Mike

Oakspear, You wrote: "When "technically" is used the way Wierwille used it, it carries the meaning of "according to the law, or rules". It is often used in the sense of something that is legally true, but not carried out in practice. For example, if I buy a car and then give it to my son, expecting him to pay for insurance and registration costs, take care of all upkeep, and allow him exclusive use of the car, the car is technically mine, but for all practical purposes the car is my son's. In effect the car is my son's, but technically it is mine." You are operating on the idea that there is some common, singular, official, authoritative definition of words that Dr might be right with or wrong with. There is not. Words have slightly different meanings to different people. When a dictionary is made, the editors try to corral all these differing usages into a smaller set of MOST often used definitions. They might like to get it down to only one usage in this attempt, but almost all words resist this constraint. Almost all words have SEVERAL definitions in any large dictionary. A few years pass and the population wrenches the usage of a word in a new direction and the editors console themselves in that they have job security. That said, remember how were taught that God uses the MAN'S vocabulary to covey His revelation. We were not taught that God uses the "official" definition of the words, but He uses that one man's vocabulary, that one man's own definitions of words. So, if it were the case that Dr had a "wrong" definition of the word "technical" God would bow to Dr's definition to impart His revelation. I too bow to it, and I had no trouble understanding that Dr was talking about the commonly observed patterns of human behavior we see everyday. I bow to people's idiosyncratic use of words all the time, and so do you. It's the only way we can communicate with each other. I can see the word "technique" is the root of "technicality" so commonly practiced techniques is an easy thing to see in Dr's intended use of that word. (Besides, I looked it up in my dictionary, and that was one of the official :D--> uses.) *** And, TheEvan, just in case you think I'm re-writing here, or making it up as I go (like I've often been accused of) I've posted this same thing here before about individualistic use of words departing from the official dictionary. Besides, just like there's no official Bible version, there's no official dictionary, outside some institution officially adopting one as it's own standard. This came up on the "Masters..." thread a year ago when Mandii objected to the meaning of the word "master" as she was used to thinking of it (((She's doing well, by the way. I just talked with her yesterday.))) It also came up nearly two years ago. This individualistic use of words is the reason I did that thread on "Why Does A Mirror Reverse Left and Right But Not Up and Down?" at http://gscafe.com/groupee/forums?q=Y&a=tpc...=4936053912&p=1 On that thread I showed how there are three vastly differing definitions out there for the word "reverse" and how hardly anyone is aware of this fact for various reasons. Because people have a tendency of latching on THEIR own definition and NOT bowing to other uses of the word reverse the riddle is a real stumper and has been for 3000 years. In this case it's the hidden or elusive nature of two of the definitions that induce people to resist bowing. I've seen heated arguments on this riddle where people latch on so hard onto their own definition that they get angry at the other person who also does not see or yield. In other arguments it's often the case that two people fight in a debate over some concepts due to definition differences, and out of stubbornness or ignorance of the other definition no one yields. If one is smart enough to finaly see that the argument is a mere differing over definitions, and yields to the other's definition, the argument suddenly ceases. This yielding or bowing to definitions is common in enlightened people. God too. I posted long ago here that as a child in the 1950's I remember our anti-Beatnik English teacher trying to eradicate the word "ain't" and we kids would tease Miss Crabtree by saying within earshot: "'Ain't' ain't a word because it ain't in the dictionary!" We would squeal with delight at such a grammatical rebellion. WE KIDS knew that ain't was a real word, and the "official" dictionary be damned. We knew it was real because we USED IT. This was before the first ever slang dictionary came out. I remember slang dictionaries being a big deal when they appeared. Now they're common. Now even my spell checker has "ain't" in it. *** In summary, Dr did not teach it was right for the king to help himself to any woman he wanted. Nor was Dr wrong in writing that way he did to document the commonly known practice of the king helping himself to whichever women he wanted. We are free to read error into it, but I will refrain.

TheEvan, I couldn't help but notice that you only spent 9 minutes max reading that long post of mine AND then coming to the conclusion you wrote. I've spent 7 years on that same set of ideas before I wrote them. I suggest you take some more time in thinking about these things, AND in reading my other posts which you admitted not doing. There was no furious re-writing of anything on my part. I simply waited for that moment to post what I did. If there's any hasty thining going on here it's in you, not me.

