking "then shall we say 'thus saith the LORD'" and saying "we will no longer to say 'thus saith the LORD then", I'd consider those "huge errors", and mixing up a pair of dates is an error, but hardly to be compared to a "HUGE ERROR." "This is one reason I find your posts repulsive." Hardly. I made ONE mistake. Mike finds my posts repulsive in general for the same reason the robber finds the policeman to be unwelcome. He had that problem LONG before I finally made a goof. I neither deliberately lie nor am MONUMENTALLY sloppy. This time I was 'sloppy', but not in a MONUMENTAL fashion. A MONUMENTAL mistake would be to throw away the meal and eat the menu, and that's not the type of mistake I made. However, that IS the type of mistake we've seen around here...

They MAY, however, suppose that we're tarring THEM with the same brush or blaming THEM for the actions of someone else. History's shown MANY people doing that. (Some people are STILL blaming Jews NOW for the death of Jesus 2000 years ago, for example, when none of those present are alive today.) We're not doing that with this family. I thought it was worth saying.

In other words, Mike is going to PRETEND he has documentation for his bold assertion, and send you off with a homework assignment to prove his assertion FOR him! Mike began with the premise that a new Bible was issued in the 20th century, therefore there must be a problem with the Bible of the preceeding 19 centuries (and change), therefore it's inadequate, therefore all "investigations" on his part will be with a view towards trying to strengthen his case. This means he will "ignore the misses and count the hits", and otherwise skip anything that documents the OPPOSITE position. I'm sure you notice (or can easily note) that he fogged the usage of the word "critical" in the above post.....

