Mike

No. Research Geek's report was that it transitioned from honorable to dishonorable at a point AFTER vpw was there. I care little whether it was "officially" academically accredited or not. Research Geek's report was he did the work and should be credited for that.

Not so! I come from a nearby State and was familiar with New Jersey and Princeton since mid-High School when I got into Relativity and Godel. I knew that Einstein and Godel were at Princeton. But not Princeton University!!! It was the The Institute for Advanced Study where they were at. There were 3 FAMOUS schools from there. The Princeton Theological Seminary was the third. Long before taking the class I was aware of these things. Then, a few years later I went on a field trip to the Advanced Study Institute there in college to meet with Thomas Kuhn. When I first heard Princeton with VPW the most obvious association was Princeton Theological Seminary. I consider Research Geek's Report on Pikes Peak intact and even strengthened by this puny attempt of a debunking.

You may not remember him. He was a heavy poster with copious info in the early years here, like WW and T-Bone are now. Do you mean Research Geek's report on he and his wife (another heavy GSC poster in those early years) traveling to the Pikes Peak seminary? I am unaware it was debunked. Got a link? Did Research Geek get a chance to respond to the debunk to de-debunk it?

Oops! You have a point. I thought I did answer at the very end. But I see now, it was only a vague implication I put there. I wrote: "I didn’t even hear about “literals” until at least a year later. I did not care where VPW got the literals from." I spent the introduction building to the "I did not care" about who wrote them. I really didn't care. My early mind pictures of TWI were VPW surrounded by a fairly large (and growing) team of wonderful teachers and researchers. I would eat up every article in each Way Magazine, listen to SNT tapes no matter who taught, and travel to see live teachings by anyone on the team. I came into the ministry pre-disposed to not care about who came up with what idea, compared to how much I cared about the ideas. The literals only appeared to me very gradually. SO gradually that I have no idea when they started. They were "Top Secret - Classified Corps Documents" to second-class Wayfers like me. My earliest clear memory of the Literals is 1981-ish, just as VPW was clearly stepping out of the picture, and Craig was named to step in soon. I remember asking to get copies of the literals before VPW died, but was refused. Somehow I had gotten a copy of Ephesians, and heard there were more, so that was why I was asking. I think I finally got a complete set after the collapse of the ministry in 1986, and all kinds of refugees streaming out of TWI brought with them all sorts of materials that they considered good, and worth protecting and preserving from TWI clutches. I also remember in those days, grads who were angry at VPW, were giving away their entire Home Way Library, or selling them in pieces at a garage sale. I got tons of stuff that way, over the course of 10 years or so. Somewhere in there the Literals became mine, in very poor Xerox form. My ONLY impression of the source of the Literals gradually formed to be: they came from "the team" surrounding VPW. It wasn't until recent years, here, that I heard reports that some of the literals came from here or there. I never heard any rumor or report, nor seen anything in writing saying that VPW wrote them. When I said I didn't care, I meant I REALLY did not care all these years who wrote them or how. As a result my mind was pretty much a blank slate with a faint watermark saying "by The Team."

It was very early in my education that I read the Elena Whiteside book WLIL, and saw that VPW claimed to be more of a collector than an author. At the time, in the years prior to my first fellowship, I had already arrived at diminished appreciation of “human creativity” and the origin of new thoughts. It started when I noticed how difficult it was to pin the credit on the right person for coming up with a joke. Creativity in humor vexed me; it seemed that miscommunication and confusion and entropy were often the real author of humor. Plus, a little later in the very months before I was witnessed to, I had been pondering the concept of human creativity from a massive book by Arthur Koestler, the same polymath who wrote “The Thirteenth Tribe.” I believe he was a Harvard Psychology Professor at the time of this book “The Act of Creation.” Koestler handles the patterns of creativity in humor, science, and art. https://www.amazon.com/Act-Creation-Arthur-Koestler/dp/1939438985 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Act_of_Creation I came to believe from all this that how we regard human creativity was mostly hype, and that it is really a simple mechanical process. I came to PFAL and the collaterals with this attitude, so hearing VPW say that he mostly just collected stuff and did not originate it was at the foundation of my spiritual learning. I didn’t even hear about “literals” until at least a year later. I did not care where VPW got the literals from.

It amazes me how much speculation and theorizing you all do that is totally off the beam. VPW cites the Amplified Bible in: RHST - twice BTMS - once TNDC - twice GMWD - once 69-01 Mag - twice 82-11 Mag - once I first saw it in the Green Book in 1971, so I went out and bought a copy.

