Mike

WW, It was I who penned "can have" and I deliberqately made it different from Oakspear's " who claim to have" to ask him the question I did. I also used the space to deal with it IF the answer were "A." So Oak answered me. (Thanks, Oakspear.) It turns out his answer was not "A" but "B." I still don't get at what you were talking about, but it doesn't matter anymore. I get dizzy when we talk about what were were talking about what we were talking about. It just doesn't matter at a certain point and I think we passed that. I was an idiot for trying to pursue it. BACK TO THE ACTUAL DISCUSSION: Oakspear, that was an intelligent answer, but I learned to not accept that line of thinking long ago for this reason. IF Jesus Christ actually got up from the dead in a biological sense, then that is the absolute reality. God hates death for all people, regardless how they happen to relate to that termination of the biological process. In general, I see that God makes the same things available for everyone regardless of their personal persuasions. It's like dmiller put it, when we ask God we can get HIS answer, and we should line up with it for maximum efficiency, and dump our own theology.

WW, I'm, sorry but I don't get yor drift here. My question was to ask Oakspear to fine tune his intended assertion. You're saying that my answer concerning Oakspear's question is somewhere within your post... YET I still don't get it. From the way you've handled things in the past, I'll guess that through some convoluted (that is: missing the point, overlooking the heart, amd merely juggling words) means you're trying to get me to say "I'm and idiot." THERE, I said it (typed it). Now Tom Strange can add this to his blurb and quote me saying I'm an idiot. I still don't get it, though.

Oakspear, You wrote: "I have no respect for idiots who claim to have an inside track on the mysteries of the universe and the mind of God." Are you asserting that no one "can have inside track on the mysteries of the universe and the mind of God"? It seems like you are. If I'm wrong, please correct me. Jesus, for one, asserted that the scriptures were absolute truth, and he bet his life on that and his understandiong of them. I agree with you that the disdain for unbelievers is wrong, for God so loved THE WORLD... and there are lots of unbelievers in the world. Disdain for error is a good characteristic for someone who DOES HAVE the absolute truth on some item or element, but to allow that disdain to leak out onto the person is not so good. I know from firsthand experience that this leakage is difficult to contain, but not impossible. I suggest you might want to examine your quote above and see that it contains a potentially powerful self indictment, in a round about way. You are asserting that YOU "have an inside track on the mysteries of the universe and the mind of God" when you put forth the philosophy that no one "can have inside track on the mysteries of the universe and the mind of God." It's like you're saying there are absolutely no absolutes. The "truth for me" is a popular phrase these days, but it is not any kind of real Truth; it's just opinion. Truth is the same for all. The unfortunate fact that many CLAIM to have the absolute truth, but who obviously do NOT have it, does not eliminate ALL possibilities that absolute truth can exist and be learned. The unfortunate fact that no man can DERIVE the absolute truth in an absolute proof in no way proves that a man cannot ARRIVE at the absolute truth with God's assistance. If God wills to impart HIS "opinion" He is able. That God cannot impart absolute truth to a man is an absolute statement you SEEM to be implying. It's self contradictory.

Raf, If there was EVER a time to apply the advice of Acts: "We ought to obey God rather than man" it's in the area of recognizing that God is the true owner of all revelation He gives to man, and that it is NOT dishonest for God, the true owner, to distribute His revelations any way He sees fit. It is the True God who says THE COPYRIGHT BE DAMNED LAWS in this case. They are overridden by a higher law in a higher court. The only dishonesty here is in your insistence the true God must obey the laws of men. ******* CM, Since we were born natural men and unable to comprehend the things of God, we need a RULE to get our minds in shape to hear the still small voice of the True God in the midst of the roar of counterfeit voices. We NEED a written rule to define love for us in the first place. Once we master that written Word, that RULE for faith and practice, with our 5-senses we can then graduate to getting things spiritually. Skipping around the 5-senses learning stage is tempting, but is also disastrous. The devil can outsmart any man who thinks he can skip that necessary rule in the 5-senses realm. He did this with Eve. He tried to do it with Jesus, but young Jesus had mastered what writings God had supplied him with, so he was not deceived by the devil in his desert temptations. Dr taught us in the AC with Key #4 of the "16 keys to walking in the spirit" that we must study the Word (written rule) much. What we CAN know by the five senses God expects us to know. Before you can become an accurate living book (as you've put it) you have to line up with an accurate written book, and accurate rule. ******* bliss, Please check your private messages. It's the button line near the top of every screen, to the extreme right side. .

