Mike

So many posts to do, but Sienfeld is on in a few minutes.

Dear mj412, Yikes! Hold on to your hat! I just got back and saw your post first. Are you referring to a post of yours earlier in this thread? There are a big bunch of un-responded to posts there that I am aware of, and that?s the reason I came back to this thread. I was hauled off to court by LarryP2 on his ?Drivel? thread. If you are referring to a post of yours here on this thread that it looked like I ignored, please be assured I didn't ignore it. I suggest you take this up with Larry. You and he could make for a very entertaining food fight. Maybe even lead to a TV pilot opportunity. But seriously, when you wrote: ?Well that was clever , by all means , lets discuss Jesus Christ foremost,,, but that may mean you have to doge the real live questions presented to you by me about what you mean by your statement of replacing Jesus Christ now...? I don?t know which real live questions you mean. Can you give me a thread, page, and time-date stamp, or re-paste it? If not I may eventually get to it, if it?s on this thread. I plan to be here a while. This ?Ubiquitous Teaching? is a very large matter. Maybe I should just try to hang out here and not post on other threads for a while. I can try and wing it a little here and say that from II Corinthians 5:20, the phrase ?in Christ?s stead? means roughly ?taking the place of the not personally present Christ,? and that a few phrases before that the phrase ?ambassadors for Christ? has roughly the same implication. Here?s what I did NOT mean: that there?s anything wrong with Jesus Christ, and that we needed to have him replaced, or that he?s rejected, or anything like that. Let me know more, and I can answer more, now that I?ve been cleared of Ban Level Drivel and can come back here. Hey! I didn?t get any yellow ribbons? Seeing the events in Iraq today, I guess my freedom?s newsworthiness is eclipsed. ********** Mj, you also wrote: ?How do you think God views your notion that today your equal to The KING He ORDAINED to RULE OVER US?? I?m not sure I understand what you mean here. God made us joint heirs, and Jesus said we should be able to do all he did. Is that a problem? Is that what you mean? ***** You then wrote: ?America has a democratic view , God decided aa monarchy will be in the kingdom... hmmm Kingdom sounds not so much plural Mike .? Now here I have NO idea what you?re getting at. I can?t even guess a response, so please state it again, in another way, or with more details, and I?ll try it again. ***** You then wrote: ?how about it?? going with your suggestion here. hurt me by ignoring you know ...what with your heart to serve Im sure you will reply. thanks? Here I understand the grammar and such, but I don?t undertstand the heart. I can?t tell if you?re mad at me here, or kidding, or being gentle, or rough??? I?m sorry, but it?s too jumbled, and sometimes when things like that come my way I fip back and forth between thinking the worst and thinking the best. Please just let me know how you feel and that would make it a lot easier. If you?re just jabbing at me, please save it. I never intended to do that to you. You approached me for help one day a long time about and I did my best to help. I am again. Please be patient with this posting process. I have a lot of them to deal with. You can ALWAYS e-mail me, and even phone, with any REALLY burning issue, so please don?t think I?m purposely dodging you. Besides, I only dodge certain ISSUES, not people. Oky Doky? I?ll be as nice as I can with you.

Mandii, WOW! I'm just touching bases at home for a few minutes and wont be home again until late tonight. I thought I had the monpoly on long posts... ? This subject was a VERY hot one in the late 80's and early 90's, but my impression has been that it's faded a bit, compared to other TWI issues, these recent years. So, it looks like it still is a hot issue. I'm glad. This'll give us something better to discuss than drivel issues. If we were to take a poll then I know how I'd vote, as to who we should really give some deep discussion time to: me or Jesus Christ? See you all later.

I just thought of something quick to post. Earlier in this thread Mandii brought up the relationship wityh Jesus Christ issue, and I made a short list of some things we do in normal relationships to get to know someone or to enjoy knowing we already know. That list could be longer. I have a few more items to add, and I was wondering if anyone has some additions. How to KNOW Jesus is so crucial.