Linda Z, You wrote: "Mike, if you're going to make that distinction between the Bible and the Word of God, then how do you handle this statement, which I heard VPW make on several occasions: __ 'The Bible does not contain the Word of God, it is the Word of God.' __ That doesn't seem to fit with what you're saying here." First of all, it would help if I had the location of where that is written. I do remember things like that being SAID, but I'm not so sure it was written that way. Plus, if the context is on the table, then we could proceed better. But I'll work with you on this a little without that benefit for now. You might notice that I said USUALLY this is the way Dr separated those two ideas. In the way a dictionary is produced, the editors look to how a word is USUALLY used, not to each and every application. An author can occasionally deviate from the usual usage of a word for various reasons. I've seen in the PFAL book the title of Part II is "The Bible Is the Word of God." I can see an exception here to Dr's usual pattern for various reasons, the largest I suspect is brevity. The title of each Part in that book appears at the top of each lefthand page. Having the whole idea of "The Bible is the Word of God in Written Form" is a little cluttered and long for a page header. The full idea is spelled out in the contents of the chapters that comprise that part, so it's up there in the header to remind the reader where he's at more than to spell out the whole idea to him. I can see, in addition to brevity and neatness, that contrast is another reason to truncate sentences like the one you quoted. To say "The Bible does not contain the written form of the Word of God, it IS the written form of the Word of God" loses some of it's punch and rememberability in full form like that. It was the contrast between "is" and "contains" that he was communicating in sentences like that, not the dichotomy of natural/factual versus spiritual/true. *** Here is something that Abigail (I think it was her? maybe Oakspear too?) noticed many months ago here. When Dr said in the class that he decided long ago to take the Word of God as his only rule for faith and practice he wasn't talking about any written versions, or even any ancient texts. He was talking about the revelation that God had promised He would give him, not "the Bible." The phrase "the Bible" is too vague a term for anyone to take as a rule for faith and practice, because for one reason, one Bible contradicts another in places. Bibles differ, so which one was he referring to as his only rule? Even the relatively modern critical Greek texts differ, so they couldn't have been his only rule. The ancient fragments differ EVEN MORE amongst themselves, which is the reason for the critical texts to be compiled in the first place. It was the spiritual Word of God, his promised revelations, that he was talking about as his only rule. And this used to get me very angry at him, when he'd say things like "We haven't found a text yet, but my spiritual perception of this tells me the original should read..." or "We finally found a text that verifies what I knew all along." This used to get me furious when he'd talk like that. I'd think, wait a minute, I thought he took the written text as his only rule, now he's contradicting himself. I just didn't know that he differentiated between the spiritual and the physical so sharply. He says so in BTMS on pages 23 and 24, but by then in my curriculum I thought that book was too far beneath me to bother reading it any more. It's a good thing for me I didn't listen to this until after I was shown the difference between the Bible and the Word of God, but in the University of Life Ephesians tape #17 he went one step farther. There he says (paraphrasing) """We may never find a text for this in my lifetime, but I know that the original says...""" I'd most likely have quit the ministry if I had heard that tape ten years earlier. I also used to get annoyed when he's find only one text to back him up. I'd think what it THAT text was a forgery, though??? I was often exasperated at how he knew which text or fragment was ok and which ones were not. Now I know the answer: God told him. His search for the good texts was not only to guide his understanding, but to verify what God told him as well as help his students believe what he was teaching. Ditto (often or mostly) for us "checking it out" on our own. *** Now here's something REALLY interesting. In PFAL he says (paraphrasing again for speed): """MY only rule for faith and practice is the [spiritual] Word of God.""" In his last Way Magazine he writes: """OUR only rule for faith and practice is the [physical] Bible.""" Why the change in "my" to "our" ??? Why the change in "Word of God" to "Bible" ??? In 1942 there was no clear, definitive, authoritative physical Bible for him to adopt as his only rule. Just the opposite, he was ready to chuck the whole thing, and he didn't think the word "Holy" should be on the physical covers. He was taught in divinity school all the issues I abbreviated here in the phrase "tattered remnants" and he was ready to quit all his association with all Bibles and ministering because he had nothing that he'd never had to "back up on." Remember that phrase "back up on" and how he used it in "The Way Living in Love" right next to where he describes what God audibly spoke to him in 1942? We used to repeat that phrase and it's context often in the 70's and then it disappeared, from even the TVT. On page 178 Elena quotes Dr saying: “I was praying. And I told Father that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on. "And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others." So, in 1942 Dr, in his discouragement with the lack of definitive written words directly from God, Dr alone is given the promise of hearing those definitive, authoritative, "never have to back up on" words straight from the Father as he promises to teach them to others. Dr is alone in having this promised help from the Father, so that's why he recalls his ministry's begining in the PFAL book using that phrase """MY only rule""" In 1985, that project is nearly completely finished, and in Dr' last written teaching of those revelations to us he switches to """OUR only rule""" including us in on it. Also in 1985 he also switches from "Word of God" being that rule to Bible. Why? If he meant some printed version of the ancient scriptures like the usual word "Bible" means, then everything would fall to pieces. We'd have to ask him WHICH Bible is our only rule? Which version??? Which critical Greek text?? Aramaic??? Which fragments??? These should have been our hot questions at that time, but by then most of us OLGs were asleep or off on our own tangents to have even noticed. Our sleepiness is how Dr's very last teaching. "The Joy of Serving," got so lost also. I am STILL running into grads who have no idea of it's existence, thinking that his second to last teaching, "The Hope," was his last. In the non-Corps population it's been unknown to 99% of the grads I've run into in the last 7 years, and I've run into several hundred. In 1985, when Dr writes that the [physical] Bible was OUR only rule for faith and practice he was referring to the just completed set of PFAL writings "in book and magazine form" !!! Now we can see the fulfillment of the earlier foretelling prophecy that the greatest secret in the world today is that the Bible is the revealed [written form] Word and will of God. Can Dr do that? Can he change the common definition of "Bible" from the hotel-room-placed Gideon to the the 'book and magazine form" of PFAL ??? NO! Of course not! ...but God can... In summary: 1942: Dr's only rule was the set of spiritual revelations God promised and gave him and him alone. 1985: Our only rule is the is the set of physical PFAL writings comprising the NEW Bible from God. I've been wanting to get this posted for two full years now. Thank you Linda Z for pulling it out of me. .

