WordWolf

Anyone here heard the claim that we expected Jesus Christ to show up during vpw's lifetime? 'Cmon, don't be shy, I know SOMEBODY heard it. You don't even have to admit you said it...

This thread's purpose is NOT to claim that all evil in the world proceeded from vpw. (Some did, most did not.) This thread's purpose is NOT to claim that vpw's works-his teachings, his books, etc. were of zero usefulness whatsoever. (Some were quite nice, some had considerable error, in doctrine as well as phrasing, as written by the author.) Since certain people keep trying to claim this is the stance of anyone who fails to fall in a prostrate manner and venerate his writings, I felt the need to get that out of the way AGAIN. ------------------------------------------------------------ This thread IS, specifically, for the wild, grandiose, inflated claims you've heard over the years. Some of you've heard all sorts of wild fanboy adulation about vpw. I suppose anyone's entitled to be a fan(atic) when they want to be, but there's a limit to REASONABLE claims. I'd like to see some of the ridiculous abilities, experiences and claims attributed to vpw. ------------------------------------------------------------- I'll start off. I was told, back in 1989, one of the reasons there were problems after vpw's death was that, as a direct result of his death, "that huge network of believing vanished." That is, an ex-corpse person, who was in "active rebellion" against twi's draconian statements in 1989, had said that during vpw's life, his believing, and his believing ALONE, acted like a huge net over the entire USA, thwarting the devil like some huge construct of Green Lantern's ring. Once vpw died, it vanished, forcing the rest of us mortals to deal with things as best we could. ------------------------------------------------------- Please chime in anytime, on any subject-I know we've got TONS out there....

ALL of us are quoting from "fading memories"? Guess you've missed a LOT of threads. A lot of us post with quotes directly from book or tape, with citations. If we're quoting word-for-word from a source directly in front of our noses, how then could it be a "fading memory"? --------------------------------- No, wait, I know- anything that shows vpw as unfit somehow is unreliable. Either it's a deliberate lie or forgery, or the frame of mind of the reader somehow invalidates a direct quote, or it's a misquote, or something. Whatever it is, anything that depicts vpw as somehow tainted must be suppressed, ignored or somehow discounted. No matter who said it, or how much documentation supports it, it must NOT be true, since that would invalidate vpw as the MOGFOT. So. direct quotes become "fading memories."

OK, now THAT one I'd call a 2 plus 2 equals 5 error, when documented and stated that way. I'm just casting my vote. :)-->

