Goey

Vickles. This was of course an error on Wierwilles part. Craig straigtend it all out for us out when he taught that Eve had lesbian sex with the serpent. What Adam did is still somewhat unclear but he most likely just joined in with Eve and the serpent because he said "I did eat." We all know what that means. --- Context people! - Context! Craig's was the "fresher" revelation. Goey

Zix, Very good. John 10:10 is from an unreliable remnant. Wierwille's revelation is "fresher" and therefore cannot be construed as changing a word. It is a modern day "original". But, according to Mike, only folks who can understand Wierwillian English have any chance at mastery of the Word of God. Translating PFAL into another language would, according to Mike, render it void of authority and no longer the Word of God. Word changing only applies to PFAL - the true Word. Who cares about those unreliable remnants? Goey [This message was edited by Goey on April 25, 2003 at 13:15.]

Horse feathers! It does not matter how many words are changed as long as the concept. precept or idea is communicated as it was intended. The Word of God is not the paper and ink, which btw is in the realm of the 5 senses. It is rather the idea or concept which is able to live in the heart. Dumbass. Goey

Mike, No, the words are not simply "similar". My source is the Septuagint as posted by ccel.org Jesus was not speaking in a "flash forward" in the verse I quoted. He was speaking in "real time" as is evidenced by the Greek morpohology. It is Greek 101 and not arguable. Well you do now Mike. Unless you choose to reject the "data" that I have just given you. I could care less what the "Love Way" has in it's opening sentences unless it lines up with scripture. What Penecost made "available" was the holy spirit. Goey

The Septuagint uses the word "agape" a bunch of times in it's translation of the Hebrew OT into Greek. Here is only one of many examples: Exodus 20:6 Exd 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love [agaposin] me, and keep my commandments. It is clear that the word "agape" was in common use some 300 or so years before Penetcost. Agape "love" was not absent before Penetcost. Wiewille states: "The word agapao literally means that it becomes yours when you're born again of God's spirit, when that eternal life which is Christ in you comes in at the time of the new birth." Wierwille is inventing definitions again. There is no evidence to suggest that agapao changed meanings from one thing on the day before Pentecost and to another on the day after. Prior to Pentecost, Jesus used the word agapao quite a few times. John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth [agapôn] me: and he that loveth [agapôn ] shall be loved [agapêthêsetai] my Father, and I will love[agapêsô] him, and will manifest myself to him. The tense is clearly in the present at the time that Jesus said these words. It was indeed possible to agapao love prior to the day of Pentecost. There are many examples of folks loving - agapeo proir to Pentecost. The notion that folks cannot "agape love" without being born again and renewing their mind is unbiblical and nonsensical. Goey

"Concerted Effort"? Don't be silly Mike. There will be no "concerted effort" one way or the other. It is not like GSers shoot emails back and forth to each other to collectively decide how to react to your "data". Each person will respond as he/she sees fit. There is no backroom concensus here. I don't know about anyone else, but I have never discussed with anyone beforehand as to what a particular response to your "data" should be. Don't be rediculous Mike. I do not think that we need any "acclimation". By hem-hawing around about what you are gonna post (but haven't), and predictiong beforehand about how folks are gonna imnproperly react, you are probably just making it worse. "Stimulating buzz words", Give me a break Mike. Do you really think you can post some "buzz words" and effect some kind of mind control so that folks will react in the way you think they ought to. Don't be silly. What are you afraid of Mike? Stop making excuses and just post your stuff. Explain the "more subtle issues" and be done with it. Goey

Mike Posted: Now Mike wants to tell us how to react or not to react to something he says he is gonna post -something which he knows is liable to raise some ire here. Grow up Mike. Folks are going to react based on the content and implications of what you post. You have no power over that. Stop trying to be a control freak. Mike, if you would spend as much effort posting your "data" as you do telling us that you are gonna post it and teling uu how we ought not to react to it, you could have been done here by now. Just post your damn stuff and move on. Goey