You might not like this, but I have to go to work now. I'll be back.

Zixar, I'm interested in more than the doctrinal angle, though. What I have is information that contradicts the "grad urban legend? that we were not taught anything substantial regarding our relationship with Christ Jesus. I can show that we were taught this, although we were often distracted from it. It?s a big part of what happened to us while in TWI, and it reflects on the existing condition within that organization now, as well as our own present spiritual condition. It?s in the record. AND it fits in with this ?Ubiquitous...? thread?s parameters also.

Howdy Folks, I'm posting this to do two things. One is to help the "mike's drivel" thread fade into the depths of the charts, and the other is to refresh one particular topic that came up within this "Ubiquitous.." thread thread. Also, there are many posts within this thread that I've not yet responded to, and I want to get to them soon. The one particular topic I want to refresh is the one concerning our relationship with Jesus Christ. This is a very important topic, and I want to see it discussed more. We have a wonderful brother in Christ, and many more blessings to enjoy with him as he appears.

. . I want to place a motion on the table that we elect Matilda our Cafe Poet Laureate. . . .

Zixar, I was totally unaware of how narrow a band of frequencies we can see. It's got me wondering what it would look like if that weren't the case. I can't even imaging yet what seeing "chords" would be like.

. . . Ooch! ouch! ouch! ouch! Ooch! Ooch! ouch! Ouch Ooch! ouch! Ouch! ooch! . . .

Sir G, Yes light has harmonics, but what we were discussing there is whether harmonics are involved in producing the 2nd and 3rd rainbows. Zix was right, I was wrong.

I believed you the first time, and could could see it qualitatively. Now, you've repeated it quantitatively. So, thanks for the numbers. The orders of magnitude of these things are far from my memory, and somewhat far from retrieval in my books. Even the books are far, some of them.

Steve! I'm going to have to dodge that question. Really, though, I've GOT to go to work! HONEST! I hope this doesn't reflect poorly upon me!

Zixar, If you?ve checked into it recently I?ll take your word for it. You?re probably correct. It's been 35 years since I saw the diagrams and the equations cranked. I think it was second year physics. When you said: ?the visible portion of the spectrum subtends less than a full octave of frequencies? you got my attention most efficiently. My memory of it, what's left of it and isn't degraded or falsely planted, is this: White light reflects back and forth within each raindrop. The raindrop?s dimensions are of the order of the light?s wavelengths. Differing harmonics of colors will geometrically gang up with each other and against each other in constructive and destructive interference (sounds like Grease Spot) giving rise to the higher order rainbows. This is admittedly a very crude grasp, but it?s I all I have on this subject. When I posted, I had a stronger phrase in there that I quickly edited out. I watered down my statement to: ?happens somewhat the same way? and even considered adding the word ?maybe.? I should have. I put all my rainbow investigations into the ?Finished? folder when I happened to visit Niagara Falls in 1969. I had a fresh memory then of the diagrams and equations, and at the falls I could see many near complete full circle rainbows at times and from certain locations, especially when wind gusted up and the water sprayed in the air more. I?ve not looked at them since, so I?m interested in efficient, neat bundles of summation like your ??the visible portion of the spectrum subtends less than a full octave of frequencies?? statement. It skips around the need for diagrams and equations. One thing I did retain from rainbow physics is this. It?s easy to predict rainbows. Zixar, I?m sure you know this, so for the other rainbow lovers out there, it can really easy and fun to predict rainbows. You can also help get someone interested in this beautiful subject?s physics if you say ?I?ll bet there?s a rainbow behind that building!? and sure enough, walking around and WOW! There it is! Then you can explain to your friend how to predict them. Kids can be taught these simple points in prediction, and they can be motivated to pay attention to science from the enjoyment. ********************************** Here?s how to predict rainbows: They happen MUCH more likely when the sun is lower in the sky, morning or afternoon. Noon is impossible almost, I think. (maybe, possibly) As pointed out by sirguessalot, they are in the opposite direction as the sun approximately. The center of the rainbow is exactly opposite the sun. Let?s call this the ?sun-opposite? region of the sky. This region is also somewhat lower in the sky. Not straight up. There needs to be water, or mist, or clouds, or gloominess in the ?sun-opposite? region of the sky. There needs to be strong sun shining, not necessarily on the ground where you are standing, but there needs to be sun shining in the direction of this ?sun-opposite? region. ******************************** So, if you can see that there?s rain on the whole region on the other side of that building, and there's strong sun in the opposite direction as the building, the time invested in a walk around the building is well worth it.

