Goey

Mike, I see that you are now taking a tact of ad hominem and using the strawman. Maybe even a appeal to pity. But let's look as some of your skewed perceptions. Yes some got such a skewed version of it that they were were made leaders by VPW himself. Seems like VP must have missed that, huh? We missed them because they are not there. They are only found in your imagination and twisted handling of what VPW said and wrote. VPW promoted the bible as the word of God - you promote PFAL as the word of God. You take what VPW said and wrote out of context and call them "hints" to promote your doctrine. If VPW got the great commission and God indeed was the author of PFAL then VPW would have shouted it from the rooftops. He did not. Why would he resort to hints only to be understood by you some 60 years later? The method you promote is simple - to master PFAL. But the methods you have used to arrive at this conclusion are not simple - they are a complex assortment of twisted logic, foisting of grammar, and discounting of facts. You have not built a good or believable case for mastering PFAL. It is your cistern that can hold no water. It is your kind of doctrine that VPW was refering to when he spoke of broken cisterns.

Mike Posted, But wait folks, thats not all! Now watch Mike pull a rabbit of of his hat! -- Grrrrrr ! -- Oops, wrong hat. Mike, you have stated on more than one occassion that the Bible was a collection of remnants that are "unreliable" . So then to be consistent it would seem that 'Biblical' should mean 'unreliable'. And how did this team get their spiritual ablilty? Was it from the study of the "unreliable Bible" that Wierwille promoted? Also consider that Wierwille said "spiritual ability". According to Wierwille, one can be able but not necessarily willing. Just being 'able' to get revelation (assuming this is the case) does not necessarily meant they got it. That is a leap in logic. But anyway, according to your previoulsy stated view of the Bible, Wierwille would have had a team that was - unreliable and spiritual. Gotta love it. Mike is consistently inconsistent and profoundly imaginative. Goey Edited to correct quote of "unreliable remnants" to - remnants that are "unreliable." "Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened" [This message was edited by Goey on June 03, 2003 at 12:04.]

Steve, Shazdancer, WordWolf, et.al. We may be putting a bit too much weight on the construction and grammar of that sentence. The analysis I originally did when I first brought up the elipsis, presumes that Wierwille intentionally constructed the sentence in a precise gramatical manner and intentionally used the figure elipsis. In other words, it treated Wierwilles words in that sentence as if the structure and grammar intentional and exact - like a resesarcher might treat scripture. This might be a mistake. We are not dealing with a perfectly written work where every jot and tittle was placed there by God himself. How do we know that Wierweille intentionally used an elipsis or that he used it correctly? It could just be bad writing. While good hermeneutics can and should be used when attempting to truly understand any written text - I am not so sure that Wierwille's command and use of language or that of his editors was precise enough to lend itself to to this kind of scrutiny and analysis. In other words, I think is is quite possible and even likely that quite a bit of the construction, grammar/ figures that we find in PFAL may just simply be accidental or random and should not be given too much weight. Goey "Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"

Bumpy, It could be one of several things. But please give a more detailed discription of the problem. What chat are you referring to? GS chat I assume? When exactly does this problem show up? - Only here, or are there missing images on other sites as well? Are you using Internet Explorer or possibly AOL? Did you add some software or click on something suspicious just before the problem began? Get as many details as you can and I am sure that someone here can assist you. Goey "Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"

Garth, I would be deluded to think that Mike would ever say uncle - no matter what evidence was presented or what arguments were made. But look at it this way - it can be a good opportunity to hone one's reasoning and debating skills. It is kinda like debating with Chwester in the Politics Forum - it is fruitless for the most part, but it can sometimes be fun and it can also be a learning experience. Goey "Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"

Mike, I think Wierwille put "necessarily" in there because he believed or wanted others to believe that it was "possible" for him to write from inspiration. - just as possible for him as it was for the others he mentioned, like Luther, Luther, Wesley etc. . I have no problem with that. It is certainly possible that God could inspire any one of us to write. In the last sentence, Wierwille uses a semicolon after, "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed". Then he lists these other folks but omits the word 'necessarily'. This according to Bullinger is is the figure of speech - eplipsis or omission. We could add the word "necessarily" before "what Calvin said" - and not change the sense of the sentence. It would then read: Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not [necessarily] what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed. In fact, you could rearange the names in any order and not change the sense of what Wierwille was saying here. After he list these men the then says 'but'. BUT! BUT! BUT! ... IN CONTRAST to what all these men have written - It is the Scriptures that are God-breathed and it is the Scriptures that are to be searched (and mastered.) The thrust and point of Wirewille's message here is that the works of men - including Luther, Wesley, Calvin, etc - and Wierwille himself; even though they 'could' be God-breathed (inspired) - are not scripture. They are not in the Bible and are not a part of the canon of scripture. And rather than rely on the works of men (Wierwille includes himself), we are to search the Bible (scriptures) - "so that you as a believer need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine or theory or ideology." Mike, it seems that because of your seeking for "hidden messages" and because of your presumptions necessary to support your theories, that you have missed the actual message that Wierwille was really attempting to make. You got it exactly reversed from what Wierwille was trying to teach here in PFAL. Goey "Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"