Sure it is Mike. The proposition of PFAL being God-breathed is indeed a thesis and it is indeed yours. And whatever else you propose rests upon it. Mike, why should Wierwille's instructions be obeyed? And what gives the "record" any authority? Just because you say so? That is absurd. You are presuming that Wierwille spoke "ex cathedra" when he gave these instructions. Mike, how do you know that these instructions were "squelched by strong spiritual forces". Another presumption. Mike, I know who your are adressing. But why in the world would you think that anyone would take you up on this challenge of yours? You have offered no good reasons. By you own admission you have not mastered PFAL, so you could not possibly know the results of such mastery. From what I can see all you have mastered is the art of illogic. Again you are presuming PFAL to be God-breathed and Wierwille's instructions to be of some authority. Tell you what. Go and master PFAL. And when you have mastered it come back and tell me what the results are. At least then you can give a personal testimony as to the results of this "mastery" that no one has ever attained to and that Satan is trying to squelch. It's easy Mike. Precept upon precept. If precept B is based upon the veracity of precept A, and precept A is eroneous, then precept B will be eroneous also, as well as any other precepts that rest upon either A or B. The entire thesis does not have to be presented if the first few precepts are in error - the rest will be in error as well. Goey

Mike, Your thesis is riddled with logical fallacy. You have simply declared VPW's works to be God- breathed by fiat. Then based upon this presumption you attempt to build your case for mastery. The argument you present is circular and therefore invailid. There is not one shread of evidence that what VPW wrote in PFAL was given by revelation. Even VPW did not make that claim. PFAL itself does not make that claim. Only you. The record of Balaam shows that God can indeed intervene into the wicked plans of evil men for his purposes, if He so chooses. Yet if offers us no more than the simple "possibility" that God could have given PFAL by revealtion through VPW ( a modern Balaam of sorts) This proves nothing. It is just as possible and even more probable that he did not. God's use of Balaam is the exception rather than the norm. We have a reliable and time - honored record of God bringing forth the Word from the mouth of Balaam - the scripture itself. In contrast, we have no reliable record of PFAL being God-breathed and worthy of "mastery". The only "record" that seems to exist is your claim that it is so. There is no evidence . No evidence that God spoke to VPW in 1942 other than VPW's tesitmony. No evidence that there was a snowstorm - only VPW's testimony. There is no evidence of a "new covenant" where PFAL/collaterals supersede the NT scriptures. Your whole thesis rests upon the presumption that VPW was telling the truth in most everything he said and wrote, yet there is much evidence that VPW was less than honest in many areas. Telling the truth was not one of VPW's endearing qualities, yet your thesis rests upon it. Mike, your thesis is washed up. It is hogwash and has no merit. It is based upon presumtpion, false logic and God knows what else. Goey

Mike, You posted to me: Let's examine your statement here. I disaprove of your contrived and imagined scenario which you declare by fiat and claim to be "God's sneak attack upon the adversary. I disapprove of your claiming to know what God told to VPW. Your tactic of trying to make me seem in opposition to God is obvious. Now about Baalam. I doubt you have studied the record of Balaam very much if you are using Balaam as an example to prove Wierwille's fitness as a man of God and as the messenger of a new convenant from God to mankind. First, Balaam was not a prophet of Israel. He was no man of God . He may possibly have been a "prophet at large" at one time, but it is clear that he was a conjurer similar to Simon Magus at the time of the record in Numbers. He was in the curse for hire business. God told Balaam, that "thy way is perverse before me." God had no respect for Balaam's ways. Anyway, Balaam disregards God's charge to him and goes with the princes of Moab, yet they had not called him first - as was God's requirement. So we have a pretty wicked, disobedient, conjurer here in Balaam. So finally Balaam, knowing that he is not supposed to curse Israel goes up with Balak anyway hoping that somehow he can do it, but God prevents him and instead of a curse out comes a blessing. Not giving up and instead of telling Balak to take a hike, Balaam goes to another place with Balak, hoping that if he looks in a different direction that he can muster up a curse for Balak, but again God instead puts His words in Balaam's mouth. This happens once again and thus we have Balaam's Prophecy. It is a record of how God can, if He chooses, use evil and wicked people to further His ends. Is that your contention? If so then I agree. I also agree that inspite of Wierwille's wicked and perverse ways, that GOD was able to have some good come of his pathetic life. Just like with Balaam. But Mike, God did not exalt Balaam to MOGFOT. Balaam was not made the king of Israel. Balaam did not write "scripture". Balaam was not entrusted with a new covenant. God did not make Balaam a teacher or apostle or entrust him with the spiritual nurturing of others. Everything that Balaam said was not mined for hidden messages. Balaam just went home - probably irked that he did not get the booty and status the he so desired. He was a minor player in a "ministry" most likely againt his will, that lasted for a few days. God intervened and constrained Balaam from doing his own will of cursing God's people for money and status, and then constrained Balaam to bring forth a blessing instead. What I see here with Balaam is that wicked men, Balak and Balaam, conspired to do evil, and that God intervened and some good came of it. Arguably this is might be what happened with VPW. So, Mike why would I want to tear this record of Balaam out of my Bible? It is a very poignant lesson. There is no double standard at all. BTW , why are you appealing to OT scripture which according to you are "unreliable remnants." Now that does appear to be somewhat of a double standard. Goey

