Mike

Paw et all, I do very well know what plagiarism is. It occurs in the academic environment and in the marketplace. When it comes to the way of a Father with His family it has no place, because God is the true owner of all. This is not recognized in the marketplace and in academic institutions. I do recognize it. I don?t believe Dr was competing in the academic realm, nor was he competing in the marketplace. When it does come to that marketplace, Dr most certainly BOOSTED the sales of Keyon, Bullinger, and Leonard. None of those guys had the believing or know-how to distribute their works to the many thousands of 1970?s hippies that Dr reached. The purpose of Dr collecting (by revelation) and correcting (by revelation) the materials that God had inspired in others was to BLESS US! I did get blessed. To hold Dr to academic standards is ludicrous. The academic standards are there to keep in line a bunch of God rejecters. Dr blessed us with a wonderful collection of truths for our own benefit. To say that tape admissions aren?t enough, but you also have to bend over and kiss butt of God rejecters is hysterical desperation. He DID put it in writing, but I?m sure someone can find a way that?s not enough too. The very idea that ?origination? should be worshipped is devilish. No one originates anything that?s good. It all comes from God. If anyone has a new idea, it?s from God, and they didn?t originate it at all. Originality is an illusion that?s fostered in the devil?s world, but it has no place in God?s family. Dr often stated ?I didn?t write the book!? and I know he often downplayed the idea of origination. He was totally honest and up front with us, and any one of us could have looked deeper and objected then, but all were silent. All these recently acquired standards of scholarship, and its rules and regulations demonstrate to me a desperation to find a villain to take all the blame. I thank God for Dr?s work of putting it all together.

Dot, Just yesterday I was listening to an old SNS tape and heard Dr talking about the ?Mountaintop Checkbook.? He said on that tape that he forgot where he had ?picked up? the ideas for it, but he DID ADMIT that he got those ideas from elsewhere. He admitted that he did not ?originate? them, whatever that means. This is probably the one hundredth such admission on tape I?ve heard, not to mention the book and magazine versions of same. If Dr had not mentioned BG Leonard, none of us would have ever heard of him. Dr admitted that it was BG that helped him a lot in various aspects of the class. Anyone who thinks Dr committed plagiarism, in the face of SO MANY of Dr?s admissions of finding the material, either was not paying attention or has selective memory. I see your continual plagiarism charges to be a hysterical desperation to condemn. Your religion of hate will not do you ANY good!

Dear Ginger, I mean it about taking a break. Your post quickly after mine demands this one response. I realize that some of the feelings here are driven not by broken Western culture but by strong and legitimate parental concerns for the young. I hear your criticism of me above and will ponder it deeply. Your soft voice is an example to all here. I will also permanently ban myself from this thread so that it can be conducted in greater peace. If someone wants to discuss a point I made here they know where to find me. This is my parting passage of peace. It's something I posted months ago, with slight modification. *********************************************************** That said, I'd like to say something to the parents of young children and teenagers. I've noticed that as a general rule, those who were loose and sexually permissive during the 70's preAIDS era, are often the MOST diligent to quantify and demand obedience to all sorts of stringent new attitudes about sex. I think this is good and proper. Parents who experienced the 70's KNOW how ruthless men can be towards their young daughter, and these parents are doing the right thing in protecting their precious gift from God. These boomer parents of young boys KNOW what sexual monsters they can become when not in the house. Young boys nowadays are subject to media training that can bring out the worst in them if parents don't diligently provide a counter offensive to stave off the media brainwashing. These parents must watch the environment for sexual predators in protecting their family, and my hat is off to you all. On this GS discussion board lots of past events from the sexually loose 70's come up. I can see you parents having lots of buttons pushed by my posts. Please believe me that there is NOWHERE in my intentions a desire to go back to THAT part of the good old days. I have considered leaving this board several times as I see my motives in the sexual areas misconstrued. I feel greatly for the formerly fast lane parents who want their children to grow up as far from the fast lane, as far from the sex freeway itself, as possible. Far from being a possible threat to parents here, I would like to cheer them on in the raising of children. I have no experience in this work, but I see it's got to be awesomely difficult. If my posting has made your job more difficult, I sincerely apologize. That has never been my intention. I've seen their task, how difficult it must be to shield youngsters from all the sexual nightmares out there. Some parents here have not just read about how crazy sex can get, they've BEEN there in the TWI sexual fracas. I can see how it's necessary for you to squelch any voice around your kids, who in any way, might be promoting the sex liberty problems of the not-so-good old days. Now I'm NOT promoting sexual liberty as a part of coming back to PFAL at all, NOT ONE BIT AT ALL. But I also understand how my posts LOOK LIKE THAT at times to diligent parents on the lookout for potential threats to their young treasures. I want to adjust the way we do things here so that parents need not be alarmed. posted May 01, 2003 12:41 ************************************************************ So I?m taking my break now and it?s going to be a permanent break from this thread. If this is a relief to parents, great. If more relief is needed, I'm open to discussion on this. [This message was edited by Mike on September 22, 2003 at 14:33.]