Sir G, You caught my attention. You can see a full circle rainbow by riding in an airplane above lots of clouds. If you can position yourself to look exactly opposite the sun, and if there are clouds when you look in that direction, you'll see the shadow of the airplane on the clouds. The airplane's shadow will have a full circle rainbow surrounding it. It's beautiful! Also, a double and triple rainbow happens somewhat the same way several higher pitch harmonics can come off a guitar string.

Jerry, You may have missed some of my earlier posts about how come I don't like to respond to goading or demanding. I'm not posting here to convince or to engage in dialog that will distract from my mission. I'm here to post some information I think has been missing in the mix, not play debate under any rules you demand of me. I like to discuss the information I'm posting, but I retain the right to do what some think is cowardly. Rafael, is your clipboard ready? I dodge things like this, and I do it with style. I'm not afraid of people thinking that I'm a coward. Hey THAT’s catchy! I like that. I should make a bumper sticker of that one. Oops! I forgot. This is the internet. Good-bye million dollar idea... goodbye..... Ahemm! Where was I? OH yes. You’ll just have to wait, Jerry. I do things under my scheduling to do what I see is God’s will. What you or other people think is secondary. I got way too much material to post before I get bogged down in these things. I’m having fun believing God gave us His Word in pure form. Ain’t that a kick! Isn’t God GOOD!

Hey! What Happened? No one said anything about Dr's stunningly odd statement. I'm hoping someone has more information on that, which may confirm my hunches.

Rafael, As far as slandering your motives, I did not intentionally do that at all. I don't think? It's late and I'm tired. Please keep this in mind. Sometimes in my posting when I refer to the way things are done here on this thread, I'm not singling you out. Like the "snide remarks" or things like that, I'm not attributing directly at you, but to the collective attitude here. The atmosphere is seething with anti VPW inspiration, and while I can handle that in some situations, when it comes to working AEs I insist on a chang of venue. I just don't think it's efficient, and I insist on better for myself, and I urge better for you all.

Rafael, To properly address these matters one must first master. That I'm doing, and loving it. I think you're attempting to skip around the mastery step, and crank away on the AEs prematurely. I've learned from doing, for about 25 years, what you're doing here in skipping around the crucial first step, that there are all sorts necessary techniques that need to be employed for the sake of efficiency. Foremost is a huge knowledge base of the books and magazines and tapes, which some of you folks have, some not so huge. Second, a RECENT huge knowledge base is preferable. A refreshed knowledge base is what OLGs (older leader grads) lack the most. Rafael, you may be excused from this criticism, as well as many other more recent grads. Older grads often have a terribly degraded knowledge base to qualify as an AE solver. Older grads often only obtained a partial knowledge base of the books back in the good old days, and from that partial base, some has leaked out, gotten mixed with other things, and gotten changed as memories do over 20 and 30 years. I’m figuring that OLGs had to take the class before ’82 to be leaders around ’82, so we’re basically talking 70’s grads. Give or take however much you want on these approximate years. Older grads do have one advantage in that we got to see this stuff applied well (some of us did) for some period of time, often as long as ten years. And JerryB, it isn’t the feelings, it’s the miracles, the GREAT cooperation, the trust, the excitement when someone spoke in tongues, the massive numbers of people learning to SIT, TIP, and prophesy, and I could go on and on. Most of us OLGs do KNOW it can work if it’s set up right, and I know now that it was our exposure to the books, the writings that pulled it off spiritually. Immediately after taking the class for most of us, the books became our keys that unlocked our KJV Bibles. Our relationships with our Almighty Daddy in Heaven came as we gradually got to the point that our KJV Bibles were our best friends. That’s the was it was supposed to be. It worked a lot and for a long time, until we drifted from the key books. The film class was a great exciting introduction, but after that it was the books and the people. The agape love. We saw it We lived it. ...and then we drifted and forgot it and every one of us OLGs is Robert Conrad, desperately wandering back to find Shangri La. Well I found the pass! It’s mastering those books. AEs can be very instructive. Solving them often leads to deeper understandings, which is a component of mastery . I’m not against working on them, I just have a very different approach and priority system for dealing with them. I’ve seen many AEs resolved, and fireworks of deep understandings often follow. You’ll see it when more go “Whosh!” By the way, I have a few AEs being worked on. I have no idea when I’ll be ready to post on them. April 15 is coming and I haven’t even started filling out my forms.

