WordWolf

Exactly! In MOST "Christian" organizations, running to a minister or whatever to tattle on your spouse would-initially or soon after with a repeat performance- result in YOU getting a lecture for not using HEALTHY methods to deal with conflict in your OWN marriage.

We agree this is now a Doctrinal thread. Galen accepted it becoming one. (He approved of its direction on the thread.) I say it's more sensible and easier for the moderators to just move this thread to "Doctrinal", so I'll suggest this.

Mike, page 11, 3/1/05, 2:15am eastern. I thought this was too extra-special a post to let people miss it. A) This is such a fantastic comment that it just HAS to be seen. 'You're unreliable as an authority as to whether a man's writings were directly from God because you were there when they were developed, written, edited and distributed, and were one of the main people directly involved in the process! Since you were there, your ability to speak as an eyewitness is invalidated because you saw it all, and were a direct participant! Instead, only someone who was completely divorced from the processes-several states away- can speak with authority on what happened where you were at but they weren't! Their lack of ability to recount the events, since they were not present for them, is the very reason they are qualified to speak as an eyewitness to what they didn't see!' You tell ME if you get something different from that passage. B) Presenting counterarguments, evidence, and eyewitness testimony that refutes Mike's doctrine is now known as "filibustering". All that pesky data just gets in the way. Apparently, also, Mike still objects to this being a DISCUSSION FORUM rather than a doctrinal platform for Mikean pfal. Also, (Bullinger) Mike suggested he might actually fund his own website or board, rather than leech Paw's bandwidth and threads at the GSC. We'll see. It's with no sense of surprise that Mike is shown considering himself a teacher, one of unique doctrines, as in "The Teacher". This has been expected for years around here, and predicted in various forms. C) Mike's still trying to compliment with one hand and insult with the other. Since HCW already caught him doing it, you think he'd not try it on HCW anymore....

Mike, 2/28/05, 12:14am. Wrong, Mike, I answered it, twice, and the second time, I went out of my way to make the answer crystal clear. WordWolf, 2/28/05, 5:37am. BTW, the original post lays out WHY this should be obvious to any reader of pfal, but I didn't feel the need to repeat it entirely here. It's cited by date and time, so it's easy to find. I didn't simply give a "yes/no" answer because the answer was far too deep for a simple "yes/no" answer to be CORRECT. Most people are aware that requiring "yes/no" answers to all questions is wrong, and cite the famous question "have you stopped beating your wife?" as an example of a question where the answer needs to be more detailed than "yes/no". But, I definitely answered your question in detail, without evasion, and in plain English. Further, your response was illustrative on its own.

This thread, page 9, 2/28/05, 1:47am Eastern. Mike: This thread, page 10, 2/28/05, 9:04pm, eastern. Mike: In the first post, dmiller has fear of Mike-just a smaller amount. In the second post, dmiller does not have a smaller amount of fear of Mike. To quote vpw: "Now, SOMEONE's got to be a liar!" Is it Mike, when he says others have fear of him and dmiller has less? (2/28/05, 1:47am) Or Is it Mike, when he says that's a "misreading" of what he said? (2/28/05, 9:04pm) They can't BOTH be right! Let the reader judge.

[WordWolf in boldface again...]

A) Fine. As soon as opportunity permits, I shall be posting quotes from books "written by vpw" where he uses the two terms interchangeably. With your supposed years "mastering" them, one would think these would be familiar to you. Well, apparently not. I also expect you will go out of your way to pretend the direct quotes from them do not run contrary to your special Mikean doctrine. (My favourite dodge was "wasn't that list of quotes great?" when I posted over a page contradicting you.) Everyone ELSE will be able to see how transparent the dodge will be, however. B) I was in a hurry when I answered your other question. So, I forgot there was another question you lobbed. Re: vpw's "final instructions to us"..... neither you nor I spent time with vpw in the final few weeks of his life. You're making the following assumptions: 1) the instructions you have are the very last instructions 2) "mastering" a book that claims to be a book of KEYS means treating it not as the KEYS to UNDERSTANDING the Bible, but as a REPLACEMENT for the Bible 3) vpw's "final instruction" to "master" was directly from God I understand you are unwilling, at this time, to see that you've piled assumption on top of assumption, and ANY of them being proven wrong (which has been done here before) means the whole contents are error. Everyone else, however, IS able to see the contrast when our posts can be seen side-by-side. 'When he told us to master The Word, he didn't mean to master the Bible.' Oh, that's rich. That's as good as something I heard someone say about the day of Pentecost, 'They weren't speaking in tongues-they were speaking in LANGUAGES.' === C) "Filibuster". Seems you lack an understanding of what a 'filibuster' is as well. Per Dictionary.com, "the use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking, for the purpose of delaying legislative action". Per C-Span Congressional glossary, "the term used for an extended debate in the Senate which has the effect of preventing a vote." I suppose that you're misusing the term "filibuster" to refer to my extensive comments. Since you're known for lengthier posts than me (not counting the part of my posts that quote yours to provide the context more easily), that would be "the pot calling the kettle black." However, everyone ELSE notices that my posts remain mostly devoid of jargon and fast-talk, clear to the reader and easy to understand. Yours have been noted to contain more words, and often they contain obfuscations that inspire replies that ask you for a plainer version, or a direct refutation. So, I post shorter than you, with more content and in clearer English. If one of us "filibusters", it's not me. For someone who supposedly believes precise use of language is important, you demonstrate a distinct lack of concern for being precise yourself.