Raf, Then if your mission of negating me is accomplished, I guess I won't be seeing much of you anymore.

Steve!, One other point. You wrote: "I post what I post about you because when I see you co-opt a thread to push your idolatry of docvic(praise be his name), that thread is for all intents and purposes, with regards to the original topic, over. And that gets to be somewhat irritating." I often purposely wait until a thread is for all intents pretty well over before I start posting JUST SO THAT the original poster has a chance to get it all said and not heave me prevent them from completing their intent. And what difference does it make if the thread gets longer than the originator intends. I think they may often LIKE that to keep it around longer, increase in prominence on the board, and give them more opportunities to ferret out more details that they had originally planned. I really do try to not derail and prevent snyone from getting their intent expressed. As far as the amount of posting I do, I am very willing to help defray the costs for this board's operation. How much $$ should I send and where do I send it. (I might ask for a slight delay here to wait out the rainy season) I have offered to contribute here, and I also understand a few reasons why my offer might be declined. Things like that can get complicated. Also as far as sheer volume goes, there aere many, many people here who post huge volumes of silly things or waste hard drive space with unneeded quotations of whole posts of others. Hard drive space gets cheaper and cheaper every year. The text volume I post is tiny compared to the whole operation here. I urge you and other vociferous critics of me here to hold back on those very human traits to ban, or mock like we all saw happen in TWI so badly. I understand the right and the appropriateness of opposition to ideas and the expression thereof, but a lot of the emotion and attack modes often employed in that expression can not only be wasteful and hurtful to those who operate that way, but it can be counterproductive too. Please... lets try a truce of sorts... ok? :)-->

alfakat, Everything I just said to Steve would apply as addressed to you too. Instead of attacking me personally like a TWI person would, why not focus on the details of what I say. As far as being narcissistic, you might try to imagine how you'd feel if some certain several people always posted against you with great invective like you and several others habitually do here against me. Attack the message and you have something substantial to say to those who are eavesdropping. Attack the messanger and you only leave eavesdroppers with a bad example to imitate.

Steve!, Thank you for engaging me. It makes you come across as more human to me if we can talk a little. I'm trying my hardest to make sense. When people miss my point or ask me what I mean I try to answer and clarify myself. If you would do that, point out where something doesn't fit, I'd be happy to work on a better way of saying it. You may not LIKE the point I make, but I'll at least try to make it clear. I can understand you not being happy with my message when it IS clear too. But why not engage me like the others do, instead of just mocking me? If you engage in the conversation more, your own position will become more clear to you. Who knows, you may even want to modify it from a dialog with me. I can understand the distaste I must produce in many people's perceptions when I post, and not just yours. We ALL went through a lot of garbage, and for me to bring PFAL to the forefront is very understandably distressing to many here... at first. But many of those who communicate with me on these things soon find that I am NOT trying to bring back ANY of the bad stuff, only the good. Yes, what I propose about PFAL being God-breathed is an ASTOUNDINGLY anti-traditional message. It is familiar to people ONLY in the context of kooky religious nuts, so I understand THAT distasteful association also. But I can also appreciate that when each portion f the original Bible was being written, the traditionalists of THAT day must have had a fit also. ANYTHING that defys tradition will provoke all sorts of hate and fear of the unknown, whether it's from the false god or from the True God. Why not take the position of wise old Gamaliel in Acts when the chief priests wanted to execute Peter and John for THEIR anti-traditional message? He urged that if Peter and John were of God then opposing their message would be dangerous, and if they were not of God, then the chief priests ought to give them enough rope to "hang themselves." If what I am saying is really all that stupid or devilish, I'll sooner or later paint myself into a corner, run out of steam, or loose the protection of God and die. You don't have to get all bothered by me if my message is wrong. And if I'm right then it'll be you that paints yourself into a corner. I invite you to engage me more often and see what happens. Think about this: If I'm right, wouldn't it be a GREAT thing that we have God's Word like it hasn't been known since the first century, and that we actually CAN tap into all nine all the time?