I have a lot of respect for Ginger Tea. When she says ?Time Out!? like she just did on another thread, I hear it very loudly, because of the soft voice she uses. I?m taking a break. You can read her post near the end of this URL: http://www.gscafe.com/groupee/forums?q=Y&a...8926084114&p=14

I do not believe in rape as a legitimate test. I think many other tests could be wrong too. I never said everything that went on was correct. I?m just offering unthought of, and undiscussed scenarios. I see that no one really addressed any points I made. The belief in our Western moral traditions I see that TWI-2 tactics of banning what you don?t like has been imported to this forum by many. How many times has Z set up a poll to have me banned? How many threads to ban me have been started by others? If you don?t like the message kill the messenger. Dot, your tactics of having and attorney and a shrink look at this is VERY TWI like. You folks are proving that the abuses that occurred are inherent in the human psyche, not TWI or VPW originated at all. You all have the same potential to abuse when you see a threat. The threat you see in me is in yourselves. Don?t post your addresses is cute. As if someonw was about to do it! Duhhhhhh! I have not tried to hide my identity at all here. I am making myself, by expressing my opinions, a target to those who have expressed or harbored mayhem here. I?ve seen two mayhem expressions here already. What spirit is behind that I wonder? How many others listen to mayhem spirits here and don?t post it? Dot, you forgot to post, in your summary of some of my posts, the possibility I posted that some of the testing could be totally wrong. I used the word sin. Make sure your suit experts see that. With your present disposition I wouldn?t be surprised if you edit that out. I?m also sure you won?t show them, and/or they wont have time to read all my posts to get the balancing information. You will surely NOT have them anal-ize ALL 1600 posts I did in this GS context, and even if you do they wont have time to read them. They will surely have an out-of-context view of my posts. As far as my intractability, it?s only in some areas, just like everyone here has some areas in their life they have locked onto. For one, the traditional blue nose Western uptight sexual prohibitions, are held onto as absolute unchallengeable truth. I threw out a large handful of Biblical references that no one wants to touch. Close your eyes all you want, but they are still there posted. Ban me form GS, and they are still there. Delete all my posts, and they will show up somewhere else. Kill or maim me and Jesus Christ will deal with you. These challenges to your religion of hate will not go away. [This message was edited by Mike on September 22, 2003 at 14:25.]