This old thread was before my time here, by a few months. There are interesting contributions from Research Geek and socks.

Accepted, with thanks. Here is a white flag from me:

Actually, a few years later I backed off this topic, as I started realizing this thinking was not well enough understood by me. It was a research project of a friend that I mistakenly thought was finished. It was getting too complicated, and I was losing sight of how to apply it in a practical sense. For that reason I stopped posting and researching this angle.

LoL!!! I just found that out !!!! LoL I have to admit, I made some BIG mistakes at the beginning of this thread. I forget how crazy I was, trying to retroactively put a table of contents for the thread (when it got too big) in the BEGINNING of the thread. I just remembered all that just now. I think I ran out of the "grace period" for editing the first post to include the latest table of contents entries. It got real messy, is all I can remember after that.

I said some is hyperbole. I was aiming at the law of believing part before this story came up. I then said the story of the woman is literal. I'm have a few doubts now about literal. It might be allegory? I don't have all the answers, but this is my best answer so far on this item.

what killed that little boy Here is a section of a thread dealing with the topic from the film class “what killed that little boy.” This thread is almost exactly 20 years old. In this thread and several others I had been discussing genuine fear and genuine believing, as opposed to milder versions of same, that we were taught. I was asserting often that real solid fear is pretty rare, and most of what we see is far milder, like doubt and worry, or anxious concern. The general solution to the problem people have with this section of the class is to see that the fears we have in every day life, and the concern for loved ones safety and health are not really the kind of power fear VPW was talking about in the class. By not relying on memory for my stand on this, and going back to read the book and transcript, plus listen to the audio and watch his face and body language in the video, I can confidently say that the woman in this story was accurately depicted by VPW as operating genuine, law of believing style FEAR. I’m thinking even possibly analogous to the manifestation of believing, which I have been calling “power believing.” So keep in mind the major attitude I was writing about 20 years ago here: genuine believing and genuine fear are rare in real life. We tend to inaccurately label all sorts of milder mental operations as “believing” and “fear” that are NOT the kind VPW was talking about in the class. I often keep in mind Jesus’ mention of “believing with no doubt in the heart.” */*/*/* I had to smooth out this text to make it more easily readable and I did a BARE MINIMUM amount of editing to make things more readable. Plus I highlighted a few things with bold fonts and/or color fonts. I honestly did not change anyone’s arguments any. You can check me out by comparing with the originals, which are a big chunk of page 70 in the “Ubiquitous…” thread, back in the Summer of 2003. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/1005-the-ubiquitously-hidden-teaching-of-vpw/page/70/ [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][[][][][][][[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] Mike Posted July 12, 2003 I've always seen the law of believing as being more powerful on the positive side than the negative. On the other side, I've never seen anything to the effect that the fear of a mustard seed will bring results. The same way we sometimes label our own mental assent (or agreement) as believing, we sometimes see worries and concerns as if they were full-blown fears. We were taught in the 70’s that the feeling you get from a speeding car headed in your direction is NOT genuine fear. It is natural protective biology. A shot of adrenaline and high heart rate in such an emergency is normal, natural, and part of God’s design in the human body. I think there was a verse to this effect that goes: “Be not afraid of sudden fear.” In order to align our vocabularies with Dr’s, we need to recognize that the milder mental operations of mental assent, agreement, worry, concern, and sudden fear, are just that: mild precursors to the stronger operations of believing and fear. When we get to the story of the mother and her little boy, we’ll see which mental operation she had cooking. The red drapes are interestingly not in the book, and I don’t yet know what to make of that. Another change going from film class to the book, regarding needs and wants, is that the word “parallel” was changed to “in balance” in a few places. As far as receiving something from another source, other than God, it does seem to be possible, but not as reliable, due to the untrustworthy nature of the adversary. */*/*/*/*/* Mike Posted July 12, 2003 The most efficient, maximum yield, spiritual use of the law of believing requires a promise of God. Sure, there are 5-senses applications of all sorts, but they are not as powerful. Having a positive attitude on a job interview is going to help score points, but not miraculously. */*/*/*/* Raf Posted July 12, 2003 Have you noticed that you have to re-write the law of believing into a "maybe it will happen and maybe it won't" thesis in order to establish its veracity? That's not what Wierwille wrote, and you know it. "Having a positive attitude is going to help..." is NOT the "law of believing." "Whatever you believe for or expect, you get," is the law of