[WordWolf replies in boldface. ] [You choose to participate in discussions of your choice. If you choose too many, that is your choice. You can always choose to post on fewer. It's not fair of you to expect us to come to you for your views on the various threads. You don't get "elite status". ]

Ok, let's see, I responded to Mike's question as follows: Yes-I'll answer this one. IN PFAL, vpw stated outright something that is a mathematical truth, which is that things that are congruent to something else are congruent to each other. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C. IN PFAL, vpw makes it clear (to everyone but Mike) that when he's talking about "the Bible" and when he's talking about "the Word of God", he's talking about the same thing. He makes this crystal clear, in fact. "The greatest secret in the world today is that the Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God." So, when he said "It's the Word, the Word, and nothing BUT the Word, people!" it is congruent to him saying "It's the Bible, the Bible, and nothing BUT the Bible, people!" or "It's God's Will, God's Will, and nothing BUT God's Will, people!" Do you really need me to post some examples from the Orange Book where he used them interchangeably, to refer to the Bible as God's Word or The Word? BTW, BEFORE you claim it, "The Word" is short for "The Word of God", which is another way of saying "God's Word". That was ALWAYS interchangeable in twi lingo- to say "The Word" was to say "God's Word", and vice versa. So, save yourself seeking a secret, elite, cabalistic meaning of the term, trying to outline the differences. Mike's response to that answer.... ==== "Please answer these two questions with a simple "yes" or "no". Did he ever say the following EXACT WORDS? "It's the Bible, it's the Bible...and nothing BUT the Bible!" Were the EXACT words in his final instructions to us to master the "Bible" or the "collateral readings?" ====== Now, Mike's insistence on a yes/no answer AFTER I ALREADY answered him means one of a few things. The possibilities are: A) Mike did not read my reply. B) Mike felt my reply was unclear and ambiguous. C) Mike felt I did not address the question sufficiently. D) Mike did not understand my reply. E) Mike did not hear the answer he wished to hear. So, then, I shall hope the answer was not "WordWolf was clear but Mike didn't like the answer" and will attempt to address the question once again. Mike, In pfal, the phrases "The Word of God" and "the Bible" were used interchangeably by its teacher. That means that its teacher considered the two interchangeable. Let me know if you need some quotes from the Orange Book on this-they ARE there, and if your "7 years of study" haven't revealed them, that's a little embarassing. An entire session of PFAL was named "The Greatest Secret in the World" and was directed specifically to have us think this very thing. The first "Listening with a Purpose" question for that session was "What is the greatest secret in the world today?" complete with a chart to shove this down our throats. When I sat in that session, usually, that answer was chanted by the group in harmony. I bet you've seen that happen, too. Know why? VPW went out of his way to enforce the idea that "The Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God" all over that session. ====== So, when he spoke of one, he spoke of the other. So, the many, many, many times he said "It's The Word, The Word, and nothing BUT The Word", based on his coverage in PFAL-the tapes, syllabus AND collaterals, what he said was functionally equivalent (based on rules ALSO stated in PFAL) to "It's the Bible, the Bible, and nothing BUT the Bible!" So, IF one were to discard the logic used IN PFAL, and the usages of terms as used IN PFAL, then one would say "no, that's not the same thing." If one is to claim that pfal has some intrinsic value and claim to accuracy, however, one is either forced to agree that this is functionally what he said, or that pfal does NOT have a claim to accuracy, or that the speaker is a hypocrite, discarding some contents and lauding others selectively. Mind you, the speaker also has the option of ignoring this and refusing to declare one position or another. In doing so, of course, one demonstrates to his audience that one is voluntarily assuming the office of hypocrite while attempting to draw attention away from it due to shame associated with the term. So, your choice how you respond from here.