[supposedly, you've already examined all of this and should be able to rattle them off like the definitions of the manifestations. You mentioned this work perhaps 24 hours ago on this very thread. Things sure change fast around here...] [it is esoteric, and not to be shared with the unenlightened.] [That was on the post that took up several written pages all in one shot, not indexed for actual read-ability. You may remember it. The lack of format strongly suggested Mike didn't actually want it READ or STUDIED- just posted so he could say "I posted it." I would have responded to the claims of Mike's that vpw made such claims-but if Mike didn't care enough to make his material read-able, I'm not going to do all his work FOR him. Mind you, if he'd been communicating plainly with us for the past few years rather than playing word-games and assigning homework, I might have volunteered to add a format (you know, chapters and verses) just to facilitate maintaining discussion. However, technically, he DID post them, and that's where you'll find them.] [it's not your imaginations, folks, he ducked the question.] [Are you saying you didn't say this, Mike? Are you saying that she is unable to use the search function and find your own posts saying exactly this, Mike? Are you saying you DON'T believe this, Mike? No-you're not saying any of those- your answer, if it was in a court of law, would have been called "UNRESPONSIVE." Or, in other words, YOU DUCKED THE QUESTION AGAIN. I'm beginning to see a pattern here...] ["PFAL IS THE WORD IN WRITTEN FORM", in the same fashion, or analagous, to how Christ is The Word in flesh form. See, you CAN give plain answers to what you believe when you want to. Why waste weeks and months REFUSING to do so and diluting your posts when you could say all the basics in ONE PAGE?] ["Dr produced the written Word of God given in English". There's another concise sentence. We knew you were CAPABLE of them, Mike, nice to see them emerging from your posts. Of course, the "copies of copies of copies" sounds a LOT less extreme and harsh in comparison to your normal distain for critical Greek texts. Are you feeling less antithetical of them now, possibly even respectful? Any thoughts that the extant ones actually contain God-breathed Word? It would be worth saying so if you did...] [As is obvious to most of us who read her post, she was asking rather obvious questions, and comparing your direct answers to HER to claims made ABOUT what you've said. In other words, she had some honest questions, and you're suggesting something about them- either that there's some sort of "agenda" besides inquiry, or that there's some other problem with asking. With this type of response to even respectful questions, is it any wonder you inspire some barbed replies from several people?] [That was ANOTHER ducked question. (Aw, and after he actually ANSWERED some...) First, he belittled her ("do I need to prove this to you?") then he SUDDENLY CHANGED THE SUBJECT and began phrasing himself AMBIGUOUSLY, DELIBERATELY OCCULTING HIS ANSWER. If "PFAL should enable us to implement God's Word and will" is meant here to say "PFAL should enable us to defeat death", then Mike should say so outright. If it is meant to say ANYTHING ELSE, why, then, did Mike frame the question and the first part of the answer to suggest he would be addressing whether or not he's saying PFAL will defeat death? Either way, it's a sudden, sharp turn from candor to dishonesty. He's deliberately attempting to confuse the reader and PRETEND to answer the question. This is the same type of thing you get when one person claims to have played basketball all thru high school and college and be "involved with" a local amateur team, when you want them to conclude you were saying you were a member of the team, when the truth of the matter was you answered their phone or did their taxes or announced their games or something. Why not simply answer the question?] [The following is a lie that Mike has attempted to claim about the researcher EW Bullinger, and about other respected writers, in an attempt to smear their respectability and drag them to the level of a plagiarist.] [The TRUTH of the matter is that if a professor attempted to have a student write ANY portion of a book OR a dissertation he is going to attach his name to-without featuring their name SPECIFICALLY as having written part of it- the student could have the professor FIRED WITH CAUSE from the institution, and the professor's reputation would be DESTROYED. That's because colleges and universities take plagiarism VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY. Is it TECHNICALLY possible a professor (or professors) did this? Yes-but "getting away with it" makes it no less a crime than theft or murder ceases to be a crime if you don't get caught. A professor may have a respected grad student REVIEW his work before it's published-as a technical proofreader. A professor may ask a respected grad student to COMPILE DATA- which the professor will then read, evaluated, then write on. That's not "writing" his book-not even a single letter of text. However, Mike's attempting to play an "everybody does it" game with plagiarism so that it makes vpw's crimes seem less harsh. Interesting how he tried to sneak that one by while aiming for a different target, which is the NEXT point....] [And the relevance of this anecdote? Was it just to claim you've seen MANY professors and grad students BREAK THE LAW AND NOT GET CAUGHT, or were you trying to suggest something you never said?] [some related questions bear answering. No need to attack her for it.] [Can hardly blame her for that, but nice try anyway.] [Ah, a direct link! That was nice of you!] [According to you, Mike, everyone else has been so poor at reading comprehension that a plain declaration might well be beyond their talents. So, based on your previous claims, one MIGHT expect you to whip something obvious out and say "See? It was in plain sight all along and you all missed it!"] [i wonder if you realize just how patronizing and arrogant you come off in posts like this. Presuming to read her mind-which is a common presumption on your part-displays a sloppy mentality which does NOT place a favourable light on you ANYTIME you do it.] [Congratulations! You answered your own questions from above and explained WHY she might ask questions that seem obvious to you! Will you now berate YOURSELF for EXPLAINING IT like you attacked her for asking? It would be internally consistent, at any rate. (Like the traffic judge fining himself for poor driving.)] [Cheap shot on other leaders, cheap shot on Mormonism, or both? What do the other readers say?] [Cute. Made some assumptions based on what a section of Acts did NOT say (it did NOT say Paul declared things FROM the Scriptures- at least NOT IN THE CITED VERSES), so therefore, Paul must not have shown them the verses. (Likewise, this account says nothing about Paul using an outhouse or going abroad, so he must never have used a bathroom when he was with them. Same principle-let's be CONSISTENT!) Then he says his dodging of questions is the same thing Paul did. Like I said, cute. Hey, Mike, I'll get back to your other posts as soon as I have time. Only so many hours in a night...]

Actually, I was thinking specifically of HCW. I don't discount the possibility of others chiming in and me missing it, though. HCW broke down how the editing process in the books AND magazines was done-which was identical to how it was also explained by one of the editors-was it Linda Z? They used their brains and their best understanding to make whatever they were working on as good as possible as defined by the framework they were working in. In the case of the magazine articles, that sometimes necessitated radical restating/rephrasing in different words, and sometimes it meant trimming out extraneous sentences. Thus, in transcribing the film to print, they started with EVERYTHING word for word. Then they cleaned up some awkward language and obvious errors (like anabalepto being corrected to eidon, and fixing the "Felix or Festus" when it was Agrippa who said "almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian", as the KJV renders it.) In some cases, entire anecdotes went on the chopping block since they were NOT able to be functionally-restored. They were SERIOUS about retaining as much of the film as possible-so any absences are telling. Furthermore, as we've seen in discussions right here, the "red drapes" anecdote falls on its face when examined. So, to "strengthen" the book, the anecdote is removed. Since you've taken all accounts they posted, as well as the face-to-face encounters you've had with editing staff, and rewritten the accounts to say "they inadvertently operated revelation" (you did this addressing HCW previously), I figured you'd continue to just do so ad infinitum. Have you changed your mind, or are you asking just to try to throw doubt on what happened before?