believing. If receiving something from a source other than God is not reliable, then believing is not a law. */*/*/*/* Mike Posted July 12, 2003 How about this:? It's a law designed BY God to be operated WITH God. Any operation of it outside God is doomed to anything from partial results to counterfeit harmful results. */*/*/*/* Raf Posted July 12, 2003 FINE! But it's still not what Wierwille taught. Wierwille taught "what you believe for or expect, you get." Not, "what you believe for within God's will..." Not, "What God promises and you believe..." Not, "What you believe for or expect you might maybe get if the conditions are right." I agree with what you're saying. I do not agree that it is a reasonable approximation of what Wierwille taught. Like I've said before and I'll say again, Wierwille often got "believing" right. But he also got it wrong from time to time. Your reliance on your own words and dismissal of his words (as we've quoted them repeatedly) proves it. */*/*/*/ Mike Posted July 12, 2003 Rafael, I’m not dismissing Dr’s words. I’m dismissing the implications you see in them. From my perspective I’m absorbing Dr’s books exclusively, and daily for 5 years. I’m posting back to you what I’ve been able to ‘rightly divide’ from Dr’s books. Some of this believing stuff I’ve posted goes back to the 70’s when I first started noticing that some people were slipping into teaching the abbreviated form of the law, and not it’s fuller God based, promise based version. I read Dr a little differently, some things I take in a figurative sense, while you look at them literally. There are other factors that go into this, but my “agreeable-to-you” reformulation of this law is as straight from what Dr teaches as I can get it. Not all in one location, though. The ‘iffy’ aspect that I acknowledge is due to how ‘iffy’ our believing can be, and how easily it can actually be only mental assent. Dr acknowledges this ‘iffy’ aspect when he finally does teach mental assent, later on. But in these earlier sessions of the class he teaches on the NON-iffy aspects of the law and God’s part. I’m presenting the same message as Dr, only in a different order, and with emphasis or focus slightly rearranged. The reasons my presentation looks different from Dr’s to you is because of your exposure to the TVTs, and the resulting different way you look at the books. My motivation to find something good in the books is different than yours, because I saw a ten year period (1970s) where it all worked very well. I have a different attitude toward the books, more time in recent years with them, and some exceptionally mature teaching from others on these matters. As we communicate more on all these matters, more will be untangled. *** I have another thought as to the difference between believing and mental assent and how believing is of a higher intensity. Look at how long it took Abraham to get his believing together. It was a task for him that took time. Some things are easy to believe for. But it’s when we face challenges to our believing persistently we get stronger to get to real believing. The things that are easy to believe for now may be difficult later, unless this believing muscle is flexed and exercised like Abraham did. */*/*/*/*/* Mike Posted July 12, 2003 Another thought on the intensity requirements for believing or fear, Job said it was what he GREATLY feared that got him. If it’s not intense and leading to actions, it is probably not genuine believing or genuine fear. */*/*/*/* Mike Posted July 12, 2003 Has anyone noticed in the class anything about the intensity levels of the woman's fear regarding her little boy’s safety? */*/*/*/*/* karmicdebt Posted July 12, 2003 "Another thought on the intensity requirements for believing or fear, Job said it was what he GREATLY feared that got him." He DID NOT!!! He said the thing he greatly feared happened. You act as though because he feared it it happened...that is not what it says!!! To take a belief and bend scripture around it is not right. To take a verse and give it power is not right. Fear is a survival mechanism built in us to protect us. It is not a metaphysical power used to trip us up. Other places in the Bible teach us that there was a connection between Job’s GREAT fear and his catastrophe. */*/*/*/** karmicdebt Posted July 12, 2003 "Has anyone noticed anything about the intensity level of the woman's fear regarding her little boy’" Yeah, they are not real people. They are imaginary people designed to prove an imaginary point… */*/*/*/*/*/* Mike Posted July 12, 2003 The point I was bringing out with Job was how the word "greatly" indicated intensity. The point of Dr's story rests on the intensity of her fear. It was the intensity I was bringing attention to. *** As far as who gets the credit for when the law of believing works? I'd say it all goes to God, who designed the law, who inspires great operation of it, and who stands by to execute His promises, and energize the operation of His laws, as He watches over His Word. */*/*/*/* Mike Posted July 12, 2003 Ginger Tea, Why didn't people get up and walk out on the little boy story? Because of how well Dr paints the picture that this was an EXTREME case, not something we have to worry about in our own lives. THAT came much later, but it's not in the class. */*/*/*/* Mike Posted July 12, 2003 shaz, You're right about a certain type of fear being a useful survival mechanism built in us to protect us. That was what I was getting into when I mention "sudden fear" above. But there is ALSO a more intense mental ability of people to believe metaphysically or in the supernatural. This