Rafael, There’s probably a bit more anticipation than realization in my approval. I can only track with one AE at a time. Not only is this a personal preference of mine, but I think it a sound move all respectful PFAL students should follow in working AEs. The preponderance of PFAL data in a students’ head should be the great number of things that easily fit, and give God glory, and inspire us to more worth endeavors, and etc. To have as the preponderance in your fore-mind a plethora of jokes, snide remarks, and overall negative attitudes toward Dr while working many many AEs simultaneously reminds me of the “Three Stooges Meet China Syndrome.” You’re just digging yourselves in a hole. Here's something I forgot to post this morning here about progeny. There was a stunningly odd statement Dr is REPORTED to have made. I have not yet heard the tape of this, but I have heard very similar verbal reports from memory by first hand witnesses. I’m talking about where Dr said something to the effect that the whole ministry rests on the believing-action of his family and/or grandchildren. I think it was twice I heard the word “grandchildren.” Now here’s where that thread I’m doing on the Natural/Factual versus the Spiritually/True begins to be of help. If Dr meant naturally/factually his FAMILY and GRAND CHILDREN are going to “carry” the ministry by their natural/factual believing, then it looks like that ain’t happening, and it’s getting less and less likely the case it’ll ever happen without some kind of a miracle that the family in question is not asking too much for... I think? However, I’ve looked a little into this possibility: Dr meant, when he used the terms FAMILY and GRAND CHILDREN, his spiritual family, his spiritually grand children, his children who were spiritually grand, connected not by DNA, but by spiritual believing like Abraham and his non-DNA progeny of believers. Then this “prophecy” would be right on the money in that he’s then saying it’s OUTSIDE the DNA-connections that the ministry would flourish. Now, I said I don’t have the tape. So this is strictly an interim theory on this one very odd remark of Dr’s, and not something I usually want to post without several caveats. The reason I chose to prematurely post this is because I wanted to demonstrate that checking the natural/factual versus the spiritually/true dichotomy is a VERY useful tool, once it’s details are learned, in working AEs. Now, IF this rickety new theory is true, then it’s one more place where Dr made a big deal about the progeny-believing thing. It lends more weight to the possibility that in the “Cain’s progeny” being of believing bonds, not DNA. That would be believing in the wrong god, or spiritual-believing progeny. One more reason I tent to interpret Dr’s stunningly odd remark to be about BELIEVING based progeny is how he threw this remark out like a monkey wrench into the clockworks. He was smart in appraising his audience in how much they were understanding him. It’s not like him to say something where he accidentally leaves everyone out in the ozone. He would know if the immediate and long range contexts at that event were rich enough to support such a stunningly odd remark... and he would know if they were NOT. According to all accounts, they were not. So he deliberately threw in the monkey wrench to break the clockworks. Why would he do that? To wake us up! I’ll bet he waited for hours after that event to see if anyone would ask him what he meant about it. I posted the other day, a few typical ways we all were receiving Dr in those days. Everyone probably blew it off. caveat: I’M GUESSING. If anyone knows, please speak up. There are many places in the record from 1982 to ’85 where I’ve found Dr referring to the destruction of the ministry. He was constantly attempting to destroy or shut up the TVT, twi verbal tradition, in some certain critical areas. I really think this is the best first approach to understanding Dr’s stunningly odd remark, as being spiritually based and not 5-senses based. Based on all the other things I see Dr doing in the record from 1982 to ’85, I think my guess fits right in. I’m ready to change it. I see in the record that this natural/factual versus the spiritually/true is of such great importance, that Dr several times and in several ways tried to remind us of it. In his last teaching he says (in not so many words) that not mastering PFAL means that ministers are doomed to mere 5-senses abilities in ministering and serving. Mastering PFAL is what enables the doulos servant, the spiritual minister. Maybe God had Dr put that “Cain’s spiritual progeny” there just so I could teach this today. [This message was edited by Mike on April 07, 2003 at 0:38.]