And Steve!, Why can't you give me credit for the many (most) threads I stay away from? This thread is right on topic with everything I post about, AND other posters here continually address me and want to discuss things with me. If I was an infection, shouldn't you be angry at those who dialog with me and encourage me to post more? Why don't you mock or deride them too? Aren't they just as much responsible for my "infections" here? There are two other threads in About the Way I've been on recently, both about the TWI website. I happened to go over there to that website and posted a whole bunch of "infections" there too. I was a part of the GreaseSpotters who went there, and I talked a bit to the webmaster by e-mail so it is only proper that I discuss our "adventures" there on threads here. Do you dislike me so intensely because I make too much sense and people have a hard time undoing and negating my message?

Mr. Hammeroni, No, I don't think that you got a false tongue at all. It's the "greatness of the power of God" and the "fullness of the abundance of God" that are mentioned on page 116 of TNDC there, not just SIT. You just said that you believed the Bible taught SIT. You sat throught the class and absorbed enough to SIT. But if you want to receive the FULLNESS of all that's available, THEN you are going to have to get meek to the full revelation of PFAL. There's a lot more to holy spirit than just SIT. I too had plenty of doubts about Dr then, yet I spoke in tongues without difficulty. Many people could SIT before Dr was born, but they couldn't tap into ALL that God wanted for them. It's the "greatness of the power of God" and the "fullness of the abundance of God" that are mentioned on page 116 of TNDC there, not just SIT. .

Steve!, Are you proposing that I be banned from posting my opinion? Are you aware of the two threads currently running that decry how disgusting it is the way TWI always bans people from expressing their opinions? Are you aware of the (at least) three posters who recently expressed their delight that I am able to post my opinion? If someone else posts a lot on a thread do you call THAT person's posts an infection? Do you care to match wits with me right here, or on any other thread of your choosing, and see who's opinions can stand up to the heat of battle? Do you think you are capable of answering my questions? Do you know how TWI-like you sound in how you want me gone?

WordWolf, You wrote: "You must be reading a heavily-edited version of your own posts." Could you please tell me exactly what version of my posts (regarding my handling the definitions of the word "law" with Raf) are YOU are reading? Are they from memory, or are you actually reading them? The reason I ask is because that conversation with Raf you reported does not ring a bell in my memory at all. I'd like to see the thread. If I made a mistake I can admit it. I was not intentionally lying when I say I've asked him repeatedly that if believing is not a law then WHAT IS A LAW? I'm talking spiritual here. I have no doubt Raf has plenty of examples of legal or scientific laws. I've asked for what DOES qualify as a law in the place where believing does not? *** As far as the king "technicaly" owning all the women of the kingdom, Dr was not teaching there that this is the way it technically should be in principle, or that this is the way the Mosaic law was technically written. If he was teaching that I would see a red flag there, but I never did hear it that way at all. Anyone who DID think Dr was teaching that a king should own all the women in the kingdom is, in my opinion, crazy. From the first time I heard it in the class it was obvious to me that Dr was saying that IN HUMAN NATURE (which is devil sculpted or modified from Adam) the king technically (or according to the techniques that predominate in man's fallen nature) has his "pick of the litter" or has the last say, or has the upper hand, or "owns" all the women. We don't have much of a political kingdom here in the USA, and even in Europe that system has been gone for the most part for centuries. But I bet that the way things operate in the few absolute monarchies that are left, or in those countries run by an absolute dictator, the top man gets any woman he wants. We do have minor kingdoms here, where this part of human nature can be plainly observed: In the kingdom of "Rolling Stones groupies" Mick Jagger gets his pick. In the Kennedy Camelot JFK technically owned all the White House secretaries and could pick any one he wanted... almost. In any high school Jock Society, the football captain can muscle his way past just about any of the cheerleaders' boyfriends and "own" the girl he wants. In any branch or limb I saw where the leader was single, most single women had their eyes fixed on him above the other Joe believers. This stuff is just plain common sense! When I first heard the class and Dr hit that line about David THESE are the images I had communicated to me. I don't know why you would think he was saying the Mosaic law gave the king this ownership. It's just "the way things are" that he was talking about there, about how women (I think we're talking YOUNG women here, aren't we?) flock to the top man in any society. It's as sure as young men looking at the most beautiful women with great yearning, like in the opening scene of "Gone with the Wind" where Scarlett O'Hara holds court with her admirers. If you read "Mosaic law" into what what Dr was saying in PFAL regarding David's "ownership" then, sure, you can see that part has an error. But I think it's error to read that into that line in PFAL. I never did it. *** You wrote: "and yet, with all your reading of pfal, you STILL miss its testimony about The Word of God, and how reading the English Versions, it is possible to get to The Word of God...." I don't miss that at all. You missed my comment yesterday that on every page of PFAL I thankfully am exposed to KJV verses. You missed my frequent comments that the first 27 years of my PFAL curriculum was RIGHTLY spent pouring over the KJV. You missed my several times issued comments that for a new person, I would recommend copious KJV reading AS PART of their PFAL study. Dr urges KJV reading in those books. For OLGs, the time finally came (phasing in slowly from 1975 to '85) when we were supposed to turn our attention from KJV focus to PFAL focus. That's the message of Dr's Last/Lost Teaching. And lastly, you missed the idea that in order to GET TO the Word of God, reading English Versions is certainly not the ONLY tool we must use. Without the 1942 promise Dr taught the Word was buried. There were lots of people reading English Versions prior to 1942, yet the word was buried, AS SO HE TAUGHT. Here's a reminder of Session Three that you evidently forgot: From segment 16: "No translation, no translation, and I want you to listen very carefully; for no translation, and by the way that's all we have today at best are translations. No translation may properly be called The Word Of God... ..no translation!" Then a minute later he repeats: "Now I said that no translation, no translation, LET ALONE A VERSION, no translation may properly be called The Word Of God..." That's eight times (new beginning) that he uses the phrase "no translation." Then several minutes later he hits it again: "And in this class on Power For Abundant Living, when I refer to The Word Of God I may hold the King James Version or I may hold some other version and point to it; I do not mean that version. I mean that Word of God which was originally given when holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." Yes, to get to the original Word of God, reading of English versions is necessary. But the PFAL guidance from God to Dr to us is also crucial if we want to get all the way back to the original revelation.