greek2me, You wrote: "I thought I told you to leave!" You may think a lot of things that are bunk! Haven't you learned to not antagonize me? You were the one who "inspired" me to bring out my Table of Challenge. What God-breathed text do you use as your only rule? Do you wing it? Or do you have something in print that's bigger than you? If I had the time I'd dare you to a debate. You'd lose!

dmiller, You wrote: "...and purported it to be his own *research*..." I think you have some words mixed up here. Dr did his own research, just not all of it was in the man made texts of reconstructed ancient God-breathed scriptures. Some of his research was in the partially God inspired teachings of modern people. Shall I post "Light Began To Dawn" again? In that transcript Dr attributes some of his non-scriptural sources as getting revelation from God. Just like the ancient scriptures suffered from man's interference in mis-copies, forgeries, possibly even total loss, and CERTAINLY mistranslation, so did the other sources have contamination. Dr's job was to get the revelation as to what non-scriptural sources were to be focused on, then to get the revelation as to how to fine tune them and get them in line with God's pure Word. He got revelation as to what exact order God wanted him to present them to us. Lastly (and again "Light Began To Dawn" documents this) if all else failed, God would give him a direct revelation as he worked the scriptures. Dr did all this research himself, with God's guidance. What Dr did NOT do is purport that he came up with it all on his own. Inattentive and/or unbelieving students of his did THAT purporting. Dr did NOT purport to do all the 5-senses research into the ancient scriptures. One of the later and most prominent cases of Dr using the 5-senses research results of another was Dr. Martin's work on the star of Bethlehem. Dr did NOT purport to get it all by direct revelation or divine dictation. Dr did NOT purport to do all the 5-senses research in the ancient scriptures himself. Dr DID claim that what he DID do was all done by revelation by the time it got into "book and magazine form." He even claimed that some of his staff got some revelation in the editing processes. When God gave another man a revelation, He, GOD, had the right to tell Dr to use it and BE DAMNED THE COPYRIGHT LAWS OF MAN! Dr got away with it because God was with him. He did God's will and he gave us His Word!

Oakspear, You quoted me with: "I can hardly believe that plagiarism is such a hot topic for you folks. It's just one more piece of proof that you folks didn't pay very close attention to Dr teachings. He so often admitted to collecting things from others FOR US. He even taught that originality is a crock when you view it spiritually." And then you responded with: "Noooo...it doesn't "prove" that we didn't pay attention...just that we didn't believe him..." Paying close attention and believing are very much related. Even if not, you still help me prove a point. Hardly anyone BELIEVED the teachings of PFAL, or if they did it wasn't for long or in total. I too am guilty of this one. I DID look into Dr's sources long ago and saw that Dr wasn't into 5-senses "originality" as much as he was into collecting, but I too failed to believe many things he taught. Because Dr's teachings were not fully believed, it was often a mere exercise in rote memorization that we were engaged in, maybe just so some of us could sit in seats of power and "teach." In such a mode MANY things are not fully assimilated into the mind. Those who come back to PFAL and seriously attempt to master it with meekness are in for a VERY positive surprise.

Oakspear, You wrote: 'Since this is a website devoted to giving the "other side", i.e. the side "other" than the one Wierwille and his successors presented, it is entirely appropriate to attempt to tear down what we feel is harmful." There's big difference between a website being devoted to something and PEOPLE devoting their lives to that same cause. A website being dedicated to "giving the other side" is one thing, but it's a shame for people to devote their LIVES to being so negative and cultivating great such skills at tearing down. *** You wrote: "Since you know very little about what any of us do in our time away from GSC, you have nothing to base your statement on." Yes I do. I know what it means to have thousands of posts, an average of some 4 per day. Many have more. I know how saturated a mind can get when it's constantly, many times per day, coming back to the same activity at the keyboard. I know about all the thought that goes, when far from the keyboard, into digesting what was previously read and what will be written next. Even with my positive building up message I have to take breaks of a month or so every now and then, because I DO KNOW what kid of lifestyle is led when posting many times per day. I know how saturated with this stuff you all are. Why did someone say that with the new software "our world as we know it" would come to an end? Why did everyone go along with that remark? Because there's a lifestyle of commitment and saturation going on with all the heavy posters here. But what is that commitment of life TO? It's to tearing down, and NOT to building up. Many here are repeating the same zeal and commitment to tearing down that they had in the ministry when they were attempting to build up. Some might have even been "tear down" experts back then. I see little difference between Craig's spit and many posted thoughts here.