Mike Posted: Oh, you there Mike? I should have known. It must be grand being privy to the conversations between God and VPW. Now, according to Mike, we have God himself telling VPW to plaigerize the works of others. God told VPW to break the law ( plaigerism is illegal) and to despense with professional ethics (morals). Then Mike adds: According to Mike, VPW's breaking of the the law is doing the right thing. VPW's casting aside of ethics and morals is doing the right thing. But let's not forget, God told VPW to do it - because it would help thousands. I wonder what other laws or moral and ethical codes God told VPW to break? I suppose it must have been God who told VPW is was the "right thing to do" when he used his position of authority to sexually abuse women or to commit adultery. After all, if VPW could not get his needs met at home in his marriage, then adultery and other forms of illicit sex were the only possible way to get his sexual needs met. VPW certainly could not have "helped thousands" if his "sexual needs" were not met. So I suppose that we should be "glad he did it" eh Mike? It was the right thing to do, huh? Mike, since you seem to know exactly what God told VPW about plaigerizing Stiles, Bullinger, and Leonard, why don't you tell us what God told VPW right before he commited sexual abuse, rape, or adultery? Goey

Yea right, I must have heard a score of such claims. Wierwille dies and the whole world goes to pot. Well, maybe the "world" of those that worshipped him crumbled. But these things are all myths. Even if true ( I think not), there is no way to validate them. These kind of myths only go to exalt the man and make him seem indespensible. The extreme logical extension of this kind of stuff is the canonization of everything a man said or wrote. This is why I think the scriptures are pretty clear about giving the glory to God. It was TWI that caused the fall if the Soviet Union. If it had not been for Wierwille's stand on the Word countless countries would have fallen to communism, California would have slipped off into the Pacific Ocean, and we would all now be speaking Russian - That is, if the giant comet that was headed directly for the Earth has not been diverted by VPW's great believing. Gosh, and I could not even believe for a good parking spot at the Mall more than half the time. Goey

Mike, My analogy was not about root causes. We could say that the axe caused the wound, but was it really the axe or the person wielding the axe? Or does it go even deeper. I supose it depends upon one's prospective. But in any case, without the axe there would be no wound. Get this straight Mike. Dr. Victor Paul Weirwille used his position of authority as a supposed man of God as a vehicle to feed his lust for sex and power. He betrayed and abused those who looked to him for spiritual help and guidance. He did it repeatedly and without repentance. He was a serial abuser and he led other down the same path. Oh, and yes, he happened to write a few books with some pretty good Bible stuff in them as well. But telling those that he betrayed and abused to get healed by mastering those books is absurd and laughable, even if the keys to being healed were in them. The reasons should be rather obvious. Why would a rape victim want to rely upon books written by the rapist in order get healed? Suggesting such is rubbing salt into the wounds. It is naive and unthinking and it slaps the victims in the face. Besides, if a spiritual solution is being sought, there are other books and sources with the same and even better information - books that were not written by the rapist, but rather by folks with integrity and true compassion that did not go around betraying and abusing their followers while trying to fulfill their own lusts. Mike, If you cannot get this then you are as dumb as a box of rocks or you just don't give a damn about anyone or anything but yourself and your own ideas. Goey

Mike, you can't heal an axe wound with the axe that caused the wound in the first place. Trying to heal the wounds caused by VPW's dispicable actions by exalting VPW's words into the Word of God, and then telling the victims that the only way to heal is to master these words is... well, rather ludicrous. Goey