second type of fear is the more intense stuff Dr is talking about. */*/*/*/* Mike Posted July 12, 2003 While reading this below, please pay close attention to the intensity and persistence of the negative believing portrayed here. This is the film class transcript for the story with my commentary in square brackets regarding its differences with the book: .,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,. Fear brings results. But they are negative results. They are results in reverse, just out of the opposite order of the positive results. [this paragraph was removed from the book] Years ago I knew a minister whose wife had passed away and he had seven or eight children. I just do not recall how many children. About a year later he married another woman who had four or five of her own. And I suppose this gave it to them cheaper by the dozen, but I'm not sure. But they lived happily together. And about a block and a half away lived a woman who had just one boy. And this woman who had just this one son was always frustrated, always nervous, always afraid. While this minister and his wife who had this whole bunch of children it just seemed like somehow or another nothing ever happened to them. Oh they get a black eye once in a while, somebody comes home with a bloody nose, but they just lived. But this one woman with her one son, boy she was a nervous frustrated woman if you ever saw one. And week after week and month after month it got worse. [this paragraph was removed from the book] When her little boy started to kindergarten she used to walk him across the street and put him in the next block where the kindergarten was for fear he might get run over. Afraid he might get hit by an automobile. When he was in the first grade she did the same thing--in the second grade--third grade. And she called on this minister and she said, "I don't understand why I'm so nervous and so upset all the time. I have just one boy, that's all I have to care. You have got all of these children, somehow or other it just seems like nothing ever happens to them and you just live abundantly." You know what he said to her? He said, "ma'am this is how we operate. We get them around the breakfast table. It's the only time we can get our whole family together. We get them all around the breakfast table and when we have them seated around the breakfast table I do the praying. Everybody's quiet, I pray. And I pray like this: `Lord here we are all together at breakfast; now Lord,' he said, `they're all going out to school and other places today. So what I'm going to do with this family Lord; I give them all to you right now. Amen.' Boy right after you give them to the Lord you say `amen' real quickly because you don't want to take them back." He relinquished them to the Lord. Literally, he just let go and let God and those children just did amiably. About a year and a half or two later this son of this woman was coming home from school early once. Mother hadn't met him at the street across the block. He came home from school and they were living on a road where not more than three houses were located at the time. And when they came back from school that day the boy walked out in that street and got hit by an automobile and killed outright. I went to the service of that boy and you know what the minister preached on? That God now had another rose petal in heaven. My God people! To think of it, that God Almighty, who created the heavens and the earth, that he should want to kill a little boy like that because God needed another rose petal in heaven. Oh my God when are we going to learn something? That's blasphemy! Do you know what killed that little boy? You just quit yakking about anything else. You know what killed him. God didn't kill that boy. You know what killed that boy? The fear in the heart in the life of that mother--because that mother was just desperately afraid something was going to happen to her little Johnny. And she kept that fear and kept it, till one day it happened. Why? Because it's a law! It's a law. That which you are afraid of is what you are going to receive. She was afraid of her boy, she was afraid he was going to get killed. She was afraid she was going to lose him and she did just that. God didn't do it! She did it with her own negative believing. Her own fears were the contributing factors that ultimately made possible the death of that little boy. [this paragraph was removed from the book] */*/*/*/*/* Mike Posted July 12, 2003 I'm not sure what you mean, shaz, so I’ll guess. We all have bouts of fears, but we fight it off mostly. The woman in the story is a rare type who zones into a negative expertise with little to no resistance. When bad things DO happen to us, I don't think we need compare ourselves to this woman in the story, though. Sorting through an inventory of where we often blow in our believing is NOT what we should be doing, although that is what things degenerated to at times. Sorting through an inventory of the promises of God is what we were encouraged to do in the class. */*/*/*/*/* karmicdebt Posted July 12, 2003 how many children do you have, Mike? Tell us how you can promote "truths" that you cannot really comprehend, having no reference point or experience... */*/*/*/*/* Mike Posted July 12, 2003 karmicdebt, I've had fears and I've had loved ones. */*/*/*/*/* karmicdebt Posted July 12, 2003 And with reference to promises of God...how many of your enemies did God actually, smite? I have submitted my list to God in triplicate at least and those bast*rds are still here and doing well I might add... And doing the works and