Actually, you'll want to read up on Harry Houdini before calling yourself an authority on him. (No, you didn't go that far yet-I'm going somewhere.) Harry Houdini was perhaps the biggest SKEPTIC of his time. He was well aware that his OWN skills were not supernatural, but practised. So, much of his later life was spent debunking hucksters and frauds. (The Amazing Randi currently does this type of work.) Even in his death, Houdini left a lasting challenge. He challenged anyone to bring him back in a seance. He left behind secret passwords that, if they ever were revealed to someone in a seance, should prove that they really DID speak to him. (Or at least, someone legitimately supernatural.) To this day, people keep trying to "call him up". No successes. ----------------------------------------- Does anyone have access to Catharist materials? I was just reminded of them. This entire thread just drove home to me that certain people view everything as having EXACTLY 2 positions, no more, no less. Examples: It's either natural, or spiritual. It's either 100% the Word of God, or 10 % dross. Either he never spoke anything of God, or his every utterance was God's ultimate expression. Either pfal is perfect, or God gave no real way to learn, to us. No middle ground, ever. No room for dissent, either-only announcement and recitation. (Either I'm 100% right or 100% wrong.) ---------------------------------------------- Mike, I went back and fixed the odd margins. I was honestly surprised you addressed my question. You gave me 1/2 my answer, which is a lot more than I expected. You gave an outline on "how to master pfal". Well, that's part of what I was looking for, of course. My specific question was on a definition of some kind about what it means TO master. You gave guidelines to getting there, but still haven't provided a definition of the destination. ------------------------------------------- BTW, in the last teaching you quoted, vpw said "the only criticisms I've ever seen in God's Word that Jesus Christ ever gave were to the religionists." That statement sure make the "religionists" (whoever disagrees with us) look bad. However, it sure leaves out a lot. Jesus criticized Mary, his mother, at Cana. "what do you wan't from me? It's not my turn!" Jesus criticized Peter, a LOT. "Get thee behind me, Satan". "No, you can't go where I'm going." Jesus criticized the Samaritan woman who came for her daughter's healing. "It's not meet to take children's bread, and to cast it to the dogs." Awfully selective memory there. However, it allowed vpw to dichotomize the Christian world-there was twi, and the religionists. (No middle ground.) Just US and THEM.) ------------------------------------------- Mike, in your reply to me, you said you try to judge only in a nice way. You said you were "assistance-judging". So, do you finally admit that you actually DO judge, no matter how pretty the judging seems to you? Sounds like you did, 4/13, 1:46pm, this thread. You claimed I never answered your question about what I'd do if you answered me. Go back. I thought I was very unambiguous. I said I was going to pay attention to it, and, primarily, THINK. (There's a longer answer earlier in this thread.) ("Algorithm"? Well, your answer WAS "sequential"...) You also seemed to have completely dodged my "B" point about promoting a man. (Nice dodge, though. Quite skillful.) You completely misread my "D" point. First of all, I did not say I condemned vpw- I said I formed a definite opinion. (At least, on this thread.) I did state what I based the ability to form the opinion on-some of the evidence. I pointed out that there are plenty of other people, whom we've all heard of, on whom we all formed opinions. However, those people we've had no direct contact with. Golly gee, looks like we can all agree that being able to reach out and b!tch-slap someone is NOT a requirement for being able to form an opinion on them. Also, you skipped that I added I have an opinion about you, too, having never met you. (I'll bet you have one of me, as well.) You then made a quick strawman by claiming that the evidence should show vpw is a lot nicer than the rogues gallery I cited. DUH. I cited the names of serial killers, torturers, tyrants and mass-murderers. I never said he or you were as evil as them. (I'll add I'm not, either.) My point was that, having never met them, we nontheless all have a consistent opinion of each of them. In the case of vpw, we have a lot of first-hand source material to work from. I made NO reference to what KIND of opinion anyone should form about him. I was saying there is PLENTY of material to form an opinion about him, even if we never sat at the head table with him, sat up at hoot owl's with him, read his report on the mission fields, or played chess with his chess set. ---------------------------------------- Lastly, you asked Rafael, but I'll take a shot at answering. He can correct me if I misrepresent his answer. You pointed out that he said there was no hurry about addressing the errors on the list, and also referenced a brevity of time. You considered that a contradiction. After hearing your question, I think I see what the confusion is about. Let me use an analogy. It doesn't matter WHEN they send the next space shuttle off. Could be months, years, or decades. No rush. However, BEFORE they try to use the thing in space for extended periods, and launch and re-enter the atmosphere, they will need to overhaul all the parts and insure they aren't faulty and will blow up upon use. I think that's the same point he was making with you. ------------------------------------------ Sorry about those dizzy margins the other day, and I'm still surprised you even answered 1/2 my question on mastering. WordWolf.