I dont know if Dmiller is following this thread, so I'll chime in. Nobody cares how many threads you post in. They care how many threads you hijack and turn into commercials for your doctrine. Do I think it was wrong and evil for David to have sinned in each of the steps of the aforementioned incident? (Adultery, murder...) Absolutely. NO ONE has claimed to read anyone's mind here. You're the one who keeps invoking that strawman, and spinning that straw from your own fiction. They've pointed to behavior, and actions TAKEN and NOT TAKEN. Conclusions can be drawn from them. Nobody's claimed to read minds. Saying you "reject all such claims" makes you sound sooo pious-but nobody's made such claims. You might as well take a principled stand against claims the Apollo Moon Landings were faked-nobody here claimed they WERE. Is David's "transgression" (sins connected with the Bathsheba-Uriah incident) the same as a career involving molestation, rape and drugging different women of the congregation over a period of years? Someone already answered this one. They answered it here.

That's why I won't download Shockwave, either. Other than the fact that you're using Norton, I'm not sure why you're getting so many tracking cookies. *thinks* I'd recommend considering switching to Firefox, since I get a LOT less tracking cookies since I switched. You might check your security protocols, and how you've told your computer to respond to cookies and sites and things. (Under Tools-->Internet Options, I think.) Set the security rating higher if it's on "low".) I think kid-sites may be cookie-intensive, since cookies can make intrasite navigation easier. That may not mean they meant to spy on your kids.

If I were to throw out a wild guess, you've been lemoned. That is a wild guess. I do know that DCOMM shouldn't really be an issue unless you're on a network of some kind. The "D" in DCOMM stands for "Distributed". DCOMM is a traffic cop for networks that borrows the functionality of certain programs and hardware from one part of the network, and uses it for another part. The example once given here at the GSC involved using sending a mass-emailing from the server on the side that's designed for handling it, and not the server you're working from right now. I've never heard of PerfNet (no surprise there), but the "net" part may also mean it's a program for working with a "network" as well. Me, I keep DCOMM shut off completely on my pc, since it's NOT on a network.

Yes-I'll answer this one. IN PFAL, vpw stated outright something that is a mathematical truth, which is that things that are congruent to something else are congruent to each other. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C. IN PFAL, vpw makes it clear (to everyone but Mike) that when he's talking about "the Bible" and when he's talking about "the Word of God", he's talking about the same thing. He makes this crystal clear, in fact. "The greatest secret in the world today is that the Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God." So, when he said "It's the Word, the Word, and nothing BUT the Word, people!" it is congruent to him saying "It's the Bible, the Bible, and nothing BUT the Bible, people!" or "It's God's Will, God's Will, and nothing BUT God's Will, people!" Do you really need me to post some examples from the Orange Book where he used them interchangeably, to refer to the Bible as God's Word or The Word? BTW, BEFORE you claim it, "The Word" is short for "The Word of God", which is another way of saying "God's Word". That was ALWAYS interchangeable in twi lingo- to say "The Word" was to say "God's Word", and vice versa. So, save yourself seeking a secret, elite, cabalistic meaning of the term, trying to outline the differences.

For those who somehow missed it, and for the amusement of those who DID catch it- this was Response "A"- the "ad hominem" attack. In this case, it was disguised as an appeal to avoid ad hominem attacks. "My detractors are the scum of the earth and mean people who make cheap shots at me for no reason! I would never resort to their cheap attacks! I'm so disappointed with them!" Go ahead, scroll up. I left it untouched. Mike, until you can tell the difference between HCW's post an an "ad hominem" attack, between my post and an "ad hominem" attack, you haven't demonstrated an understanding of what an "ad hominem" attack IS. === This didn't address HCW's post, BTW. Although, your post immediately preceeding this one I'm posting now, you claim to regret getting sidetracked. Since that was YOUR DECISION, you're disagreeing with your own call.

It bore saying. It added to the discussion. Even if it hadn't, it was worth a reminder.