Every once in a while, someone decides they got everything they needed to from the GSC and sail off to enjoy their life sans-GSC. Based on that criteria, if Jung must leave, I'm glad this was the reason-I can find no better one. Take care, Jung, fare well.

If anyone in the wierwille family is reading this, I'd like to let them know that I view them as total strangers, and have neither a positive, negative or neutral view of them at all, but rather one where I know that I know nothing of them and see no need to speculate in the slightest. I will give them the common courtesy I would give any total stranger.

I wouldn't go that far. Just because there was a one-attribute similarity did not 180-degree all his comments from God Almighty to the devil. As I've noted before, cg attempted to resolve the age-old debate and a question many others have failed to answer before him: how do you incorporate a God who is All-Knowing and a God who is Love with a God who permits evil to exist at all? cg's answer was to retain the Goodness of God as his requirement by definition, and sacrificed All-Knowing for it. If such a sacrifice was NEEDED, this would be a fair trade. As someone said once, I'd rather be the One-Who-Cares than the One-Who-Knows. If either of you want to get into the nuts and bolts of this subject, feel free to open it in Doctrinal, and I'll join you for the fun. And yes, I believe it sells God quite short, as well...

Sounds like he took the dramatic pauses he learned while studying Homiletics (how to write and teach a sermon), OVERbuilt them like we saw on page 150 of "The Way:Living in Love" (and discussed in its wonderland thread), then simply added a little showmanship- "Wait-God's sending me a message while we speak! Ok, He's done! Where were we?"

Hm. WTH is online and reading this thread, after being absent for some time. Looks like Mike is feeling pressured again, and has contacted WTH again and requested he take some of the heat off of himself and to use his Posts of Mass Distraction. If WTH runs true to type, (i.e. is as predictable as always), we'll see a comment interjected that barely relates to the topic at hand, and a brace of insults strewn about. If WTH does not run true to type, (i.e. is slightly less predictable), we'll get a lengthy cut-and-paste of someone else's thoughts, off their website which will not be cited in the post. Well, we should know ANY MINUTE NOW....

OM, if you review what Raf actually posted- which you quoted, so you can find it pretty fast- you can see exactly what he's saying on the subject. ===== So, by the change of subject again, Oldiesman, are you saying that you admit the evidence is overwhelming and monumental that Hitler set up a plan to kill millions of people including millions of Jews, then had that plan executed, killing millions of people including millions of Jews? Or is this just a change of subject dropping in the middle of it again?