dmiller, Every single time in a twig that I heard an interpretation of tongues in the first or in the third person it was the case that God was magnified in my mind. The sentence "My children I, God Almighty, promise to meet all your needs" magnifies God to me. The sentence "My brothers, God Almighty promises to meet all our needs" magnifies God to me. Where did you get the idea that the only way to magnify God was to have someone praise Him in the second person?

UncleHairy, No, I do not do this for cheap sensationalism at all. Please see the third part to my long post to WW below for more details on this subject. When Dr said "the Word of God" he was USUALLY not referring to the written Bible, but to the spiritual revelation given to the Biblical writers, as well as revelation given to us today. (BTMS 23,24) When he said "Bible" he was referring to the flesh realm written form of God's Word. (RHST p.27) The Word of God is spiritual, invisible, and existed in the beginning, before God created the physical universe and matter, is unalterable and indestructible. The Bible is God's spiritual Word put into written form, started existing only when the "ink hit the parchment," is in the flesh realm not the spiritual, is composed of matter, and can be altered or even destroyed. I never ever heard Dr say "It's the Bible! It's the Bible! And nothing but the Bible!" Like you I had merged "Bible" and "Word of God" into one concept, but Dr had two distinct categories in mind for those two distinct phrases. When I came back to seriously master the PFAL writings this was shown to me, and now I've seen it all throughout his writings this way. *** Yes, Dr said that in his own writings he could and did make mistakes, but he also said that the very special PFAL writings were NOT his own (nor were they owned by Stiles, Kenyon, etc.) and that they were perfect. TNDC p. 34: "If you by your free will accept Christ as your Savior and renew your mind according to The Word, you will find that every word I have written to you is true. I challenge you to stand upon the Word of God, declare your authority in Christ and claim your rights." TNDC p. 116: "Paul in I Thessalonians 2:13, thanked God that “when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.” You too must follow God’s truth as told in the Word of God. But if you think this is just Victor Paul Wierwille writing or speaking to you, you will never receive. If you know that what I am saying to you are words which the Holy Ghost has spoken and is speaking to you by me, then you too will manifest the greatness of the power of God. If you will literally do what I ask you, then you can manifest the fullness of the abundance of God, the wonderful power of God."

Galen, Say the word and I'm gone!

justloafing, No, sorry, I'm only just a little rich. It looks like a bunch of us are finding some common ground! :D--> If anyone starts a Firesign Theatre thread in the Just Plain Silly forum, PLEASE let me know about it!