Tom Strange, I'm not far, just not wanting to waste time. There are SO many things I could say in retaliation to many items, but why waste the time? Much of it I've already said. Once in a while I feel inspired, knowing that sometimes the text I post is good for audiences other than here. Other times I know that just one here may get a tiny bit of the true story if I post. But many times I know it would waste my time, something your source of inspiration would love to see, I'm sure. I don't play by the same rules you folks do, and it's obvious none of us want to change. *** I can hardly believe that plagiarism is such a hot topic for you folks. It's just one more piece of proof that you folks didn't pay very close attention to Dr teachings. He so often admitted to collecting things from others FOR US. He even taught that originality is a crock when you view it spiritually. There are just SO many things that none of you all got the first time around. Those who come back to PFAL are going to see that Dr collected things BY REVELATION and that the whole collection is 2000 years unique and it is worth mastering with meekness. *** All the villains you all detest here had bad symptoms of their grave root error. You all have different symptoms (some are similar but just lacking a powerful punch) than those villains, but you all have the same identical grave error at the root: refusing to MASTER the written material of PFAL. What's it like to have so much in common with Geer and Craig? *** I used the time travel taunting of two years ago to prove your lack of deep understanding to you. EVEN if WW were correct in his "morph" thread thesis (which he's not), it's STILL the case that my time travel taunting proves a lack of any kind of deep mastery of the material. If I, instead of using the "time travel" nomenclature, had asked where the "caught up or caught away to another time" incident in PFAL was, then I'd expect many of you WOULD have passed the test. Many know the wording of PFAL, but few understand the heart. *** You all look like a bunch of persnickety lawyer/politicians who are trying to hook someone with a technicality of the law and them besmirch them in the media. It's so obvious to any casual observer that you're working yourselves into a frenzy. WHY? You're all much more interested in swaying opinion than truth, just like corrupt politicians. Why don't you, instead of tearing something down (which anyone can do with all the inspiration the world provides), why don't you try building something up? Try and see what positive things you can OFFER to people in general, which is difficult, instead of taking the easy and less useful road of WARNING people against some tiny tiny cult that went bad. If you all spent as much time in your KJVs you'd have much more light in your lives, instead of all the focus and search for darkness you're becoming specialists at. When Chris Geer beat up Craig and the BOT for almost two years their eventual over reaction of retaliation was heinous. Ditto you you all. It's heinous to see you all over retaliating against genuine wrongs as if that's a noble lifestyle. Try building something up, if you're up for the challenge. Just try.

ckeer, You got it exactly.

The paradox with the headlights was resolved by Einstein thusly: it is a physically impossible scenario to begin with as it is stated by Hills Bro. A very similar and physically possible situation might be substituted for the thread starter thusly: Q: If your in your futuristic space car at midnight on a very dark night traveling at 99.9999% the speed of light (relative to the earth) and you turn off your headlights...what will happen? A: Nothing different than if you were traveling at 65 mph in a normal car on a freeway. What you would see your high beams do would be identical at any speed. There would be no measurable difference at all. This is the fundamental principle of Special Relativity.

krysilis, The rotation I see is identical to what you see: top to bottom around the horizontal axis and centered within the ball, and backwards to a usual roll.

krysilis, It looks like the first part of your post is identical to my post. You bring up an interesting possibility in the second part of your post: that a rapidly rotating ball may stop. I will have to ponder that one. First guess is that this stopping mechanism will end as energy is disapated into the air, heating it up and ending the rotation. The last line of your post is a definite no-no. The law of the conservation of energy dictates it will can never move upwards.

Hills Bro, Did you know that Einstein had a very similar question to your thread starter when he was a boy? Pondering it eventually led him to Relativity. *** Belle, Your question is interesting. If the incline is frictionless the ball will slide, assuming no initial rotation is imparted. If there is air present, then from the sliding ball's frame of reference the wind blowing past it's top will be greater than the wind blowing past it's bottom due to the incline setting up a little air blockage near the point where the ball touches the incline. As the ball picks up speed this wind differential will cause the ball to rotate a little bit BACKWARDS from a normal roll, the incline offering no resistance. It will look like it's trying to roll uphill as it slides downhill. I'm assuming that the ball's surface has friction with the air, but it has no friction with the incline.

I guess I didn't notice.

WordWolf, As for doctrinal threads, I put all of them in the Doctrinal section. As for my doctrinal posts here, I made a comment to Peter Wade welcoming him here and was immediately hit with some doctrinal items, so I dealt with them and stepped aside encouraging the thread to resume. Then the second doctrinal derailment occurred when rascal posted: "Oh, n you`d better read up on what Mike believes BEFORE jumping in and defending the rediculous belief system that he is attempting to foist off on folks here....vpw ...the old scoundrel himself would be spinning in his grave if he had ANY idea of the blasphemy (idolotrous swill to borrow a phrase) that mike spouts in his name....I imagine that you will feel pretty stupid." So, I dealt with that one. Now you want to lay the doctrinal derailment at MY feet? Please, your investigative skills are sorely lacking when the evidence is just screens away from you, so how can anyone trust your juggling of the deeper things of God?