Mike, I did indeed see it before, it was just as dishonet then as it is now. However, on the previous occasions I was content to let others address it. This time I chose to comment. So much for you little theory. One of the problems with it Mike, it that it is a circular argument. From the outset you treat Herr Docktor's grammar in PFAL as if it is God-breathed and perfect in order to prove that PFAL is God- breathed and perfect. As someone so well studied that they could teach Stephen Hawking lessons on quatum comosology and M-theory, you should know better than to promote a circular argument like this - much less base doctrine upon it. Goey "Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"

Mike, That is one of the most dishonest twistings of language that I have ever seen. Goey "Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"

Why is it an odd criticism Mike? You critizized folks for not comprehending what you write because they were not reading with "precision" the same lack of precision you say that most read Wierwille with. If you expect folks to comprehend what you write, then you should write with precision, but you do not. Your insupportable theories and ridiculous notions go in circles and get tangled up in themselves. Instead of going strait to what ever point you may have you talk in nonsensical and evasive dtivel much of the time. You talk of ubiquitous and hidden teachings, and of telescopes, yet you have not produced any. Just get to the damn point, whatever the hell it is - will you. There is no need to try and butter up folks or try to de-sensitize them before dropping your stupid theological hammer. What now Mike? Are folks now supposed work the Word of Mike to see some kind of scientific precision or mathematical exactness in it? You are deluded. (I think this is less than 1000 words, OK?) Goey "Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"

Mike Posted: Oh, and it couldn't possiby be the lack of precision and wishy-washy way in which you deliver your words? - Like using 1,000 words trying to make a point that could be made with 50 or less? No, it couldn't anything like that - now could it? Goey "Many of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened" [This message was edited by Goey on May 29, 2003 at 12:41.]

Test [This message was edited by Goey on May 23, 2003 at 14:37.]

First an impotent mule and now a "horse"? Make up you mind Larry. Goey "Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"

Aren't mules impotent? Goey "Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"

Hills, If you stay off of the girly Web Sites you probably would not get these popups. :D--> I have Panicwares pop-up stopper and it works fine for me. If it is a real problem, try changing Panicware's control setting to "agressive" , but this will cause some sites (Like GS) not to work properly. You may want to download Ad Aware by Lavasoft. It will clean up any "trackware" that was inadvertantly installed on your system. This may help. Also all of the images in those pop-ups are stored on your system in the Temporary Internet folder. You may want to clear it out. Do this under the "Tools" > "Internet Options" for Internet Explorer. Goey

What The Hay, What other works, if any, have you read or studied that lead you to conclude that PFAL is the greatest of these? I have heard this statement made by other PFAL fans before, but after a bit of probing, it was pretty clear that many had never ventured outside of PFAL and Bullinger to even know what was out there - much less study them. If you haven't studied other works then you have no way to make a fair and honest comparison. Maybe you have, but I kind of doubt it. I think laziness has little to do with why folks are sick and tired of Mike's message. Mike is not trying to force anyone. He is just offering his opinion which he takes much too seriously. What Mike is also doing though, is exalting PFAL, the work of a man, above the real Word of God and then saying that "mastery" of PFAL is the "only" true way to know God. Mastery of PFAL is not necessarily a bad thing, and mastery of certain parts of PFAL would in my opinion be time very well spent, but not because it is the Word of God, but rather because it teaches some pretty good remedial keys on how to come to a greater understanding of the real Word of God which is revealed through scripture. Unfortunately, the very scriptures that PFAL itself refers to as the "Revealed Word of God", Mike refers to as "unreliable remnants". So it is very clear that what Mike refers to as "mastery of PFAL" really means something quite different than learning and skillfully applying the real information that PFAL tries to convey to those that study it. What Mike says and what PFAL says are in many places - diametrically opposed. So, in a nutshell, what Mike is really saying is nothing more than "follow me". Goey