Ok, addressing points in the order I saw them... A) Mike, I did read your "many many words posted on mastery." I noticed that at no point in ANY of the posts is a definition given that is not reflexive. My junior-high school history teacher refused to let us use a word in its definition. (This came up when we could not use the word "fur" in explaining what a fur trapper was, since we had not explained what a fur WAS.) That was a legitimate lesson,and AFAIK, a proper rule in teaching. You've posted that we're supposed to master, that we are supposed to master until we reach certain goals, but not once did you explain what it means to master. I can't perform an action I have no idea how to perform. You're saying we failed to master something, but, without any explanation of what "mastering" is, I just have your say-so I didn't do it. Not good enough. Plain English, please. I'm not asking for a perfect definition, or an explanation of cold fusion. What will I do with this definition? THINK. I can then evaluate what I've done to date, what you're saying should have been done, and what you're saying should be done in the present and future. Without a simple (or semi-simple) answer, you provide no tools for doing so. Don't worry your answer can get too technical for me-I can keep up at any level you take it, when I choose. For someone who wants me to perform an action, you sure are impeding the process for doing it. -------------------------------------------------------------------- B) Mike, You said "In no way have I promoted the human author." Hm. Let's see. You've stated that his writings are of superior canonicity than any Bible extant,including critical Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew texts, including the Masoretic text, which doesn't change. You claim that his connection with God was so surpassing excellence that any sin of character would be unable to alter one word of his writing's canonicity. You claim that, since the "first century Christian church", no one in the intervening 18 centuries and change has had such a connection to God, and received revelation from God. (I'm stopping there.) You know, to everyone except you two, that looks like you're promoting that human. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C) Mike, You also said "...nor do I post my judgements on other people's hearts." In the same post, you used the term "spiritual babies", and implied all your detractors at GSC (or possibly just the ones on this thread) are the "spiritual babies" you mentioned. You've called those who disagree with you "unfit workmen" based on how you view their hearts. You've claimed-repeatedly-that those who are not "old-school" are incapable of reading vpw's writings and REALLY understanding them the same way a semi-literate, mildly-retarded man who took pfal in 1975-76 can. You know, to everyone except you two, that looks like you're judging people's hearts, and posting on those judgements. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- D) Mike, You also said "You never met Dr, yet you condemn him." Based on the evidence, including videotapes he made, audiotapes he made, and books he wrote, I'll say 'yes, I never met him, but I have very definite opinions about him.' I would say the same of YOU, and I have NOT seen videotapes nor heard audiotapes from you. Further, I never met Charles Manson, David Berkowitz, John Wayne Gacy, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin,Caligua, Lucrezia Borgia, Ivan the Terrible, nor the guys who ran the ovens at Auschwitz, but, you know, even WITHOUT having seen video or heard audio, I think I can make a conclusion based on the evidence at hand. I'm silly that way. ---------------------------------------------------------- E) Mike, a footnote. BTW, I'm fairly confident, although not certain, that you will NEVER provide an explanation about "mastering". That's because I'm convinced the lack of an explanation will allow you to play the old twi "shell game". That's the game that, no matter what tragedy befalls you, it's always your fault, and it's never twi's fault. Refusing to explain allows you to change the meaning whenever you want, to keep "mastering" forever out of people's grasp, and thus vulnerable to the charge of "well, if you'd REALLY mastered, this would never have happened. As you can see, I DON'T have some secret agenda-all my cards are on the table. How about putting down a few of yours? ------------------------------ (edited only to fix margin changes-not one letter of text was added, subtracted or changed- except for the addition of this explanation.) [This message was edited by WordWolf on April 13, 2003 at 15:50.]

I can argue either end of whether or not an ellipsis and exclusion in discussion is appropriate in this verse. So long as an ellipse indicates the admission something WAS deleted, I see no reason to call this one an error outright, either. It's open to differences of opinion.

Mike, one of these years, in all the posting about "mastering" stuff, will you ever get around to a plain English definition of "mastering" that does not contain the word "master" or "mastering" in it? I'd like a clear under- standing of what "mastering" is, since it's supposedly something I'm supposed to be doing. I keep asking, you keep ignoring. ------------------------------------- JesseJoe, at one point, you asked about whether Mike thought the Advanced Class was canonical or not. Mike's reply said he didn't say either way, but that he hadn't determined what parts were God-breathed and what parts weren't. For those of us following along in English, that means he has yet to determine which parts are canonical. That means that it's NOT canonical- it's under canonical review. In case you are wondering, that will remain in canonical review by Mike in perpetuity. Mike will never commit to it, since there's FAR too much material easily disproven in it.

...this same figure, in the Greek, is called "fullashidamI", for those of you unfamiliar with the Greek.

That's just it, though, Mandii. As fas as Mike has said, without pfal, using only the Bible (aka the Bible remnants, fragments, tatters, debris, or whatever you'd like to put as The Word there), those Christians, no matter HOW many signs, miracles and wonders they've seen, no matter how much joy in their lives, no matter how much deliverance, don't REALLY have a relationship with Christ. They can't. They lack the tools as much as someone without a rocketship can't reach the moon.

Hey, CC, it's called keeping them honest. If they're legit, like, say, Stanley, it's no harm. If they're moneygrubbers, you catch it fast.