TheEvan, It's a relative thing. I have GREAT respect for what the KJV can do, and did do for me, and for Western civilization. So much so that I feel the 27 years I spent trying to master it were well spent. You just have not understood my posts, and only latched onto a small portion of my words. AND YOU EVEN ADMITTED THIS ONCE! I am thankfully exposed to KJV verses every time I open up a PFAL collateral. Since God chose the KJV to have the written form of His revelations to Dr focused on, and wrapped around, that work MUST be of great significance. It's a relative thing. As far as the words of man, as far as man-breathed efforts to represent God's written Word go, the KJV is way up there in prominence. Compared to the PFAL writings, the KJV takes a lower place, though.

UncleHairy and JustThinking, I feel somewhat (that's SOMEWHAT) complimented by you both. In the late 60's and early 70's I was an avid FT fan... and still am. I met them and partied with them for a weekend in 1970. Even got their home phone numbers, or some of them. My first acid trip was spent on the phone with Rocky Rococco for a half hour. I was in a FT "fellowship" of other FT fans before taking the PFAL class. In 1989 I made an imitation FT album of my own, sent it to one of them (David Ossman), and got a positive review in writing. Even prayed with him on the phone for his wife one night as she was about to birth to their second baby. Nowadays as a hobby I do standup comedy gigs in their style at open mic poetry meetings. So you can see, I'm a little confused if you just insulted me or complimented me. Would you like me to send you a CD of my attempt to duplicate their comedy? Free?

Song, I don't know what that means. I'm willing to listen to an explanation though. Seriously, let's dialog. I'm not a bad guy. I'm not trying to hurt anyone or trick anyone. I've see from your posts elsewhere that you're not a bad guy either. I've seen some of your heart. What can we talk about that would make you feel genuinely better? I'm willing to talk here in front of everyone else, or in PT, or e-mail, or by phone. I come here to help, not to bother people. It bothers me that I bother you. How can we communicate better?

Danny, Yes, I do paint with a broad brush, and senses wise it's pretty accurate; spiritually it's totally accurate. "We" did get sloppy in all those things. *** justloafing, You seem to have a hard time focusing on the issue at hand. Or did you resort to those two standard distractions on purpose? There are a lot of hours in every day. How many of those hours do you devote to breaking the greatest commandment by loving something other than the One True God?

socks, You're right, it is hyperbole. But isn't that a legitimate figure of speech? Actually, as I look at your quote of me, I think should have written it a little better than that. I know that lots of conversations took place involving disagreement and debate around small matters or around matters involving how to exactly move the Word in the early years, but that diminished as time went by. Things got more and more like "my way or the highway" into the 80's. What I am expressing when I say things like that is that we had a system set up where when there was a serious difference of opinion involving serious doctrinal matters, whoever had the upper hand in the Way Tree would squash the discussion after a few very short rounds. This system was good at first, but as we drifted from the accurate written doctrine we were given and into the TVTs, then this system was not well suited to straighten out the developing mess. Instead of being scrapped, the system of severely limiting debate became more and more the rule. Leaders rarely had the time or opportunity to experience extended witnessing situations involving much debate. When dealing with grads, leadership got more and more stingy into the 80's with ANY kinds of words. Long, extended, and hotly contested debates like we have here were never practiced in the Way as far as I know. I also saw the pattern that leaders had less and less practice at dealing with dissent and withered in these skills. They had to resort to all kinds of deceit or anger to stifle dissent. *** I did not have you in mind when I mentioned the calls here for my banning. I can't remember that event at all that you just brought up. *** I had a hard time making sense of this one sentence: "Early on in the first 1,000 posts of yours where you were getting ready to start to prepare to have something you were almost ready to post once you got everything ready, you made some statements about how in the past, the first time around, Way believers rejected PFAL's message and now, in the form of your posting here they were being given a chance to relook at and embrace PFAL (although in your repackaged and reinterpreted message) and if they didn't this time around there'd be no excuse, it would be 'their fault'." The only re-packaging I remember going through was when I discovered that Rafael was not a leaders in the good old days, and I had to re-group to re-address most f my message to OLGs. That was when I made up that acronym. Otherwise I haven't changed anything in my approach or in the main points. I do remember in those months constantly trying to get to something and being constantly distracted by sex and plagiarism issues. I have spent many hours dealing with those two distractions, and feel they are finally put to rest SOMEWHAT in their ability to distract me. Someday I may gather all my posts on these two recurring issues, along with a few from other posters, like HCW's recent reports, and put them into a summary. That "something" I was wanting to get to amid the distractions was eventually brought into the mix. It's the return of Christ and the new administration we can walk into by mastering PFAL. Maybe you could re-write that one long sentence if I missed the mark of what you were getting at. I will admit that my writing skills two years ago may have needed some refinement (and still some more now). I have grown a little to better express some things. I do sometimes use hyperbole to hit hard on an important issue. When asked I can explain, and maybe my writing skills will progress more to make my intentions more clear in the future.