[Actually, they're fairly small differences, considering the volume of material, but we can pretend they're "major" differences.] [1) The red drapes were left out of the book by the editors.In their attempts to operate their 5-senses understanding to make the best book possible- AS THEY THEMSELVES EXPLAINED ON THE GSC- they cleaned up tortured examples. The red drapes incident was unsalvageable, so they trashed it. It was cited in the class as one of the "textbook" examples of the "law" of believing. (It was the best he could INVENT because believing is STILL not a "LAW".) It contained such miserable explanations as "she had a need, and that need was, they might as well be red drapes." Small wonder they didn't want that kind of "example" walking around. Furthermore, the editors attempted to expand on the taped class' explanations where they were salvageable but insufficient-thus the word "balanced" at the never-properly-explained "needs and wants parallel" step. They were on to something, but a full explanation needed to completely discard the wording used in both the taped class AND its transcript book. Yeah-the book was taken FROM the tapes, and the editors worked on it. At least, that's what THEY said, and I take their PARTICIPANT and EYEWITNESS accounts over revisionist "history" any day.] [ 2a) Duh-the books were improved and expanded upon, and the tapes were NOT. As for the supposed "time-travel" of Paul, it's due to an ERROR in the book. Paul speaks of a man he knows, who was "caught away to the third earth." In the Burnt Umber Book, the man whom Paul knows suddenly morphs into Paul HIMSELF. This happens more than once. Now, there are 2 possible explanations for this. 1) Using the "read the verse exactly as it is written", in English, Greek, Aramaic, etc, rule pfal REQUIRES WE USE, the man is someone whom Paul knows, and then it's Paul himself. This means-according to pfal rules- "pfal" has an internal contraction in that chapter and book, of the "A = ~A" type, meaning it's unresolvable. This means the Burnt Umber Book has error, which means it's NOT God-Breathed. No problem for anybody EXCEPT Mike. vpw wrote it and made a mistake. Mike pronounces it as Divine Scripture, and so this must be hidden, justified, or DISTRACTIONS MUST BE BROUGHT INTO PLAY. 2) If we completely discard the rules outlined in pfal, we can find that one Christian who wrote centuries after Paul wrote thought that Paul meant himself in this passage. Mike can't embrace that one for 2 reasons: a) He must go in the opposite direction as the rules of pfal to take it up b) If Mike accepts it as true, then Mike must posit that Christians centuries after the first century AD had the truth, and Mike's entire premise is based on the idea that the truth evaporated after 101 AD and remained evanesced until 1943 AD or thereabouts. So, no matter how you slice it, Mike faces an internal contradiction here, either in the book itself, or in the basic Mikean Profession of Faith. BTW, when he taunted the posters, he kept positing it as some sort of homework assignment. The response of all the posters was "We're not doing your work FOR you. Either make your specifics or stop the coy gameplaying." Despite them telling him so outright, Mike has elected to re-imagine their responses as them scouring the material, AND missing his answer, AND agreeing he actually had a legitimate point. After all, Paul never specifies this event was not a VISION- he TWICE says HE doesn't know if it was, but only God knows. However, where Paul's knowledge falters, Mike's doctrine "fills in the blanks".] [THOUSANDS of people "handled the tapes", which is what it means to be at the Mike levelof "helping control it." In case anyone missed it, Mike was never in charge of the tapes at a national or Region level. Heck, I can say the same of MYSELF, as can MANY of the posters here. So the comment is gratuitous. Was it meant to make Mike sound like an insider? The reader can riddle that one out for himself. As for mastering the soundtrack of the class, it was not an unattainable goal. Many of us knew when he was going to be building to dramatic finishes, get to a corny joke, go to the next chart, etc. If not for the interruption of the "line in the sand" lcm drew, the majority of us would have had the thing memorized by the mid-90s if not sooner. I myself used to recite sections as an inside joke. In fact, one audio class I attended was missing a tape from Session 6, and when we ended the tapes present, I covered (unprepared) the missing segment from memory, and the people in charge of the class even said I covered it all. Neither the memorization of the tapes nor the books were the key to all spirituality, though- as Mr Hammeroni has said...he did studies OF the books by topic and word usage and so on, and there were NO hidden mysteries for him to find-not from lack of trying.] [Technically true. He said that if people wanted to serve, they had to have something to serve people, and the ONLY thing of any use they could serve others was the pfal class. He added that Christians outside of twi didn't have anything worth serving to people. In short, it was his last cheap-shot at other Christians, and his last ad for pfal.] [iNCORRECT.Those who actually interacted with vpw in his last few months said "THE HOPE" was the last teaching he covered for people, and that came AFTER "the Joy of Serving", which is the one Mike is quoting. Mike, however, plain refuses to accept that and just keeps announcing this in the hopes he can rewrite events by rewriting people's memories.] [since it's based on the preceeding false assumption, it's small wonder Mike went off into left field here. We do NOT have "Peter's and Paul's dying last words." Therefore, any speculation on Mike's part as to their contents are what vpw referred to as "private interpretation."] [i hope everyone caught that statement of Mike's.Of course, it COMPLETELY DISCARDS EVERYTHING THE WAY CORPS WAS TAUGHT, including their 5 Principles. If Mike ever got ahold of the Heart of the Way Corps tapes, he'd hear TWO tapes from vpw, where the rather obvious given that they are to study the BIBLE, and the ENTIRE Bible, and so on. Of course, all the way corps grads here know this in a fundamentally obvious way. If Mike knew the way corps like he claims- like, having been IN it or something- this would be BLATANTLY OBVIOUS to him as it should be BLATANTLY OBVIOUS to anyone who EVER heard the way corps explained BY vpw.] [Here's a Mikean assertion, based on DISCARDING the reverence for the Written Word that was shoved down the throats of the way corps, college division, etc, while demonstrating a DRAMATIC LACK of knowledge on the texts. Even a little reading online would markedly improve his knowledge on this subject. However, Mike will eschew this, since it undermines his premise. Without a damaged Bible, there is no NEED for another gospel-aka Mikean pfal. Since there is no damaged Bible, the premise that a replacement is needed is nullified. And having seen the 19th century results (which are grossly outdated), and having seen Mike mutilate the text of pfal, I'd trust the 19th century translators with old manuscripts than I trust the 21st century Mike with the pfal books in plain English.] [Oh, any possible typos are very minor considerations, compared to the content...]