Posted by Mike: Mike, you can have any opinion you want, but that does not preclude folks from calling it hogwash - which is what this one is. Goey

SeaSpew, Really now SeaSpittle, if you can't figure out my point, maybe you should go back to remedial kindergarten. I already explained it. Go back and read again. Depends upon your prospective SeasSpore. If pointing out the flaws in your twisted analogy is "stirring the pot" - then you decide. Temper trantrum? How presumptive and/or ignorant. Why try to make things up, SeaSpam. You have no real clue do you? Go back into your cave. Goey

Seaspray, Where did you go to school? The greatest scientific minds figured out and knew that the earth was not flat but indeed round. It happened at different times and different places. It was the superstitiously ignorant scientific minds who claimed to be great that believed the earth was flat-not the great ones. In at least on era this was because of religious suppresion and denial of any true scholarship that suggested the earth was not the center of the universe. Actually it was you that used the "tactic" when you used an analogy that misrepresented and twisted historical fact in support of Mike's silly theories. You used the "bait and switch" in your analogy from the get go. I just turned it back around and presented it honestly. According to your analogy, GSer's who disagree with Mike are like those who disagreed with Galileo. But are they really? Actually you have it reversed. It is Mike that is resting upon superstition and unsupportable theories. It is Mike that sees "hidden messages" in Wiereille's tapes amd writings. It is Mike who refuses to use good logic and a scholarly approach. It is Mike that denies or glosses over facts presented to him. But Seaspray, I think you know all of this. It is my guess that you are just here to stir the pot, because you seemed to have never offered anything of any substance here. BTW, my nic is Goey not Goo. I would appreciate it if you used it correctly. Goey

MIke, What? You seem to think that we all agree to the end that one spokesperson could fit the bill and that possibly we communicate behind the scenes concerning your posts - not so. I for one, have absolutely no interest in picking a "spokesperson" and will continue to addrees your posts independantly. ----------------------- Seaspray, Seapray, your analogy GSers with the religiously and superstitiously ignorant folks of the past is historically inaccurate and misses the mark by a long shot and is pretty ignorant of itself. Mike is no Galileo. Galileo and others used good science. Mike, well I am not sure what he really uses but it is not good science. By your analogy, anyone who comes up with a totally abusurd idea that is rejected by the status qo of religion and science must then be right. Ok Seaspray, the moon is really just Swiss cheese. I must be right because no one believes it. What a coincidence! - Duh! Goey [This message was edited by Goey on May 01, 2003 at 11:11.]

Mike, Duh! Mike, wake up! This place is loaded with "OLG's". Do you see any agreeing with you, that there are "lots of other ways" that VPW's claim of the 1942 promise is confirmed? Not only are "non-OLG's" not taking up with what you are saying, neither are the "OLG's". It should tell you something. Mike, If I claimed that God spoke directly to me and promised that He would teach me the Word if I would teach others. And then I went and studied the Bible and the works of some pretty good Bible scholars. And then I put in a book what I had studied, copying quite a bit of it from others and then began teaching it. And as a result of that teaching, thousands of folks learned about God and Christ and many got "blessed". But all the while, I was using my position as a respected teacher to trick and coerce women into having sex with me. And I taught that the loving thing to do was to cover it up and keep quite about it so no one get hurt and that the ministry is not blamed. Does the fact that folks "got blessed" confirm my claim that God spoke to me and made me a promise? Of course it doesn't. Does the fact that some, if not a lot of what I taught was scripturally sound, mean that God gave it to me directly or that it is worthy of being canonized? Again, no. Neither do the facts that I copied much of what I taught from others and that I was a sex abuser necessarily mean that God did not speak to me, but it certainly would raise some very serious doubts. But the bottom line is that the claim is unsuportable and unprovable. Your whole thing here is based on the unsupportable claims that God made a covenant with Wierwille in 1942 and that PFAL is God-breathed. Furthermore, you have offered nothing of substance either in the senses realm or in the spiritual to convince anyone to dedicate their life to the "mastery" of PFAL as you suggest. You have not mastered PFAL yourself. You yourself are not "doing all nine all the time." Even die hard Wierwille supporters reject your claim of the "God-breathedness" of PFAL and those collaterals that you deem worthy. Mike, why should anyone believe anything that you say, much less act upon it? Why do you suppose that you are probably the only person in the entire world, out of billions of people, that sees what you see concerning VPW and PFAL? What makes you so special Mike? Goey