My earlier e-mail to ioow just came back undeliverable. I get the distinct impression he did not bond to us, ANY of us.

...and not just CRAIG ...but CRAIG SUFFOLK ...sounds like "Craig's a folk" with a British accent?

Hi bliss, I'm not on trial here, and I refuse to act as if I were. My time is valuable and I must make wise decisions where to spend it and how. If I WERE on trial and faced consequences if convicted, then I'd have to spend the time to defend myself. But since I'm not on trial, I can afford to browse around to see who might be willing to listen more to my message and less to my accusers. The only real consequences here are TO YOU if you get deceived by the prosecution and ignore my message from God, OR if you get deceived by me and my message is false. If you want to have a civil conversation with me, either here in public or in private by e-mail I'm willing. Either way I may decide to respond in detail to your earlier post to me, and maybe to some points brought up by others. When I operate this way it's more for future readers and not so much for the idle curiosities of posters here that I deal with what I deal with. I'd love to discuss these matters with you, but I am not inclined to have others mold and shape your responses to me. If we do talk it will not be on their terms. We might start off with me asking you if you are aware of Dr's last teaching. I'm not talking about "The Hope" which is often thought to be his last. His last teaching occurred two weeks later, but it was universally ignored by all leadership. It's the smoking gun as to why the ministry meltdown occurred, and it opens up a HUGE true life detective mystery. Because they stand to loose much in the ego and prestige categories, many posters here still try to suppress this information along with a ton of other stuff. You've just received the first wave of suppression. If you learned anything from the ministry meltdown, you have to watch out for those who want to deceive.

bliss, You and any other new people here might want to take note that many to most of the quotes posted here and attributed to me are either too brief to be a complete thought, or are far wrenched from their contexts to say the same thing when originally posted. You might want to ask yourself why it so that other posters desperately want to explain "me" to you before I have a chance to explain myself. I gotta laugh when I see so many posters scramble here whenever I do any serious posting. Today it's WW and Tom Strange, the other day it was Raf and rascal, and on the TWI innie's site it was Ex Wafer. It seems that you new people have a lot of protection from my wily schemes to seduce you. Never mind the little fact that my message is called crazy, ridiculous, and obviously devilish. These self appointed board vigilantes rush to new people's protection, so fearful of you falling for my lines. Sheeesh! I welcome you here and also welcome you to hear me out in total. I hear what you said about what you observed and understand why you think that way. If you want to hear more, and hear something pointedly written for your consumption, we can talk.

Without PFAL God's written Word is buried. Dr said this in "The Way - Living in Love" in 1971. Did WW cover that passage yet? Without an accurate knowledge of the revelations God taught Dr and Dr put into written form we can never learn to hear the Word of God directly as that still small voice in the midst of the roaring winds of doctrine.

It seems that the TWI guy closed up shop and is gone. I had a feeling he may do that, since the only thing he expressed great interest in was the statistics of posters and how they found his site. Maybe now Bob can tell us how he found it, and if he found any of the other sites the TWI guy talked about. Maybe it was just a temporary glitch at ProBoards, though, and this is a false alarm. I hope so.

rascal, I believe God gave an abundance of revelations to Dr and that Dr said so. I also believe there is a REASON God did this huge thing, teaching His Word like it has not been known since the first century. Rascal, you did not pay attention to Dr's teaching, and that's why you erroneously think I speak a message different from Dr's. I just got done writing up 20 of Dr's "Thus saith the Lord" statements last month in PTs. I have 70 more to go. Maybe I should post them here. The same way no one here got it when I talked about the time travel incident in PFAL, no one got it (including you rascal) when Dr said that he had authority from God to teach. This is quite provable. ********************************** Peter Wade, Thank you for your article. I was able to access it by first going to your homepage at http://www.peterwade.com The full address that you provided doesn't seem to work for anyone, but the home address does. Thanks again.

I just discovered that both activity color coding and font control are available by clicking the "Lo-Fi Version" button at the bottom/midscreen of every page.

Belle, Thanks for the concern, but I wasn't referring to the ability of a poster to modify post text color. I was talking about how thread title colors, poster name colors, and page number colors would automatically change if they were clicked on. This helped me on the old board to keep track of which threads I was interested in following, which pages had been read, and such. It's a small feature that I suspect needed a lot of cookies to make it run, so I can understand if it was deliberately not opted for or not included in the software.