Mike, you see what you choose to see with your rose-colored telescope. One of your mistakes is presuming that this thread an/or the participants attitudes and beliefs concerning VPW represent the sum total of their spiritual life. You presume that hatred for VPW is at the forefront of peoples thoughts. Not so. It is your denying, belittling and glossing over of the well documented facts and negatives about VPW, PFAL amd TWI that brings them to the forefront. The spiritual lives and "religion" of many of the folks here extends far beyond GS cafe and your threads. You mistake "hate" for speaking the truth about your idols. I know of very few here that deny that any good came from their time in TWI. Yet they are not so foolish and deluded as to ignore the bad that happened as well. To understand and truly make sense of TWI/VPW/PFAL one must honestly and critically look at all sides. Seeking to forget or ignore the unplesantness, errors and evil can only lead to an unbalanced and false notion of what is real. If we forget the negatives - the error, evil, and the abuse it will likely return upon us. Remebering the negatives does not mean that we focus on them. That is a false and absurd presumption. The lessons we learned from the negative are just as important as the lessons from the positives. They teach us what not to do, what won't work, and in many cases, what not to believe. They prevent us from falling into the same traps and errors over an over again. They have also taught us how to sift through much of this delusional and unbalanced hogwash that you are trying to feed us here. Goey

So Mike, let's see if I got this right. The memory of someone who was drugged and raped by the great doctor may be accurate at first. But as time goes by the memory "fades". It becomes less accurate each time it is refreseh from memory or by recounting the story because it cannot be refreshed by the original source. It should not be recounted or told to others, because it will only become more inaccurate - and we can't have that now can we? So eventually, after a period of time, the memory of being drugged and raped becomes so "faded" and/or inaccurate that it must be totally discounted, glossed over, and/or denied that it ever happened. As the memory fades so does the evil act itself - Then one day voila! - It never happened. But on the other hand, if something the great doctor said or wrote is recorded on tape, video or book, then the fact that it is "recorded" in one of these media makes it true and reliable - never mind that his actions did not necessarily follow his words. The actions that folks recall are merely inaccurate, faded memories and must not be brought into the analysis. Only "recorded" words should be used, because being "recorded", not in faded, unreliabe memories of eye witnesses, but in a book, tape or video, they therefore must be true and accurate. It that how it works master Mike? Goey

Mike Posted: Only fading memories? Is that what they are Mike? Ditto to what Karmicdebt said. That is truly insensitive. Goey

Posted by What The Hay: Stuck in the 70's? - Hardly. Mike's theories were developed witihin the last few years. When in the 70's was PFAL promoted as the Word of God that supersedes the scriptures? When in 70's TWI were the scriptures considered unreliable remnants? When in the 70's was VPW's alleged 1942 episode where God spoke to him taught to be a new covenant between God and mankind? When in the 70's was it taught that VPW was genetically gifted giant who caused the earth to shake wherever he walked? None of this stuff was a part of 70's TWI. Mike is not stuck in 70's and neither is he "crying to get out and unstuck". Mike has sold out to his own beliefs and will not be moved. He thinks he has found something and will not be swayed. He is here to try make proselytes - to promote PFAL as the only reliable Word of God - to declare VPW a man after God's own heart. That is why Mike is here. Crying to get out and get unstuck? - Talking about naive. Sheesh ! Goey

Training implies, study, practice and and usually a teacher. "Trained by God" you say? Well it depends upon what is meant by training. God put wisdom in Solomon's heart. There is no biblical record of any direct training that I can tell. The scriptures certainly say nothing about "total wisdom". If he had "total wisdom" I doubt he would have gone after idols and false gods. There seems to be no record of David having been "trained" by God. My best guess is that as a good Jewish boy he was trained by his parents via the scriptures. Where is there any record that Saul received any "training" directly from God? These men no doubt received revelation from time to time, but "training" from God? What does that mean? Seem rather esoterical and contrived. It proves nothing in regards to VPW. Adam had a perfectly renewed mind? - Says Who? Why should I need to remember that? This is just parroting of PFAL - an unprovable teaching of VP's that had no real substance or any particular signifigance for that matter. The only point I see that is trying to be made here is that VPW somehow belongs in the same class as David, Solomon and Saul. I reject that premise for several reasons that have already been discussed by others here. VPW was a charleton and an abuser. He also happened to teach the Bible, sometimes pretty well. Yea, he had so much "brains" that as a PHD he could not even pronouce the word "probleN" correctly. Why he did not even have the "brains" to cover up his blatant plaigerism. And where is the brawn? Oh that's right he invented the "hook shot." What a crock! I witnessed VPW teach the Bible. He cooked me a hamburger once. Good for him. This is hardly earth shattering. I know of few "OLGS" that "witnessed the former". I did not. I do agree that we should help our brothers and sisters with the damage that was done, but not by mastering PFAL. We can help them rather by telling the truth about VPW, about how he plaigerized the works of others, about how he used his position of authority to sexually abuse women, about how many secummed to his charms and deception because we put too much emphasis and trust in the man rather than upon God and Christ. We can encourage folks to get help from other sources where we are not qualified. That is what we can do. Mastering PFAL will do nothing to heal the many wounds that VPW intentionally inflicted upon folks to fulfill his own lusts. PFAL while having some good stuff in it was used by VPW as a tool to fulfill his own perverted lusts and to feed his overblown ego. Rafael, I am with you. This is so entirely abusurd that I am not even going to address this baloney anymore. Goey