dougie 73, I see so many apologies needed from all sides. Sure TWI did wrong, but I can see that there are many posters with a great mean streak here. I do not see innocence here in abundance at all. I think we ALL need to apologize to God from walking away from what HE wrought in PFAL, in spite of the flaws in everyone who produced it and distributed it. Without recognizing the pure Word that God gave us in PFAL your proposed round of a multitude of apologies will be followed up by another round of hurts from all sides. ***************************************************************** The Skeptical Texan, You wrote: ?Yeah, it all came down to money and sex ...but ironically, CF&S was mostly about money.? From the number of times I saw that class run, I think TWI lost money on it. It was video taped twice, once in B&W and then in color. VERY COSTLY. It was run very infrequently. You then wrote: ?I just can't imagine why anybody spend their time defending the infallibility of VPW's writings on this site, but I suppose some folks really do spit into the wind.? Like your guess on the money, your imagination needs help. That?s why I post here, to help armchair generals like you. You?ll never know why I do what I do until you come back to PFAL and master it. Eye has not seen and ear has not heard, neither has it entered the imagination of any man, the things that God has prepared for them that love Him. To love God is easy. Jesus quoted Deut.6 when he pegged the greatest commandment. So, how could those natural men in the OT love God? Look at the verses following that quote early in the chapter. It says master the written Word. We never mastered PFAL like Deut 6 outlines. Until this mastery is undertaken, you can?t imagine what God put in PFAL and why I post this here. ***************************************************************** vickles, You wrote : ?so what are you saying mike? That it was ok for vpw to do what he did because he was testing them?? The phrase ?what he did? is an oversimplification. I don?t know all that he did. I do know he blessed my life and continues to do so by his work. ?What he did? regarding the incidents posted here could fall into many different categories. SOME could be the testing that I mentioned and that everyone else seems to have forgotten. I?ve noticed a pattern reported here that matches a report I heard in 1978, that some woman was approached for sex and asked to perform. JUST ASKED! Then with the refusal he backed off. These could easily be in the test category. I will NOT trust the discernment of any witnesses here to discern this internal motive. I do know that people were warned of SOME kind of testing before entering the Corps. What kind of intense emotional testing of a woman CAN be done outside of sex requests? I?ll bet the best tests on men were ego crushing scenarios. I know that Dr was a VERY tough employer. I almost got fired twice by him. He was VERY tough with his staff and Corps. I now know why. Then I could only guess. I also know that one other category of these incidents could be what Pres. Clinton was ridiculed about (probably rightly) in the area of sexual ministering. Who can say that all such ministering is wrong? We live in a broken culture regarding sex, and I see this as a definite possibility in some cases. I know a lot of people who need it. Then another category of these incidents could be plain and simple horniness, lust, sin. It happens ALL THE TIME, EVERWHERE. The blue nose prohibitionists that are currently in style will NEVER get this to stop. I don?t know what?s worse, sex blue noses or casual sex. Both cause problems, but with the force of religion I?ve seen the blue noses do FAR MORE damage. They prime the future sexual molestation victims for more pain than is real. They exaggerate the ?horror? of misplaced sexual moves, and they also set up the next generation of people who flip out over blue nose prohibitions to become predators. Even the ?Catholic Girl Syndrome? of post high school explosions of promiscuity I charge the blue noses with helping to instigate. *** You then wrote: ?What if he would have gone after the men? What if he approached you and grabbed your balls and said they were nicely shaped? How would you feel then?? I?m going to assume that there is no physical pain in such a hypothetical scenario you are describing. Mental pain can have a HUGE culturally imposed fake component. But physical pain crosses all lines of culture. I?ll assume you are talking about GENTLY grabbing, because there?s no question but a triviality otherwise. I?m assuming Exy was talking about non-painful touch. If it was physically painful then that?s a MUCH bigger problem. I would not like it at all. I am a product of Western culture, and that would be extremely uncomfortable, just like it would be even more extremely disturbing for me to see my sister?s breasts handled similarly. I?d have lots of emotional thoughts of rage for both most likely. Then, when I calmed down, I?d have a chance for some other thoughts. I will go out on a limb here. I have little to no documentation for this, but I?ve been taught from somewhere that in Bible times there was a slightly different custom corresponding to our custom of shaking hands in greeting or in making a verbal contract. Our custom of shaking hands comes from the idea of extending the most powerful hand (right) empty of weapons, as a gesture of trust. In Bible times, where the climate and clothing were more conducive, the custom was for men to grasp each other?s balls and VERY GENTLY squeeze. In the KJV this is written as putting a hand under the thigh. This was obviously a MUCH greater gesture of trust than handshakes! How would our culture deal with such a custom? Condemnation as evil? You see, many of these things are culturally brainwashed into us, but we think they are the absolute truth of God. We need to think more and lash out less. A LOT less! *** Those of you who consult our cultural norms for absolute morals are on very thin ice. What do cultural moralists say about Lot offering his daughter to the mob? I still don?t understand that one. I don?t know if he did good or bad there. What about the incident where Isaac was ?sporting? with his wife? Sounds kinky, because it seems to have been in plain sight. Was that wrong in an absolute sense? Does God insist on privacy in sex, or is that cultural? I?ve heard that Eskimo?s and possibly some other tribes of Native Americans (Indians) have sex in front of their children in one room igloos and tents. Wrong? Speaking of privacy, what about those two prophets who went take a dump together in a field? Heavens! Call the pervert police! And take down those honeymoon sheets hanging in public with all the blood on them. That?s disgusting! What a perverted idea! Oh, and don?t forget Sarah offering her handmaid to Abraham to have a kid. We?re going to have to take some rewards away from that threesome for breaking blue nose laws that are most important. Anyone who hasn?t torn Psalms and Proverbs and Ecclesiates out of their KJV?s better have a good reason for harboring bigamists. And wasn?t David even a murder in covering up his sex sins? And CHILDREN are taught the David and Goliath story all the time? We?ve got to protect children from such a murderous pervert. Of course the Song of Solomon needs to go too. Any books of the Bible written by that prophet who lived with the widow? If so, TEAR THEM OUT TOO! We gotta do some house cleaning here. Oh, and that little slut Esther! My oh my! Isn?t she spay-shell! Hey this is fun. Let?s all do the superiority dance together, but NO BUTT WIGGLING ALLOWED! **************************************************************** White Dove, My comments to Dot were totally in line with the righteous indignation you would feel if she were insulting your father. Dr Victor Paul Wierwille is my father in the Word! That?s more important to me than my blood father! I?d tell her to go to hell if she weren?t already there!