Mike, Wait for an answer? Don't be silly. Why would I consider waiting for any kind of legitimate or lucid answer from you? You have already proven that to be an effort in futility. Until I get tired of it, I'll just continue to address the absurdity of what you post here and point out a few of more ridiculous and obvious flaws when I see them. But don't kid yourself Mike - I am not waiting for an answer - at least not an understandable or cogent one. But then maybe you could surprise me. Goey

Mike, You posted: Mike, I am not interested in saving you time. You are posting this stuff, so it is your responsibility to explain it. This is another dodge that does not adequately address the point of my post - that is Wierwille's error or lie about Young's "translation" and the self serving hipocracy of Wierwille's interpretation of 1 Cor 13:7. So Mike, would it then be "real good wisdom" for a family to be silent about sex abuse within itself - if dad is abusing the children - to keep the peace ? Or if the neighbors found out that the the man next door was abusing his children - that they should shut up about it because it might disturb the "family peace" next door? Or does this only apply to your hero Wierwille? Goey

Wierwille on "Charity" ( in reagards to 1 Corinthians 13:7) Interestingly, Wierwille does not say who these translators are except for Young. Wierwille quotes Young as translating this part of verse 7 as "covering closely". Well. let's see what Young's translation really says. 1 Cor 13:7 (Young's Literal Translation) Well, what Wierwille says he does is not even close to how Young translates "beareth" in verse 7. - And what other "translator" is he talking about? No translation that I could find, translates this verse anything like "covers with silence". So where does Wierwille get this from? He get's it from Strong's. But it is not from a "translation" as he eroneously states. The word in question is the Greek "stegei" - a form of "stego" . Here is how Strong handles this word. 1) deck, thatch, to cover a) to protect or keep by covering, to preserve 2) to cover over with silence a) to keep secret b) to hide, conceal 1) of the errors and faults of others 3) by covering to keep off something which threatens, to bear up against, hold out against, and so endure, bear, forbear Wierwille, in his quest to keep scandal, and errors/faults in TWI silenced and covered-up, jumps on Strong's # 2A-1,2 in spite of the other more common usages, which he makes no mention of. Clearly to VPW, and probably to Mike, this mostly refers to covering up and silencing Wierwille's faults and Wierwille's scandalous behavior (and those of his trusted lackeys). Also take note that Wierwille himself had no problem whatsoever uncovering the faults of others. This is hipocracy in it's highest form. - foisting an interpretation of scripture in order to effect the silencing and coverering up of own's own scandalous and harmful behavior. Wierwille even says, " We cover it closely with silence, we never mention it, and the thing dies there and no one is injured." - the Lock Box explained. WHAT A CROCK OF CRAP ! VPW was not concerned with the injury to those on the receiving end of his faults and scandalous behavior. His notion was that if the scandal was covered up and silenced that no one was really hurt. Meaning him. Problem is that the "thing" did not die, because after being covered up, and after folks were silenced, the scandalous behavior continued and repeated - again and again and again - as was the plan. Where Strong got #2A-1 from beats the heck out of me. There is nothing in the context in 1 Cor 13, to suggest that "stegei" in verse 7 means to cover up and hush up scandalous behavior within the church. That is not the context here at all. A roof is put on a house, not to secretly keep rotten contents in and covered up, but rather to keep outside elements from damaging the good contents it holds. Mike, how in good conscience can you subscribe to this crap? Goey [This message was edited by Goey on April 29, 2003 at 0:54.]

Mike, what a crock. Even if 100 of the best Greek scholars in the world presonally showed you how that "agape" was in use prior to Pentecost, you would not accept it, because it disagrees with what Wierwille taught. But, you did indeed showed how is "could" be handled - with intellectual dishonesty. Sadly, it is Wierwille and your own interpretation of his works that is your only standard for truth. This is the only "final word" that you accept. Not good Mike - not good at all. It is the epitomy of intellectual dishonesty. Goey

Zix. Good question Zix. But we must trust that the Good Doctor knew what he was doing when he included and "seemed" to rely upon these unreliable remnants in all of his writings. The keyword here is "seemed." This is only an aparant dichotomy - AD. (a figure of speech) FOS. which only "appears" to be highlight what is important. Besides this AD/FOS is in the senses realm of our understanding and as such is insignicficant. We really need not ask this question. I think that a buck, two ninety-eight would be a steal at any price. Goey