Rafael, Here I am on one of my rare reading expeditions to this thread, and now posting. BUT, I MUST get to work soon, so have only a minute to share. The little I did have a chance to see seemed pretty well done. You wrote: "Could Wierwille have been using the term "Cain's progeny" figuratively, to mean unbelievers? Could anyone counter that argument? I leave it up to you." This is one of the first lines I would check. The idea of us being Abraham's seed or progeny by believing is a VERY big fugure of speech in the epistles. That Dr was bringing a converse of this figure is much more likely than him trying (and incorrectly) giving out timeline information. The figure of unbelief being like or related to genetics is a profitable line of teaching, and Dr does this much more overtly in the little "Jeremiah" booklet he wrote for limited distribution. For him to make a move in the direction of timeline details and then blow it BOTH don't fit for me. I just wanted to compliment and encourage any work that achieves a fit in these areas that I can. I still caution that these things can take a lot of time and require a lot of reading to be thorough. My time is going to be very limited in the next week (April 15th tax time approacheth), and I don't have a habit of coming here, so please pardon me if I fail to respond to any response to this.

Sirguessalot, I did answer a bunch of these just a few minutes ago in a post to Jesse Joe on Larry's Thread. Im too tired to find it and paste it here. As far as instructor, God chose Dr and that's good enough for me. I'm pointing out that the PFAL writings are NOT as you describe them and that your assesment of those writings is off the mark. They are of God and need to be respected if they are to be of maximum value. I'm a student at all nine all the time. I want to help other students by the route God has brought to us.

Jerry, I'm getting that therapy. It's called PFAL.