Lifted Up, I honestly hurt for the victims. Even the ones who had false expectations that were dashed to the ground. However, there?s another factor to consider when it comes to those in the Corps program. In the Thessalonians tapes Dr mentions this, and also in many of the early Corps recruiting pitches it came up a lot. That program was supposed to be like boot camp with tough tests thrown at people. In boot camp sometimes live ammo is used that?s very dangerous. Not quite as dangerous as real war, but sometimes close. Sometimes in boot camp recruits even die from the rigors, just not nearly as many as real war. Corps recruits were warned that they would be given challenging situations, in order to prepare their emotions for what they would be hit with on the field. In a few situations things may have gone wrong, or someone may have slipped bast the initial barriers and wasn?t at all prepared for such rough testing. Dr was rough on his Corps at times because they were engaged in a war. EVERYONE volunteered that was in there, and they should have known it could get dicey. The expectations that the Corps was going to be all sweet fellowship were false. I?ve heard of deaths in military boot camps and grieved for those victims. I yearn for the day God will make all this crap worth it. It?s coming! If I were a victim of any of the sex crap, or if I had been close enough to witness it, I too may be overwhelmed by these emotions and posting in a heated rage against Dr and the entire program. In the months prior to me seeing Dr?s Last/Lost Teaching and several other things that had slipped by me, I DID REACH the stages of rage over these things. I was rescued as I came back to PFAL and started reading again. What Dr ministered to me in those books helped soothe that rage quite quickly because I hadn?t had it for too long, and had not magnified it by expressing it (RRR) to others. My feelings now are of great sympathy for the victims, and I KNOW looking for a villain in Dr will only compound their pain over the years. The only hope for the victims is God and His pure Word. Their incessant venting will only strengthen the adversary?s grip on them.