dmiller, I don't think the Bible is flawed. It's what has been pass down from antiquity, with all its alterations, that I see as flawed. Anyone who's scratched out a spurious KJV verse or phrase, or written a better translation in the wide margin is acknowledging that the book in their hands is flawed. *** You wrote: "Geez -- I didn't know I had an assignment due." I was kidding, of course. The answer is that there are NO verses in the KJV that talk about the "return" of Christ. There is an article that appeared in a very early CES magazine on this, around 1989. It asserted that our TWI use of the word "return" was inaccurate, and that we should have been using words like "coming" or "appearing" or "gathering." I initially thought the article was accurate, and that Dr was just a little sloppy in using the term "return" so much. In recent years, as I have been closely looking at his exact use of words, I now see that he was using it in the way I described a few days ago here: in close association with the Christ in us RETURNING to the revelations God initiated in 1942. All these words like "coming" and "appearing" and "gathering" and "return" are related, yet all have their slight differences in what exactly they refer to. I think "rapture" is Latin, and I don't like it. Right from the start, in Session One, Dr brings up the idea of us coming back or returning to "this" Word. I have a large file to someday share on over a hundred such other places in his teachings where he talks about these kinds of things. *** You wrote: "Hmmm. I was there in the *good old days*, and I guess your "toolset" is kept right on your "table of challenge", eh?" I make up these terms just for conversation sake. It's the ideas behind them that I hope you will consider. *** You wrote: "Here is an assignment for you... Show me your verses (not docvic-speak) where this is called a *law*. I know you can find it in pfal, but not in the bible. __ But since you think the bible to be *flawed*, and pfal to be *god-breathed*, I don't expect this assignment to be completed." I have no KJV verses that use the word "law" in conjunction with believing. I don't think there are any. The original scriptures were not flawed at all. But when culture changed, and language changed, and religious bias filled the culture, then many ideas in the scriptures became very elusive to simple linear translation. In the Orientalisms class we were taught that the Bible is a Eastern book. It was written by Eastern people to Eastern people using Eastern imagery. There are many Eastern ideas that have simple Eastern expressions to express them. These expressions don't convey the same ideas to Western minds if translated word for word in a simple linear fashion. Someone with oversight of the cultural differences must step in to help make the transition. The same thing works in reverse. There are Western concepts, like that of a scientific law, which have no simple counterpart word in the ancient Eastern world's vocabulary. Someone with oversight of the cultural differences did step in, God, and gave Dr the revelation (sometimes via other men) that the Western word "law" was appropriate in discussing the situation with believing. In our culture the word "law" conveys certain ideas. Those ideas can be seen in the verses that describe believing and all that it entails. I've asked Raf repeatedly: if he is so sure that believing NOT a law, then WHAT IS a law? I think he doesn't know, because he practices what he hates most in me whenever I ask him this: he dodges the question. Here is what a scientific law is in our Western world: it's a pattern that can be observed to happen all the time when the same conditions are set up. The pattern happens the same way for all people, in all places, at all times. That's the bare bones basics of a scientific law. Legal laws are similar, but they are man-made and have lots of loopholes and exceptions, and are sometimes not enforced. A scientific law works the same way all the time, no exceptions.... until you get down into the quantum level of the extremely small, and there the exceptions themselves STILL follow laws, just different laws. Newton was a theologian by trade, and science was his hobby. He and his contemporaries used the word "law" as I described and derived it from the law of Moses. What Dr taught was identical with what all the scriptures teach about believing, and he added the word "law" to his teaching, by revelation from God, to convey the Western notions I just outlined. The word "law" (when used with believing) is just a convenient abbreviation of a large set of ideas boiled down to a few small symbols. All those ideas can be seen in long form in the ancient scriptures. The confusion we experienced with this law seeming to not work for us was due to several things: ### We got sloppy about the Available List with which this law works. We tried to apply believing to things other than the promises of God. ### We got sloppy with our understanding of exactly what those promises were. Our accurate understanding of God's Word drifted away from the fresh revelations God was guiding Dr to put into written form, and we drifted towards traditional concepts and/or our own unguided research into the ancient scriptures. ### We got sloppy with our mental operations, thinking that mere mental assent (or agreeing with a promise under agreeable circumstances) was genuine believing. When the circumstances became disagreeable, our mental assent was challenged and withered. If we had progressed from mental assent (which IS a good start) to genuine believing, then we would have seen the law "enforced" after we waited out the storm of doubts that come with the disagreeable circumstances. When we come back to the accuracy of God's Word in the written forms of PFAL we will see that the law of believing works well as we get accurate on what to believe for, and have that abundance of Word to help us progress from mental assent to believing, and develop that mental discipline to persist in the storms of doubt that get thrown at all of God's children. .