So, CM, do you have some compelling evidence arguing for the figurative/spiritualized interpretation of these verses? I've noticed you've divided us into "those who take this as non-literal" and "those who worship vpw's position". Other than CM's say-so, what "argument" do you offer for a change of position? Hey-I'm open to reconsidering my opinion- but I need a better reason than the ones for my CURRENT opinion.

(I'm sure you thought that was funny.) ====== As for a realistic relationship with God, NO! twi taught a MECHANISTIC relationship with God, where you throw the switch and get the result. God is neither a factory "wish" machine nor a divine genie, slapping down our wishes at our whims. vpw also had an interesting bias. While he was correct (IMHO) that "a feeling" was not a REQUIREMENT for a relationship with God, he went further and encouraged the switching OFF of our feelings. Humans are messy and emotional, and twi found that inefficient. So, if we didn't just switch off our emotions on command, then we faced insult added to injury as Job did- where we suffer AND twi people CONDEMNED us for suffering. So, our relationship with God was bleached clean of FEELINGS, which siphoned much of it out. Worse, with us hiding our emotions, we didn't even have a healthy relationship with OURSELVES, let alone EACH OTHER. Even Job's miserable comforters "sat shiva" with the suffering Job for 3 days before they went in and attacked him. In twi, that was 3 days too long to wait. And if you think it's changed now, only the LABELS have changed.

I had to rush the conclusion, but I'm getting back to it. [False dilemna. Mike is saying one can ONLY choose between mediocrity and the Mikean message. A) Not only are there MANY other options, but B) The Mikean notion of "prosperity" rewrites the pfal explanation of "prosperity" so that you can be broke and "prosper", which is the opposite of what pfal said.] [A) What is actually written there is NOT the Mikean message. By all means, reread it again if you wish. You'll be surprised that it's not as sparkling as you remember. We saw that happen with TW:LiL, after all. C) Almost NOBODY has been saying "don't read pfal." However, they HAVE been saying "don't drink the Mike-flavoured Kool-Aid." One can read the pfal books just fine without the Mikean spin. D) Who actually said they "hated pfal" here? Mike keeps relabelling both the opinions and posts of others, and keeps claiming pfal contains the Mikean message. Reality is under no constraint to conform to Mikean rewrites. Any healthy person should have no difficulty understanding what's been said plainly TO Mike for page after page. That Mike either knows it and exercises deceit, or is not sound enough to know it, is a matter of opinion. The readers can judge for themselves.]