vickles, Thank you. I am sure there are a multitude of miscommunications in this field. The emotions are high, and that includes revenge or surrogate revenge motives. Many people have differing moral systems regarding various elements. What is casually no big deal to one person means all the world to another. Everyone has differing slants on these items and differing definitions of the terms. My ?Mirror Reversal? thread is designed to show how one person holds onto definition #1 of reverse, unaware that their debating partner in this riddle holds a completely differing definition #2, and all the while neither of them is aware of an obscure definition #3. Without clarifying all these things it?s hopeless confusion that characterizes most conversations on mirror reversal as well as sex. ***** Dot, You?ll never know what I?m talking about until you get off the high horse that various elements have built into your conscience that are pure baloney. You think all your guts instincts are correct with biology and with God but I know that SOME of them are not. Until you question the things you think you are sure of now you will not progress spiritually. Your emotions rule your mind and it should be the other way around. If you think that you're immune to being perverse and far from God?s truth and attitude, then you will not grow... in the right direction. You must ask God to reveal to you where you are DEAD wrong on things, or you will stay dead wrong. Your use of profanity only proves to me that you are in a prison constructed by the devil and his world culture. It is very persuasive, but in the wrong direction. It?s no better than a two year old?s temper tantrums. Grow UP! Life is too short for bitterness. As for the touching, I said I share your pre-programming to feel outrage, and I felt the same way when I first heard the saying that ?there?s no difference...? However I have learned to ask WHY do I fee that outrage. This is a step in development you have not yet enjoyed. You refuse to question your own sense of propriety. I invite you to a path to non-bitter coffee. ***** Lifted Up, You wrote: ?It is Godly for me to go out and rape whom I choose, because even though there will be outrage at my act, that outrage is only culturally and not Godly based. Your statements plainly lead to that conclusion.? They only lead there when you don?t take the whole story into consideration. I do NOT mean to imply that with my words, nor with my actions, nor do I feel that way inside. It?s a false conclusion you arrived at due to miscommunication. Maybe I didn?t say it best, but I am sure you didn?t read it best. I hurt for all true victims, and even the false ones. The false victims are those who elevate sex (or NON-sex) to the level of a god and then are terribly hurt when it collapses on them. I think a lot of people have a false perspective on sex, built by the RC goddess of NON-sex, their Mary, and it?s designed to make them victims when they need not be. I see a lot of proper sexual morals as promoting efficiency in our culture, while I see the established sex morals (often proclaimed here) as bringing about great inefficiency. People are raised up with false expectations about some divine aspect of sex that?s not real, and then dashed to pieces when it they run to the opposite. I?m not saying I want to see a relaxation of morals, just a reexamination of how intensely we?ve invested in them. I think what is considered sound sex morals are very religiously idiotic, but they are so ingrained and so intense, that people think they are at the door of divine perfection with them. Our culture is broken on this subject. Just as broken as the starving children from Biafra with flies crawling on their faces. The devil imprisoned them with food idiocy (like can?t eat cows), and us with sex prohibitions that go way beyond anything God ever had in mind. The sanctity of sex, the spirituality of sex, the intense negative emotions that go along with it all are way out of proportion. In most people?s minds sex is a sacred cow.

Exy, Reading this thread breaks my heart for the great blindness I see. If I were standing by you and any man were to reach out and touch you like you described, I think my reaction would have been to try the same move as shazdancer?s, as she described it on a previous page. PLUS, I wouldn?t have needed to wait until modern times to have such a reaction. I grew up with three younger sisters and was trained to have those kind of responses. But trained by whom? I think that the feelings of disgust, horror, and outrage sometimes displayed here on this thread (and elsewhere) were trained into the posters here by the same trainer that trained me to feel so similarly. It?s hard to describe how outraged I feel whenever I hear any of these kinds of stories. But I have learned that the feelings I feel were NOT trained into me by the True God, but by our culture. The Protestant Reformation was not in any way complete. In addition to the Protestant churches inheriting the trinity from the RC church, there are other things that went unchallenged by the openings of Bible versions that started to become produced some 500 years ago. The goddess Mary was rejected by most Protestant churches as an exaggeration of the real and wonderful Biblical character we know gave birth to the Son of God. However, the god of NON-sex that the RC Mary represented was brought into most Protestant churches lock stock and barrel. Although many Bible readers saw that the real Biblical character of Mary did indeed have sex, as well as other children, the IDEA of NON-sex being the ideal virtue was kept intact as received from the RC. So, we live in a culture where the dominant moral virtue is still dominated by the old RC goddess of NON-sex. It?s a very skitzo culture, because at the same time this ultimate virtue of trying to avoid the pleasure of sex as righteousness is maintained, sex is everywhere and in every form rampant at times. The false virtue of NON-sex is helped along by the real need to protect children from predators, but at the same time the nurturing of such predators is fueled in our culture by how broken sex has become and how so many go without their needs being met in that area. I sometimes think of our culture, and how so many are sexually frustrated, like the TV ad for contributions that uses a small starving child, so weak from malnutrition that a fly walks along its cheek and into the eye un-swatted. Our culture here has plenty of food, but as a culture we are starving for sex. I?m sure the smirks are in full bloom on those reading this who DO get their rocks off regularly, but I know that your time of frustration is coming, and until then your indifference to the plight of others makes you a part of the problem. If I were to see a young lady fondled that way I?d see red I?d be so angry. But why? Would I feel that same way if a hand was placed on her shoulders? No. But Why? There are strains in this broken NON-sex aspiring culture that DO INDEED train it?s even more unfortunate adherents that a hand on the shoulder is just as bad as one on a breast. That strain is small now, but in the 50?s where I grew up it thrived for years. Most of our FEELINGS as to where we draw the line are culturally dictated. They are not from God. Show me all the verses you want, but when it comes down to applying them to life, many judgement calls must be made, and those calls are not Biblically based, but are Mary worship based, the false RC Mary that is. I share the feelings of outrage that are expressed here, because I was deeply trained by a broken culture to feel that way. Simply knowing this, the feelings stay. I can challenge them at times, but they return, due to how deeply they are ingrained. God tolerated lots of sex plays David drifted into, but when he killed Uriah, THEN God got really mad. It was the matter with Uriah that cost David lots, not the matter with Bathsheba. I saw that although many in the ministry crossed many lines I found intolerable (due to my false cultural training), I don?t think it got as far out of hand as David did. I?ve NEVER heard of an accusation of murder coming from all this mess. I look within, at my outrage over what I MYSELF saw many leaders do with, or say about women, and I see my feelings at variance with the God I see in the Bible. My feelings of outrage are gross exaggerations of what they should be. It just breaks my heart to see so few here willing to question their training. If they feel outrage, then it must be righteous is what I see. I see people here with the exact same set of morals regarding sex that I saw in the RC nuns who trained me. [This message was edited by Mike on September 21, 2003 at 10:23.]