Raf, It's not riddled with errors if you use the proper set of tools to examine it. If you used your current set of tools on your KJV, or any other representation of the original scriptures, you'd find them wanting too. Your toolbox contains a fundamental assumption of: PFAL is man-breathed. You treat it with that attitude, and you get the results you do. If you treated the Bible with that same attitude, you'd get similar results. If you Google up "Biblical contradictions" or "Bible errors" you will find many contributors to the list of these so-called errors use the same toolset you use. They refuse to recognize the proper Author of the original scriptures, refuse to apply the idea that apparent contradictions and errors are merely apparent, and they halt their research when then find the "errors" they are looking for. Bible "errors" can be found if the wrong set of tools are used. PFAL "errors" can be found the same way. With all the massive and deep social errors AND doctrinal errors (TVT) that crept into TWI, I can understand your motivation to use the toolset you use. When you arrived LCM and many others had totally corrupted the scene. I can totally understand your loathing to use the toolset I suggest. I have no reasonable expectation of convincing you to do otherwise. Those of us who did witness a decade of somewhat proper application of the PFAL teachings, along with a decent social setting, CAN be expected to re-examine PFAL to see that those written teachings were NOT responsible for the chaos you were exposed to. Those who did witness the "good old days" CAN adopt the respectful and meek approach that my toolset encompasses, and they will see all the apparent errors in those PFAL writings reconciled, just like the Googled Bible errors get reconciled.

mstar1, You wrote: "Knowledge for knowledge sake puffeth up, if i remember rightly" I think you got it right. One reason I never joined the Corps is I saw too many who seemed to want that knowledge for the prestige it gave on them, and the idea of serving others with it got farther and farther in the background as the 80's wore on. *** But the opposite of knowledge accumulation can be wrong too. I was thrilled to see the way you quoted that verse: accurately according to it's context. If you had quoted it verbatim, like I've seen others do, it would have read "Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth." When challenged on doctrinal error, many run and hide behind this verse as if it's condoning ignorance. They develop a false doctrine of "If I just be nice to people it doesn't matter how accurate my theology is." This is the HEART of the error ridden pleasant social clubs that has been discussed here lately. I think seeking after the knowledge of Who God is, who Jesus Christ is, and how can we effectively work in concert with them, as well as with people, is a wonderful thing and God encourages it highly. True Christianity is far more than morals and ethics. *** You wrote: "Mike In my business I deal with churches of all types. Although they vary somewhat in their methods of practice, just about any one of the them is lightyears ahead of TWI in coordinating what they believe with making actual contributions to practical life." Again, I agree. Many things did slip in the practical life areas for us, as well as the morals and ethics. Few paid any attention to "The Lifestyle of a Believer" booklet Dr issues toward the end. Our operation of the law of believing degenerated. We paid little attention to what was or was not actually on the "Available List" and thought we could simply "believe" for the practical things to work out magically. Our "believing" became mere "wishing" and the accompanying actions that must be there for genuine believing were often absent. BECAUSE we were given such a large load of the Truth, the adversary hit us with pressures and lures to get sloppy with that knowledge and misapply it or not apply it at all. I agree that many social club churches are far more practical in dealing with the surface issues of senses living that we were. But that's changing now. Many of us have seen that error and are changing. The only thing left is for us to... (...thanks Galen, for giving me a thread that's impossible for me to derail...) ...the only thing left for us to do is come back to PFAL and again start dealing with the deeper issues of spiritual living.

. WordWolf and dmiller, Your homework assignment is due today! Show me all the KJV verses that mention the "return" of Christ. .

White Dove, I agree with you that fruit can be deceptively pleasant on the social outside, but horrendously rotten on the spiritual inside. My impressions are that the pleasant churches are social clubs at heart, and they have traditional Western Churchianity doctrines loaded with error set up as a permanent centerpiece on the table. For them the Bible provides a rough set of guidelines for social interactions (differing slightly depending on which denomination and interpretation) and is a mere decoration when it comes to deep spiritual matters, like the manifestations. Good call too, White Dove, asking for names of institutions that are free from the big doctrinal errors. I noticed that when I issued a string of these errors yesterday, Thomas Loy Bumgarner issued a string of chapter titles to his favorite ministry's teaching program, completely avoiding the issue of whether those errors were present or absent from the program. It's maddening to see how a church will get some doctrines right-on and then dive into the spiritual mud on others. I'll admit that at TWI we often dove into the social mud, especially in higher leadership areas. Some of that was justified due to the "heat of the battle" being more intense there, but it did degenerate to total crap by the late 80's. If people want a social club, where pleasant things can take place, and some people problems can be worked on (and even some times solved), then some churches can be fine. But I want to see changes that are deeper than the social outer layers. I want to see progress in defeating the deeper causes of all problems. Most socially successful churches present no threat to the adversary's power. They provide temporary shelter for the flock, as the adversary picks them off one by one at his discretion.