Sirguessalot, It was a thrill for me to use the word "interogatory" for the first time in my life. . . . . Mandii, On sirguessalot?s hint, I went back and re-read your post. I believe that God?s Word is as much God as God is God. This is one of the statements of John 1:1. I don?t mean the Bible here, and if I did I?d be in error. Maybe that?s what you saw that was wrong. In practice the physical words on the page are useless if not believed and acted on in love. This definately happed, but again, I?ve seen that it was isolated to the TWI Verbal Tradition (TVT). The physical words are NOT as much God as God is God, they?re ink! But the spiritual side (we?re BACK on topic now) is MUCH bigger. The spiritual Word of God is what created the heavens and the earth. Jesus was the Word made flesh, a much better revealing than ink, yet he said his Father was even greater. When people are totally into the Word of God they are totally into agape love. It?s cool! When people are totally into the Bible they can be idiots. Not cool! ************ As far as the absent Christ goes, in the written and tape record the relationship with Jesus Christ is there but not well understood. This is one of the biggest reasons Dr told us to master the material, so that we COULD understand it and then put into practice. The sad thing so far is that we didn?t put into practice. The good part is that we still can. The reason the relationship with Jesus Christ that WAS in the record wasn?t understood is because this post Pentecost relationship with Jesus Christ was designed by God to be BETTER than the flesh relationships his apostles had with him. Those were very good relationships, but not good enough to get them up from the dead. They weren?t good enough to even get them out of fear! The post Pentecost relationship God designed for us is NOT a flesh relationship but a spiritual one. We?re, again, back on topic! One of the scriptures I cited for this thread was this: II Cor. 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. The flesh relationship with him was upgraded at Pentecost. However, until we understand what a spiritual relationship is we have to settle for the kind of explanations and mental pictures that are limited in that they are 5-senses. A little like the crude electronics teaching my dad gave me, as a 5 year old, with a vacuum cleaner hose and a marble that I mentioned about 20 screen scrolls above. Knowing someone after the flesh is the normal way of knowing: looking at, talking to, and listening to, and doing things together. We don?t know how these things adapt in a spiritual understanding yet. We know how a lot of denominations have evolved an emotional tradition that involves talking to, joyous exaltations, painful emulation (I did this as a RC), and even into extreme situations like visions and stigmata. Some of these things may be psychologically and emotionally pleasant, but they?ve not gotten anyone to ?all nine all the time.? There?s more in Corinthians. Here are the next verses: II Cor. 5: 17-20 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. The relationship we have with Jesus is one of taking his place. We get to know him by BECOMING him, in a sense, by allowing the new man inside to grow and counting the old man dead. We get the same job of representing God to the world, and reconciling them back to God. We get the same power Jesus got, the same relationship with the Father, and are joint heirs with him. We get to know him the way an actor gets to know the character they play. The actor becomes the role they portray, but only for the duration of the play. We get to do it for keeps. Once we get that down, God will give us our next instructions. Paul was the first to accomplish this, and he taught by revelation, that we should imitate him, because he was imitating the REAL MAN! When Dr says he wished he was THE MAN he knew to be, THIS is what he was talking about. Moses wanted to enter the promised land, but because of his sin he couldn?t. He was still able to help others do it, though. There is a teaching that deals with this that Dr did in 1974 called ?Christ Formed In You? and then a few years later he did it again, calling it ?Forming Christ In You? and then he did it again at the 7th Corps Graduation, and then a few years later Walter did it again. It slipped by us or we forgot about it. It?s about next in line for the next tape report thread I?m planning. These teachings were usually confused with ?Christ in you, the hope of glory,? but they were more like ?Christ in your mind/actions, the realization of glory!? .

Sirguessalot, I swore after I posted the last post I was going to shut down my computer and get out of here. Then I saw you post and swore I?d only read a tiny bit and THAT?S ALL! Then I read about one fifth of it and saw one of those things I?ve been wanting to address for months, but never get around to it. So now I?m swearing on a stack of PFAL books that I?m only going to answer this one tiny point and then hit the reset button on my computer as soon as the post flaps its wings and flies off. Here goes. You wrote: ?If VP got some rev, does it really meet everyone's needs? Everywhere? And if so, from now until when?? So many times people have stated what they think I believe, or assumed what I believed, and I?ve not had the time or the energy to track all down and correct. Thank you for putting this one in the interrogatory. Some things in my belief system are not all that clear yet to me. Some are a work in progress. The best I know on this point you brought up is this. The PFAL revelations are addressed to GRADS of the class. I know that?s not a perfectly defined category, but I?m working on it. When Dr says on page 34 of the Green Book ?...every word I have written to you is true...? he is addressing us grads. He was ALWAYS addressing us... just about. Remember how often at a live meeting with thousands in attendance, he?d spontaneously address us all as ?now Class...? or something similar? There could have been some non-grads eavesdropping and getting blessed, but he was primarily addressing us. So the short answer to your question, sirguessalot, is ?No, I don?t think the PFAL revelations are for everyone. Just us grads who are ready to do the job.? .