Kit, Did you never see the love that Uncle Harry had for Naomi? I did and it was awesome. I spent some personal times with him and the things he told me about his feelings toward her still give me gooosebumps.

Dot Matrix, Oops. I goofed. I re-read the post and see it was Steve Lortz who said it and you quoted it. Then WWS deleted posts AFTER that. I'm confused. It's late.

Dot Matrix, You got me wondering what WWS said, and that you labeled as mike-like, that was later deleted. I haven?t started reading this thread until just now. I also noted your comment on the slang terms. In the class Dr said the reason for the slang terms was so that if we were in leadership positions and needed to counsel people on sex the slang terms would probably pop up in such conversation. Dr said if we were ignorant of some term, or if we were startled or embarrassed by such a term, then the trust the counselee had for us would be jeopardized. He said we needed to be able to hear the term with out flinching even the tiniest bit. This last item I?m not as sure on, but I also think he said that the blue nose christian world was dead wrong in thinking such terms were evil. I agree.

Oakspear, I think you're right, but I couldn't resist the joke. Seriously, though, I think when the anonymity is stripped away, we can all get along MUCH better. Because I had a 5 year head start on getting to know many here by lurking, I actually have a surprising degree of affection, even for those most hostile to me. I know the hurts everyone has suffered, and I know the vicarious "revenge" people feel toward people like Craig through me, and...... I know... this belongs on another thread... so I’ll be thinking about it. P.S. Hey Oaky!!! Remember my 1000th post and how it got wasted? You were right there, I think. This one (# 1500) has got a little more class. What with mention of truces and all, this could be the big turning point!

herbiejuan, I was posting to Jardinero's question on the previous page, mistakenly thinking she was asking for me. I've thought much about coming, but in addition to the distance being kinda prohibitive, I'd also like to avoid being the weenie that's roasted there. Now a West Coast version may intice me to tempt fate.

Jardinero, I'm sending you an e-mail. However, it is the case that my e-mail address is accurate in my Public Profile. It's an easy e-address to misspell, however, especially the mikeo which ends in the alpha-character "O" and not the numeral "0" (zero). I'm sure this explanation will serve as a great launching pad (or diving board) for many of my detractors.

Rafael, I actually know basically what you mean there. . . . .............or should I say: . . . I basically know what you actually mean there.