Rafael, in case you missed it, Mike reiterated his previous assertion that you were a latecomer, and, as such, are unqualified to read vpw's books and actually comprehend what they were about. If you had arrived in the "good old days" like Jerry Barrax and Zixar and Research Geek and Goey and ex cathedra and Mike, no doubt you'd have no problem coming to exactly the same conclusions Mike has, and probably would be quite contrite for daring to suggest that vpw's books were the work of man, not the work of God, who now took this chance to fix all the problems with His previous book, known to many as the Bible. Just thought you (and the peanut gallery) might have blinked and missed that. Consider this a recap after the commercial break. Carry on.

Weeeeelllll.... If you're trying to stretch interpretation so that even the slightest wiggle-room is enough to let vpw off the hook (which is a legit position), then, yes, this would be enough of an excuse to drop Error 1. You want my opinion, though... We can make a MUCH stronger case that the Acts verse in no way addressed his point. My take on the matter is that if vpw was right and Acts "proved" it, it was by accident. Otherwise, why not just cite the verse in Acts? Heck, why not just toss it on the verse-list for that session and let reviewers look at it then? Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to run. The sun's coming up.

Ok, I can see where you were going now. I think the "metonymy" thing will probably not be a major issue for a few reasons. It's technical. It won't hold interest in many people, and some of those won't be able to fully understand it. So, either side, if cleverly-phrased, could "convince" most people who WANTED to believe in it. It is on that principle that the Research Dept got an easy ride for a LONG time. Of course, feel free to pursue this-I just wanted to point that out.

Over the last page, I can't tell whose posts I like better- Shazdancer's or Sirguessalot. (*declares a tie*) ------------- Mike, a few posters have tried to point something out to you, which you seem to be ignoring. I'm going to borrow a page from your own operations manual, and dumb it down from you. meek master: "There is the natural and the spiritual. There is a contrast and a great difference between the two." everybody else, in harmony:"NO SH!T!" ------------- Why did you need anyone to point that out to you? "Well, the distinction is important!" Yes, but so is green traffic light from red traffic light. Since the distinction is SELF-EVIDENT, few people lose sleep over the dichotomy. ------------------------------------ Reminder to the newcomers: Unless Mike has reconsidered his position (which I hope happened), Mike believes that the Bible which was so lauded in pfal and in countless teachings, books and tapes by vpw is essentially useless in conveying what God wants us to know. That job is exclusively handled by vpw's works, centered around vpw's books. Mike seems certain that the clearly-plaigiarized pages in those works were NOT plaigiarized. The books, instead, were developed during some meetings as a joint-venture between God and vpw. (The "absent Christ" remained "absent".) Mike believes this to be true because he believes that God gave vpw a promise of an exclusive contract, and sealed it with some sort of miracle. (The snow on the gas pumps, and the 1942 promise.) Absolutely NOTHING must be allowed to sully the good name of vpw's perfect materials, which are so good us logical people keep confusing it for passable writing. Mike's devotion to his preciousss is all-encompassing. When he closes his eyes, he sees it before him, like a great unlidded eye, or a circle of fire before him. (Hm, that sounds familiar.) Thus, everything it says holds great promises, and secrets await the one who decodes the introductions, acknowledgements, and copyright dates. CLFOBS Ministries. Join NOW!

Zix, have you forgotten everything you learned from the groupthink? Never apologize (implies you are less than perfect), and, if caught, never admit to an error. (Oh, wait-that's not from the old groupthink, that's the new groupthink.) CLFOBS Ministries. Join NOW!

*plays Revolution #9 backwards* Hey, there's secret messages hidden in this! --------- Mike, if you looked a the cracks in sidewalk concrete long enough, you would find patterns in it. That's a hard-wired function in the brain- pattern recognition. However, like any identification program, it can glitch, and misidentify stuff. People were killed in Europe when villagers sought to find the person responsible for bad things happening to them-like bad weather or disease in crops. They refused to accept that there WAS no guiding pattern, and kept looking until they "found" one. So, people were killed for "witchcraft". Even Sigmund Freud, whose entire career was based on finding patterns said "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." There's a lesson, there. CLFOBS Ministries. Join NOW!