According to his own words, lcm said "I got a Bachelor's Degree. In Psychology." So, I take it that this was his major, and he completed the Bachelors. Looking back, he's mentioned trying to learn how to perform a proper block in college, a move which took 6 steps. (Tape 1055, "Believing Images of Victory.") He mentioned what you already said- that in high school, there was no technique-just brute force. "It was just caveman against caveman." Apparently, he did not excel when finesse was called for. Now that the question is raised, I wonder if lcm just disregarded when he'd been taught precision before. That's because I took martial arts when I was young, and I earned my varsity letter in Fencing (which is a LOT more work than most people think from the old movies.) Both of them had moves that had to be learned with exacting precision. So, when I learned to fence, I had to learn a whole new way of moving, thinking and reacting. However, since I'd already had a basis for learning physical moves when I was younger, I knew that it would only be a matter of putting in the hours (and hours) of practice and repetition. I never became a local legend or anything (except to maybe 2 opponents), but I made a respectable showing for myself, and did well against the Division Champ before I gave it up to spend more time with twi. So, I did make it "off the bench", and earned respect from my peers, at least. Did lcm not put in the necessary time to learn the moves precisely, or did he have a problem learning altogether? "Body-memory" does not require a special education. If he learned the right moves correctly, they should have been habitual to him when he stepped out on the field. Instead, a knee injury sidelined him. Judging from his own accounts, he had some talent at football, but he seems to have lacked the dedication to rise to the top of the class. Of course, the skill of his coach is also a consideration, but it seems obvious the rest of the team excelled since they made it to the Orange Bowl....

No matter how many times you say "if pfal isn't God-breathed, then nothing is!" It STILL holds no water. The origin of any canon has no bearing on any other canon. Muslims say "if the Koran isn't God-breathed, then nothing is!" Christian Science-ites say "If Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures isn't God-breathed, then nothing is!" Many other groups say similar things about THEIR holy books, like you do with your holy books. Their beliefs don't require reality to conform to them. You should know this-I've said this in greater detail before. I'll leave the other comments alone, except to say they illustrate your POV nicely, and new arrivals should easily see why this position of yours is error.

You're not under time-constraints. However, if you just move on and pretend HCW never posted, I'll be posting some gentle reminders, complete with cattle-prod. By all means, address HCW's post entirely before addressing mine. My issues are all coming up for the umpteenth time.

Ok, let's see.... *takes out pointer* As everyone can see, the first slide shows a marked denial of the reasons the prices fluctuated for pfal at different times. If the market would have borne the running of all pfal classes at $200, it would have stayed $200. It only came down to match demand. Adam Smith's "invisible hand", not God's invisible hand, moved the price. Also note how it was "correct and Godly" to run classes at $200, just as it was "correct and Godly" to run classes at $40. If vpw endorsed a decision, it was "correct and Godly" even if contradictory statements are thus "correct and Godly." *moves to second slide* I imagine a detailed comparison of "Living Victoriously" was not attempted, the book to the tapes. Some people sat thru an LV class with an LV book in their hands, and discovered it was a transcript of the content portions of the tapes. (That is, they leave out the jokes and cheapshots at other Christians on each tape.) Even someone who hated vpw, cg and the tapes/book would be able to admit that, if they compared them. *moves to third slide* Here we see Mike rewriting the editing process behind the pfal books. We also have the testimony of one of those editors that this is nothing like what happened. We can believe the word of a PARTICIPANT and EYEWITNESS, or that of Mike who concluded what he wanted to, years later and states away. However, Mike's determined not to allow other ideas to penetrate his mind, and the admission is here. *moves to last slide* Here we see the holy pfal books correcting the evils of 20 centuries of Christians once again. In Mike's mind, anyway. Never lets reality or the evidence get in the way of his doctrine, that one.

Mike in original. [WordWolf in boldface as usual.] [He was saying that ALL your dealings with us have a condescending and patronizing air, and that's either overt, or with an attempt at masking it before the commercial comes in again. Whereas, not every comment anyone makes around here is similarly barbed. ]

Let's see, what shall his response be? Judging from past performance (which is no guarantee of future performance) we could see the following: A) A personal attack "you're spiritually immature, HCW! Yo momma!" or the ingenue version "I'm spiritual enough to rise above your spiritual immaturity" B) absolute ignoring of the post, until it's brought up again ("I was busy and forgot") C) singling out the smallest of HCW's comments, going on for a page about it, and pretending he answered all the charges "Your mention of toothpicks was in error...." D) a filibuster on an unrelated topic to change the subject "Now I'm bringing up the 23rd edition of the Ochre Book, page 93..." E) a claim that he already answered this and he's not going to do it again (no proof cited) I think that's all the usual responses. We've been thru them all over the past few years. ===== HCW, thanks for your contributions to the discussion. It helps make obvious what others already told him: the claim that the books were edited by divine inspiration is purely Mike's, and refuted more than once by those who edited them. I understand why some people, wounded and bitter, avoid all mention of pfal. Me, I think some of its contents have merit. HOWEVER, this refusal to acknowledge its strengths AND WEAKNESSES inflicts a deficiency on the refuser. He is unable to go beyond what's written there. Worse, his search for "hidden meanings" blinds him to the actual contents of the pages.