Hi Ginger! I was pretty used to rough treatment before I came here. The atmosphere here actually seems to be lightening in recent weeks so I?m very happy. I hope I used the word ?actually? properly there. I?ve actually noticed that that word is nowadays actually used to actually season every other word and phrase with actually no proper meaning. Don?t worry Exy. It?s easy to see your heart. I do have bit of a challenge seeing through the rhetoric and into the hearts of a few others here, but yours is easy. If I expect you to grow big enough to overlook the sins of another, how could I not aspire to the same bigness and overlook some undeleted expletives ? Your ability to handle the startling message I?ve come here to GS with is an example to others in our family. Hey! Wait a darn minute here! I?m still ubiquitously posting on this thread. This thread is like the ending of ?Terminator I? and keeps getting up and running after repeated shutdowns. This freight train refuses to stop! It's momentum is momentous. I wonder if the software designers ever envisioned a three digit page number for threads. What happens when we hit 100? Will it stick at 99? Or reset to zero? Or will it simply overwrite earlier pages like page 103 replacing page 3? Or will we all fall into a black hole and gain sudden insights into the meaning of infinity?

JesseJoe, I don?t know if you read the above soap opera about ending this thread, but I?m still trying. I?ll respond to your question on Part Two.

I can live with any of these scenarios. I was just trying to lessen the irritation. The thesis is not mine. It was given to me.

Good one Rafael. The reason I started Part Two is because it seemed that some people were unhappy about this thread's huge size. I thought this to be an unnecessary irritation TO THEM, and that it could be easily eliminated. I was doing it for those few who did overtly complain about the size, and for those may have felt the same but didn?t say so. Several times I mentioned this idea of a Part Two, but no one said yeah or nay at the time. If you more recent posters want me to maintain this monster sized thread as a status symbol I may comply.

Thanks Karmicdebt. I e-mailed him. ************ Over on Schwaigers? ?Predestination? thread I mentioned something that has pertinence here. In I Corinthians 13, where it mentions that when that which is perfect is come ... we will know even as we are known. The way we know now is 5-senses (mostly). The way God knows us is spiritually. The way we WILL know is as He know us, which is SPIRITUALLY, not physically. Oh yes, I?m sure He knows the physical details of us, but He?s not limited to that, and that?s not how He REALLY knows us. For years I thought that our knowing would change by degrees or intensity or quantity. It now appears that a much more dramatic change would be the quality transition from 5-senses understanding to spiritual understanding. This quality change would also imply NO LACK. To know as God knows is to know spiritually. Five senses knowledge of God is approximate, untrue, and cannot sustain us. It IS a necessary step in learning, but it?s also necessary to not stop at this level when the spiritual knowledge and understanding are made available. They have been made available in mastering the PFAL books. Soon I want to go into how spiritual understanding occurs. Sure, it can be abbreviated into something along the lines of ?Ask God? but in want to get deeper into the nuts and bolts of HOW. The books are here that teach us, as we master them, this spiritual perspective to know (spiritually)even as we are known (spiritually). Developing spiritual understanding is what we can expect from mastering the books, but I also want to get into WHY this is the case. Also over on Schwaigers? ?Predestination? thread I mentioned that sometimes this thread feels like driving an battleship in a bathtub, and that I may let it thread sink down the chart under it's own weight, and start a Part Two or something for the material I still want to get into, and to resume my backlog there. That?s why I'm adding this part by the editing process so that I won't bring this thread up to the top. ****** THIS IS THE PLANNED END OF THIS THREAD. A CONTINUATION OF THIS TOPIC, UNDER A DIFFERENT NAME OF "The Spiritually Divine over the Naturally Factual" CAN BE FOUND AT http://www.gscafe.com/groupee/forums?a=tpc...4083#3216084083 PLEASE GO THERE TO POST ON THIS TOPIC SO THIS THREAD CAN BE RETIRED. THANK YOU. [This message was edited by Mike on July 24, 2003 at 23:09.]

Tom, I too thought a petard was a sword-like thing. We're all learning here.