[Notice how he transformed the accounts of the victims. Women who all came forward saying they personally were assaulted, drugged, or drugged and assaulted. People who were part of vpw's criminal gang that set up these crimes and covered them up came forward, ashamed of their actions. What do we call this? In a court of law, we call it "a conviction." In Mikeworld, we call it "gossip/rumours", and "harping". Also, it's amazing how ignorant Mike is about the wrongness of sin, and how leaders are supposed to set the example. Now, being outraged about a minister drugging and raping the flock is "being uptight", and to be chided, and God may or may not mind it. Wow. Even the slowest-witted student in catechism can run thru the Ten Commandments and find "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife". No, God may not be "uptight" about ministers drugging and raping the flock... Incredible.] [so, the fact that one minister may cheat on his income tax, and a different minister stole a box of paperclips from an office shows they sin. What's the difference between THEIR sinning and vpw drugging and raping the congregation? That the Old AND New Testaments have standards a minister must follow are "a big leap of theology", see, because Mike needs to belittle them and explain them away. Now they're not in the Bible, they're instead in your "theology". I imagine the devil's always trying to "take down" men (and women) of God. And when one of them abuses his office and uses it to facilitate drugging and raping women in the congregation, I call that a successful takedown-that minister is UNFIT. Guess what? So does the Bible. But according to Mike, this is just me making noise.] [He taught some good stuff, therefore he gets a free pass from following the standards set by God and given to His people in both the Old and New Testaments.] [While we're at it, let's dump the testimony of EVERY prophet in Scripture-they were all so negative, so dark, so condemning. Ever read Jeremiah or Lamentations? Such a downer. So, let's scratch out 2 entire books of the Bible. Of course, vpw condemned such removals right in the pfal class, but Mike's announced that depressing-sounding stuff is NOT to be heeded. So, no prophets, no warnings, no safeguards of any kind. Let us be consistent! Mikeworld has no warnings!] [The warnings of the Bible are "the dark condemnations of religion." If there were police reports and rape kit results, they too would be "the dark condemnations of religion." Anything that gets between Mike and his message is "the dark condemnations of religion."] *** [in case you missed it, when Mike says "God told thousands to master PFAL", he means-in this instance, that vpw said to master the White Book, and Mike has concluded that this means GOD said to master PFAL. The heavens didn't open and a voice issue forth...] *** [Translation: YES, Mike IS ignoring the possibility that it's just for HIM and not a mandate to convert the GSC.] [Note that he hinted, suggested, implied. Mike rarely attempts to make a case from the books he claims are Divine because every time he does, everyone can clearly see that he's distorting the plain meaning of sentences, and joining them to other sentences he's isolated and distorted, resulting in as honest an approach as quoting half a verse to say that "there is no God."] *** [Of course, in this case, our Bible also said this can't be, but don't let that stop you-Mike never does...] *** [Of course, WE tried conversation, too. So, it's only a matter of time before you must either conform to Mike or be labelled "cold" "scolding", etc. Meanwhile, the lurking readers can read for themselves...] [CONVERTS. He's here for CONVERTS.] [in other words, NO, Mike will NEVER accept people can disagree with him and be right with God. Nice try.] [That has little, if ANYTHING, to do with ANY objections we've ever voiced. We've pointed out he contradicts his own "Bible" as well as the real one, and so on. He's rewriting our own comments just as he rewrites his "scripture".] [Or the oldest sex rules, like "don't rape God's people"...] *** [Mike's dedicated his life to wasting it in this fashion and will not be stayed. If that befuddles you, so be it.] [Label the people and the content of their posts...classic Mike diversion.] [This is still a public messageboard...] ["They disagree with me so they serve Satan." Classic Mike...] *** [Mike's said his message was anti-intellect. Now it's anti-feelings. Must not be much to it...] [Feel free to actually READ it and see where it disagrees with Mike!]

Tough to say. ====== Anyway, next movie. "You'll be seeing a lot of changes around here. Papa's got a brand new bag."

Plus, all the other boards with OLGs kick him out, so this is all he has left for his "evangelism".

[This is where your system of "hidden messages" falls down. When we "read what is written" and use our intellects as we can, pfal clearly says one set of things. You've just said that the intellect is useless, for YOUR system can't be intellectually-justified. Which is true-intellectually, your system is nonsensical. However, trying to use a book like the Orange Book as a guide MUST, by DEFINITION, involve the INTELLECT. That's why your system and the actual text of the Orange Book part company. Since the intellect's approach to the Orange Book leads to results DIFFERENT than that of the Mikean system, you've rejected ALL intellectual approaches, EVEN THE KEYS TAUGHT IN PFAL, like "at least 85% explains itself right where it's written." Therefore, the Mikean system says to "master" books in a non-intellectual way. And you wonder why you get that look. No, it's not because we're all lousy Christians. But hey, if it makes you happy, you can keep telling yourself that...] [but when the intellectual understanding refutes Mike, then it is tobe "held in abeyance" or discarded. We fell for that ONCE, not again. "In vain is the net spread in sight of any bird."] [Actually, since vpw claimed FINANCIAL prosperity was one expectation of understanding God and acting within that understanding, one of the BEST ways to get our attention would be to erupt into great financial wealth, just like vpw said. Then maybe you'd illustrate: A) you "arrived" at what he was talking about B) what he was talking about actually WORKED I won't hold my breath on that one. And I'll let Raf refute your mangled misunderstanding of how he operates on his own.]