Ginger, Ginger, you are so far off the mark here that it is rediculous. Either that or you are attempting attribute a view upon me that I do not esposue. It was Todd that called my repsonse to Mike evil. I never in any way referred to Todd or agnostism as being evil. Never. I don't know what you were reading, but is was not my post. You should be more careful or more honest. I do not appreciate being misrepresented -if that is the case. Agnostism is an admitted unknowing. I actually have much more respect for that than for someone like Mike. My first (errant) response to Todd was about prospectives. My point, though errantly aimed, was that what is "evil" to an evangleical, scripture-believing Christian would certainly be different than what evil is to is to an agnostic. The Christian would define evil in the context of scripture, while the agnostic would define evil in a humanistic or secular way. I suggest you go back and read again and try reading what I actually wrote. Goey

Mike, Is that the best you can do Mike? Another dodge. And quite insincere I think. See Mike, the truth is that I did indeed mix Todd up with another poster and I apologized for that. But I doubt that you mixed me up with another poster. You just made a presumotion by failing to read what I really wrote and now you are just regirgitating my words back to me to be cute. A real piece of work. I bet you are really liking all this attention. Goey

Todd, My sincere apologies. For some reason I thought I recalled a post of yours a while back that was admittedly agnostic. It must have been someone else. Again, my apologies. Goey

Mike, You asked:"...May I ask you how it is that you think the handed down remnants of the Bible are THE Word of God and not another gospel?" Mike, I did not say that I think that the "handed down remnants of the Bible" ARE the Word of God. Boy, you really missed that one. You are reading between the lines. Go back and look again, then get back to me when you read and try to comprehend what I actually wrote. Need a hint? - I used the word contained. Goey

Sirguessalot, Todd, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. And I am certanly entitled to blow it off as "worthless" if I choose. In this particular case I choose to. Nothing personal. But understand that I am comming from a prospective that espouses the authority of scripture and the message that it brings to mankind. Whereas your prospective most likely does not. If I am not mistaken your prospective does not even acknowledge the existence of God or salvation through Christ. So how can you call it an "evil thing to say". I would not think that evil exists in your world except possibliy in a secular or humanistic kind of way. So it seems pretty clear that your view of evil and mine are most likely not on the same page - at least not in reagards to Mike. My view of evil is based upon scripture, your is based on ... well who really knows. Regards, Goey

Shaz Posted: Yes, but I HAVE used the word "evil" in regards to Mike. On March 12th I posted: I'll make no bones about it. I think that Mikes doctrine is evil and that Mike is either knowingly or unknowingly ( I cannot tell) promoting a lie. I suspect the former because of his willingness to abandon any form of an intellectually honest approach. Mike posted ( to Shaz): Mike, one does not have to or need to be a "parqagon of virtue" to call something or someone evil. Evil can be discerned in several ways. One is by the standard set in the true Word of God contained in what you call "unreliable remnants". Yet your doctrine convienently casts aside the true Word in favor of another - which is not another ( Gal 1:7). You eliminate the standard itself, by casting it aside. You honor the works of a man above the true Word of God and attempt to deceive others with this false doctrine of yours. It is evil because it attempts to deprive folks of the goodness of the true Word of God which is contained in the scriptures. It exalts a man. Mike, maybe no one else has called you evil outright, but I certainly have no problem with it. By actively promoting and recruiting folks into your false doctrine, you become a messenger of evil - a deceiver. But the good news is that what you are promoting amounts to little more than "Evil Lite", but evil nonetheless. It will come to nothing. There is a little chance that anyone will truly buy into your deception because of the many, many, obvious flaws in your logic and methodology and becasue of the abject abusurdity of it all. Anyone with a lick of sense can see right through your deception. Goey