Todd, Right now I?m only responding to your short, second post. Your longer one will take a little more time. I will give it a try to respond to what you think is important, but let me point out that we are getting into that old loop of talking about what we were talking about. I?d rather discuss the details of the Word and what we were taught, instead of dealing with all this back and forth of who?s noble and who?s not, who?s spiritually sharp and who?s not, who?s lazy and who?s not. Can?t you be satisfied in knowing that my high regard for all grads is frequently manifested by my devoting huge chunks of my time to help in sorting out all of what was what in our TWI experiences? I see grads as very special people, who are very close to the big enchilada. I?m not trying to insult in any way, shape, or form. I simply observe in my family what was, until fairly recent events, a lack in my own life. I don?t mean to insult by saying to you or any grad that something went wrong with all of us, and this is what it was, so let?s fix it. If I?m wrong in my observation, then those who know this for sure can excuse themselves from reading my posts. There are those who do this. If my wrong opinion bothers you and you feel I?m on an ego trip, then what can be done about it? Talk me out of it? Surely by now you know that?s not going to happen. I think that many here who spend the time and effort to counter my posts know deep inside that there is something ringing true in what I write. This is probably an uncomfortable feeling for two reasons. One is the confusion and tangled mess that the TVT-PFAL got convoluted into. Even if this confusion factor was minimized, there?s the chagrin of seeing that we all seem to have fallen for 3 out of the 4 categories mentioned in the parable of the Sower and the Seed. This is not easy to face. No one wants to think that they made a systematic set of errors over the course of a decade or two or three. Actually, when all the dust settles and confusion subsides due to the separation of PFAL from TVT, and when we become re-familiarization with the text, then I think that we will all face an exhilarating choice. We will be able to compare two scenarios of where we were wrong. One is that our initial acceptance of PFAL was wrong, and then the rejection of it, TWI, and TVT are correct. This is the current model of many here. The other choice is that our initial PFAL experiences were of God, and the subsequent mixing with TVT and rejection was wrong, but now we can come back to PFAL and continue our spiritual growth. The former is fraught with the frustration that we were duped as kids, and are still victims in one way or another. This choice means that enlightenment is the return to normal, 5-senses, everyday, hum-drum reality with the occasional mild victory over the adversary, a few manifestations operated by us, but a sure win by him in the end. Then someday, some unknown day, God peels us up off the sidewalk and restores us. The later paints a picture of us as normal humans who were called by God, who answered that call for a time, and then got tricked out of it in the usual ways mentioned in the Sower parable. This choice means a resumption of our answering the call of God to effect something that will benefit all mankind now. One way or another, there?s a failure to deal with. Please don?t be offended if I say ?this here? is specifically where the error lies and not "that there", and this here error is easy to correct. Come back to PFAL and master it. As we get into the books more, and less into who?s got what kind of ego trip cooking, then we will be able to see our calling again. [This message was edited by Mike on July 22, 2003 at 12:00.]

Ladies, ladies, We can all be friends here. There's lots of very cool things to discuss regarding the goodness of God and how He has blessed us and is blessing us. Take mud wrestling for example...

WordWolf, Yes, I?m saying that I heard almost no discussion other than the Broken Windshield model. Most of my 70?s discussions with denominational types centered on the trinity and SIT. I figured we agreed on the Gathering Together (except for the pre-wrath post wrath stuff) already, and it seldom came up on their accord. Within the ministry I focused much of my discussion on how to get my life together, more discipline, more believing, more love, etc. My philosophy on the Gathering was a little uncomfortable. The windshields bothered me, and there were other things about it seemed fishy. I figured it was something wrong with me, and I?d just have to get over it. I never witnessed details of the Gathering to any non-Christians out of this discomfort. Back then, my philosophy was that Jesus Christ was going to be personally present when it all took place, so I figured he?d set things straight then. I used to call it boot camp in the sky, and I was happy not thinking about it too much until it happened. After the 80?s ministry meltdown my focus was on investigating what went wrong. I did sample a bunch of churches for fellowship, but eventually felt my calling was to work with and for grads. I get along with other Christians fine, and always have (after learning righteous dodging on trinity matters) but I also see that they have very little drive to learn all nine all the time. Even grads, lots of them, have been talked out of that one. I?ve not gone to the internet for general discussion at all. In the information overload age it seems that we are constantly deciding what we don?t have time for. I did see a thread here at GS a few years ago on the Return and everyone?s expectations as to how it will be. I saved that thread, and will have to go back to it soon. Maybe I?ll see some theories there on the Pauli Exclusion principle being revoked and an oozing through windshields offered as a better model.