Mike insinuated I was drawing attention from his other posts. So I shall draw attention to some of them... For the complete contents, you can scroll up (you have the original date/time intact) or click back to view the original post. This way, you can see if I'm representing his comments fairly. [The standard Mikean message, Part I: that God was silent for nearly 2000 years, working with NO Christian leaders in any appreciable fashions, not even the ones vpw plagiarized, nor the ones that vpw learned everything on the holy spirit field from, but chose out an alcoholic, chain-smoking sex-addict to bestow the greatest revelation in 2 millenia on, which consisted of a holy cut-and-paste of the work of Stiles Bullinger Leonard Kenyon and Lamsa. This "greatest revelation in 2000 years is the pfal books." I KNOW Mike would prefer I phrase it differently, but that IS exactly the Mikean message. (The only difference is rephrasing the description of the alcoholic, chain-smoking sex-addict into something regal-sounding.)] [dmiller learned a costly lesson. Seeing vpw's source-material, and learning that he lied about miraculous snowstorms-which were the sole witness to his divine revelation that turned out to be a photocopy of the works of others- taught dmiller a costly lesson. The disgusting morals of the man who labelled himself a man who received "the greatest revelation since the First Century" was ANOTHER lesson-those who serve God don't live in sin, and make occasion to serve the lusts thereof...and if they did, they would be operating at cross-purposes with the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. That's some of what dmiller learned since his foolish youth.] [dmiller accepted that he'd lost enough to this costly error and cut his losses, rather than dedicate the rest of his life to attempting to legitimize it and use it to give the sole meaning to his life. As such, all the memorizing of the White Book ceased. The essence of the differences is here:] [Having seen the dramatic failure of vpw's work on a personal level and an organization-wide level, having taken a look at the man behind the curtain, dmiller saw that he'd been taught some good Bible and some vile doctrine, and jettisoned the idolatrous, vile doctrine. Having seen the dramatic failure of vpw's work on a personal level (vpw claimed ALL Christians should be financially prosperous, and Mike, the supposed most advanced one of us here, lives with NO financial prosperity, showing this to have been either a failure, Mike to be a fraud, or both; plus vpw himself failed to walk in the calling wherewith he was called, making occasion for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof, costing much money in dollars and unpriceable harm to the beloved sisters in Christ, AND TAUGHT OTHERS TO DO THE SAME), an organization-wide level (vpw set up a structure that was unhealthy and lacked checks and balances, then put the most defective leader in several states as the absolute authority IN that organization, which led DIRECTLY to the cataclysms which destroyed the thing and caused it to lose more than 99% of overall membership), having taken a look at the man behind the curtain, Mike decided that the fault could NOT have been in vpw NOR pfal, and devised a set of doctrines that absolved both of error and mistake, AND elevated both to an idolatrous level ABOVE that of the Bible. Mike invented a new Gnostic path in order to salvage his happy memories of his youth.] [Here's the similarity: They claim to pick up where vpw left off, and so do you. They claim to be the best at interpreting the next step, and so do you. They added their own doctrines and changed things as suited them, you added "hidden" messages and changed the plain text as suited you. You can claim YOUR path of "hidden wisdom" is superior to theirs, but it's just ANOTHER Gnostic path among many. Might as well be elevating JUDAS as elevating vpw...] The Introduction of the Orange Book said it's a book on KEYS to Genesis to Revelation, NOT a replacement for it. The renegade, reprobate Mike says the Orange Book REPLACES Genesis to Revelation. [The plain meaning of the passages and Mike often run at cross-purposes with each other, thus the "HIDDEN MEANINGS" even Mike admits he uses. The PLAIN MEANINGS being INSUFFICIENT to support Mike's doctrine, he thus "finds" "hidden" (occulted) meanings that work for him.] [Lacking the connection that they can claim-of actually KNOWING vpw and interacting with him for YEARS that they can claim, the renegade, reprobate Mike does not claim to be their equal in that respect. He DOES, however, claim to be the only one among all of US that has THE special message, the special connection, the special knowledge. The Mike claims his special Gnostic path.] [bUT, whenever other look in the books and study their meaning, WHEN THEY COME TO OTHER CONCLUSIONS THAN MIKE, "meekly mastering" Mike blasts them as unfit researchers, bozos, and so on. The renegade, reprobate Mike will tolerate NO vision, NO reading of pfal other than the meanings HE agrees with, that HE finds.] [but if he ever had enough people to support him, what would we see? We do not know at this time, and Mike can't claim we DO, either way.] [Recent examples of Mike "civilly discussing our differences"... from ONE post... "stupid comments" "mindlessly complain" "idiot" "I don't give a rat's foot." "None of your business!" "your mindless preferences" "you condescending xxxx!" "poorly thought through" "very insulting derogatory terms" "trivialities" "I have a life" (unlike you) "stupidity"] ***************** [skipping several paragraphs that simply say "all the leaders out there are inferior because they fail to pass the standard invented and implemented BY me of endless review of books they lack access to", we have the typical Mikean commercial again...] [Mike's message, in a few paragraphs. There's some other stuff, but that's the essence of what Mike wants us to buy. (Leaving out the snow and the lies and the cut-and-pastes and so on.)] [Of course, Mike has completely missed that he has given God only TWO avenues thru which to work- vpw/pfal and twi-leaders who learned from vpw/pfal, and is convinced only ONE or the OTHER- and no THIRD choice- could possibly hold The Truth. Mike also misses that others have seriously evaluated Mike's claim about pfal USING the TOOLS of pfal, and the use of pfal has led them to a conclusion radically different from his. Since they disagree with what he wants to believe, they MUST be wrong. Otherwise, Mike's entire life is a waste and an illusion.]