That's what I said about that.... nothing about "should a bishop abuse his office, and pervert the grace of Christ, he is to cover it up and all the people are to pretend it didn't happen."

Wordwolf, You may have a point, if the Apostle Paul mentioned Alexander the Coppersmith's sins almost every day, for 20 years. Now maybe some folks would consider endlessly mentioning Alexander's evil works "the introduction of light" oh glow-ray -- but I would call condemnation of that frequency more like mega-preoccupation with evil things of the past, and the endless perpetuation of victim mentality -- as if nothing else matters other than Paul mentioning for decades how he was abused by Alexander. (snip) Amazing how you read that one sentence yet somehow skipped the paragraphs following it, concerning the standards a "faithful minister" are to be held to.

There's a difference between looking towards Christ, and living in denial that others have done wrong. If we were meant to REALLY forget the past, there would BE no Old Testament, since the New would have REPLACED it. The Apostle Paul was well aware that there was a difference between "living in denial of past wrongdoing" and "looking towards the present"- otherwise, we wouldn't know Alexander the coopersmith did him MUCH evil. ====== Those in positions of authority are to be of good moral conduct overall, and BLAMELESS in matters of stewardship. If a steward is found to be UNJUST, then, first of all, he is to no more be steward. There ARE standards to be held in leaders, and you should know where to find them in your sleep. vpw, who failed MISERABLY to live up to those standards, taught about them quite a bit-demonstrating that he UNDERSTOOD them, but chose not to LIVE them. I Timothy 3:1-10. 3:2 "must be blameless" , above reproach. His actions must be meet or exceed reasonable expectations for a leader. 3:2 "husband of one wife" He must not have doctrine or practice of multiple wives, including acting as if it is acceptable to have sexual congress with a multitude of his flock 3:3 "not given to wine" He must not abuse alcohol 3:3 "no striker" He must not be swift to resort to violence or wrath 3:3 "not greedy of filthy lucre" He must not seek to use the family's money for his luxuries 3:3 "patient" He must be patient. 3:3 "not a brawler" He must not be quarrelsome and get into fights. 3:4 "not covetous" He must not seek out the privileges of those in the chief seats, the politicians 3:4 "one that rules well his own house" He devotes sufficient and appropriate time and dedication to his earthly family/household 3:4 "having his children in subjection with all gravity" He takes the job of childraising seriously, determined to do it right- as a result, his children RESPECT him. 3:7 "he must have a good report of them which are without" His reputation in public must be a respectable one. ============ Who here would like to use the above criteria to evaluate the viability of vpw to hold the "office of a bishop", which, as he often agreed, was the list for leaders in the church today? A few people, please. ================

Let's see, what does that mean in English.... *activates twi decoder* "pseudo-Christians" and "anti-Christians" "Pseudo-Christians" means "people who aren't current twi memberfollowers." "messages of animosity" means "messages that weren't rewrites of current HQ tapes". "promoted homosexuality" means "challenged twi's infallibility practice" "old news-very very old 20 year old news". Meaning uncertain. May mean "they exposed the plagiarism and lies of the organization's founder" or "they exposed the rapes and molestations of the organization's founder" or "they exposed the rapes, molestations and lies ruined by the organization's successor, chosen by the organization's founder, from 1985 until a few years ago." or "they exposed the conspiracy and lives ruined by the organization's current leader, in the past decade, who has yet to be indicted." Unsure which. "Most of those people didn't look to the Word of God, instead they focused on people" means "they didn't look the other way like good wayfers when confronted with accounts of their spiritual siblings being raped, molested, taken advantage of, treated as indentured servants, and other acts of malfeasance". "I am not igorant of the past. I lived through it. I know what occurred and why" means "I accept that whatever answers leadership give are true. I refuse to consider evidence or testimony of any kind that might suggest they are lying or incorrect. I refuse to consider the idea that leadership might EVER be less than truthful to me. If I did, they'd destroy my life, and I consider the cost of rebuilding it too great to look outside my cage."