Vickles, let me rephrase my point with an analogy I think we can all relate to. You walked into the room while the tv show was 1/2-way over, and had caught up on the plot within 30 seconds. This means, partly, you're sharp, but largely, that the tv show wasn't that hard to understand. (My point being that new arrivals who haven't had time to dislike Mike yet find him transparent- he might want to consider that everybody else might be right, after all...) -------------------------------- I think part of me comes to these threads the same way some people spectate a car crash. CLFOBS Ministries. Join NOW!

Let's see.. A) secret messages hidden because of the Adversary B) secret messages hidden intentionally by God/vpw (as Mike sees it, interchangeable) --------------------------------------- These secret messages are mainly about the natural/spiritual realm distinctions. Mike, this may come as a shock to you, but there are quite a few specialists in this field. If I forgot half of what I learned in the field, I'm confident I would STILL know it better than you, which makes me less enthused about seeing you dig out a "hidden" message on it. That's neither a boast, nor idle. Further, there are Christians on the GSC who know more on the subject than I do, and LOTS of Christians who never heard of the farm or vpw who are well-versed in the subject. Actually, while you've been rereading vpw's books, we HAVE discussed this. You'll have a pretty lean harvest from this search, Mike. Compared to some places, twi was pretty lightweight on this subject. That's because vpw didn't have any good source-material to photocopy from. So, I suppose, looking for details on this subject, one MUST "pad" it with hidden messages, backwards records, and other cabalistic methods. Frankly, even WITH the photocopying vpw did, I STILL don't think he had more than a moderate understanding of the subject. (I've been better, and I've SEEN better than I've BEEN.) -------------------- Mike, you might wish to retain the option of reassessing your position. Vickles, whoever he or she is, just walked in and seems to have made a full appraisal of you. Those of us who have been around have a more detailed conclusion. (I say this without rancor.) ---------------- CLFOBS Ministries. Join NOW!

P.S. Based on my just-completed survey of 15,000 men, I conclude that menstrual cramps do not exist. 0% of the respondents has ever had them. CLFOBS Ministries. Join NOW!

I don't know or care who your studies polled. I DO know who it wasn't, and it wasn't a LOT of people I know all over cyberspace. For any of them, knowing there's a full moon makes little difference. They get "full moon fever" even if they're CERTAIN that evening is nowhere near the full moon. I rarely look for statistics backing the results of stuff I deal with all the time. I think the "bigfoot" sensation is nonsense. However, if the guy showed up once a month, picked my lock, and spent the evening eating my cheetos and watching tv while I sat there videotaping him, I'd reassess my position. So, go ahead and tell me that, statistically, we're all affected by the placebo effect. Go ahead and tell us it's psychosomatic. Go ahead and tell me anything you like on the subject- you can just dismiss it and go about your business. I tried dismissing it as psychological. In fact, I had successfully done so. 28 days later, I did it again. 28 days later, I did it AGAIN. 28 days later, I did it AGAIN. 28 days later, I wondered if I had jumped to a hasty conclusion. 28 days after that, I stopped dismissing it, and took it into account. My months have gotten easier since then. How and why does it happen? I honestly don't understand and can't explain how I can send e-mail over the internet, but I can and I do. As Zixar pointed out, I probably don't have any "correct" scientific explanation for it. I must deal with it anyway. People had wrong ideas about how gravity worked before it was properly explained. However, even the uneducated seemed able to work around their incomplete understanding of the subject. Fine, I'm an uninformed plebian on the subject. I DO, however, have a lot of the experience of WHAT, if not properly, HOW or WHY. CLFOBS Ministries. Join NOW!

Someone should have told the writers on "Baywatch" that the moon doesn't REALLY affect the tides, I suppose.... CLFOBS Ministries. Join NOW!

Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make. CLFOBS Ministries. Join NOW!

Zix, you're honestly certain there's no biological basis for all the activity? CLFOBS Ministries. Join NOW!

The moon's gravity affects the tides. Humans are mostly water. (We are all THAT close to drowning.) Even without the placebo effect, that accounts for plenty. (Like why I've been getting so much done tonight.) CLFOBS Ministries. Join NOW!