[Actually, dmiller is CORRECT. If this WAS in pfal, you would believe it completely AND call it 'revelation'. I'd go the extra mile and say that if you thought it was mysteriously HIDDEN in pfal and ONLY YOU SAW IT cabalistically occulted in its depths, you'd not only call it 'revelation', you'd glory in your ability to see what none of us could, and call yourself more erudite for it.] [Or, he made a legitimate observation which stood on its own and did notrequire discussion. He WAS RIGHT, and you COULD have just let it go even if you refused to evaluate his comment on its own merits. Since you brought it up again, you ARE perforce inviting us to comment on it and evaluate it ourselves.] [behold the Ubiquitously-Hidden desperation in everyone else's posts! Any post Mike doesn't like is now "Desperate". dmiller's posts are desperate, Tom's are desperate, WW's are desperate... Reminds me of a story I read once...] [Your message, frankly, nullifies itself. All dmiller did was make an observation.He didn't "flay", or show "desperation". Further, you didn't "hogtie". Labelling a jar of pickles as "apple butter" does not change the pickles...] [No, he was extrapolating based on what YOU YOURSELF CLAIMED of YOUR OWN BELIEFS. You claim that the contents of pfal-no matter what they are-are 'revelation'. So, if ANYTHING was suddenly found there, no matter how outrageous, you would make the same claim of it.] [Well, you claimed OF pfal that Jesus Christ was studying it and thathe would teach us from it upon his return. Concerning its contents, you're insistent that "believing" is a "Law" and that it is thus "immutable" and, according to pfal, that "God would have to change the laws of the universe" for it not to work, when it fails to work ALL THE TIME. You've added all sorts of caveats and codicils to it that nullify its usefulness in order to not say "it doesn't work". Do you need page numbers about this "Law"? We've discussed it LOTS of times....] [besides the "law" of believing, dmiller, feel free to add your own. You might mention that it makes the terms "all without distinction" and "all with a distinction" completely synonymous if his "the written pfal is all God-breathed" is correct. Or you can pick your own.]

[And Mike has yet another career-now he's some sort of internet virtual veterinarian, inexplicably qualified to identify and diagnose animals and their situations... Apparently, Mike is Tom's "master" and Tom is some sort of puppy. Other than his cold nose (which means he's healthy), I don't see it, myself. But whatever.] [Remaining on the SAME PAGE as I did, and leaving the link intact,it should be child's play for any poster to examine the context of each comment. I thought of including the uncut version below it, but I said to myself "my fellow posters are smart enough to scroll up and read for themselves, or click and read for themselves." And they'll see that the original post-while not according to "Miss Manners", hardly qualifies as "insulting" AND "demeaning" AND "condescending" AND "idiotic." Arguably "condescending" (maybe, maybe not), but certainly none of the others (unless you're trying out a new thesaurus.)] [Neither, since the original post was RIGHT THERE. Are the other posters incapable of scrolling up? The original poster name and time were RIGHT on the post (which I included), as was the click-link. If they were a misrepresentation, surely most posters could EASILY see I was not intellectually honest....] [Or maybe I meant EXACTLY what I meant to point out- your own comments demonstrated an INTERNAL hypocricy, AND were dripping with venom while SUPPOSEDLY representing the God who so Loved that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whomsoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Christ died for Tom, and it looks like you wanted Tom dead as well.]

Now, on this one, I know the artists, but I haven't heard it enough to know the name...

This must be the "easy-to-be-entreated-love-of-God" Mike claims to have. Some highlights from ONE of his latests posts, counting only the replies and not the quotes he's replying to... "You have beaten me to the punch at being rude by a longshot!" Hardly, Mike. This post seems to have been dedicated ENTIRELY to "being rude." I'm sure everyone else can see the irony of spending an entire post on insults- which contains the quote "You are just demonstrating for all that you have no logical response to what I post so you resort to trivialities, and illogical ones at that."