greater works of JC. Man, I still haven't walked on water. Please tell me after 5 years of daily working this stuff....how many promises do you have down pat? Cuz' if these "promises" are in you that you don't even need to consider...you know, just realized, like the all 9 all the time...then maybe you really do have something to offer us... Signs, miracles and wonders follow them that believe, right....well let us see your trail... Not trying to bust your balls here...just want to know... */*/*/*/*/* karmicdebt Posted July 12, 2003 Mike, I love my parents dearly, I have a dozen brothers and sisters with whom I am extrememly close. My relationships with them are not even close to what I feel about the children I gave birth to. No you can't compare the two... */*/*/*/*/* Mike Posted July 12, 2003 karmicdebt, Seeing my trail through your computer screen may be a difficult trick. Want to come to San Diego? Come and see’ */*/*/*/*/* dizzydog Posted July 12, 2003 Hi Mike, I thought I would reenter the debate here. You have contended on many occasions that the Bible we have in the current forms is no longer reliable. I think you called it unreliable fragments and tattered remnants. I have contended all along that this is not the case and not the declaration of VPW. Furthermore I have contended that your relationship with Jesus Christ is affected by your attitude toward the Scriptures. In Revelation 19:13 we read, "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called the Word of God." In this passage of scripture "...his name is called The Word of God." The Word of God is always the same and it is always the Word of God no matter whether it is written in Genesis or in the Book of Revelation. The Name and the Word are identical. Wherever the name of Jesus Christ is used, there you have the person of Christ and the Word of Christ as one and the same. The Bible Word, that which is written in the Book called the Bible, is God’s Word. The Written Word and the Living Word are identical. The Church has not majored this. Our hearts are not believing it. The Bible Word is God’s Word because the Bible is the Word of God. In Luke 8:11, "..The seed is the Word of God." In Isaiah 55:11, "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." In 1 Peter 1:23, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." In Ephesians 6:17, "...the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God." Christ, the seed, the sword, are all referred to as the Word of God. The Word always produces reactions. Acts 7:54, "When they heard these things they were cut to the heart,..." Acts 2:41, "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." In 2 Timothy 2:15 is that wonderful record, "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth." It does not say that I am to study to show myself approved unto my congregation. I am not commissioned as a man of God to study to show myself approved unto my community. I am to study to show myself approved unto God and God alone. Paul said, "Far be it from me to be judged by you people, because my judge is God." We must live by what the Word of God says, to be approved of God. In Hebrews 4:12 we read "For the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." The word "discerner" in the Greek is the word "critic". This is the only time in the entire Bible that this word is used. It says that the Bible Word is a "critic." The Word of God is a critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart - the inner man. We have come to a terrible day in history because so many people have set themselves up as critics of the Bible, of the Word of God; when the Bible is given to be our critic. What right does any man have to criticize the Word of God. The Word of God is our critic. The Bible is a lamp as well as a light. In Psalms 119:105, "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." The Word is the Father God’s presence with us in his absence, manifested in the senses through the gift from the Holy Spirit in us. So the Word is my contact point with the Master. This makes the Word vital and alive. The Bible is not just another book. Your attitude toward the Word is indicative of the place God holds in your life. All revivals are dependent upon the written Word becoming real in the lives of men. It is impossible to separate a man from his words, likewise, it is impossible to separate God from His Word. So the living Word of God on the lips of a man of believing faith takes the place of the absent Christ. If a man’s word is of no value he will soon reason that God’s Word is valueless. Man’s unbelief in the Word of God is largely due to the lack of believing in his own words. When you live in the Word and the Word lives in you, the Word once more becomes flesh among men. Let the Word of God then dwell in you richly for it will be life and health and joy unspeakable. */*/*/*/*/* Mike Posted July 12, 2003 Ginger, I don’t see it as taking a shot at the woman. When God had the story of David’s great sins placed in the scriptures, I don’t see that as God taking a shot at David. David was a wonderful man. But he also had some great flaws that God knows we can learn from, so He has the story of David and Uriah in there for our learning. The same is the case with Dr and this woman. There’s anguish in his voice about the loss of her son. It’s like he’s saying ‘if ONLY this could be prevented!? I see Dr teaching this to help us learn and understand how to get better results in our lives. Later, MUCH later, stories like this were misused and mis-taught in fear motivation schemes to keep the ministry together. The earlier is PFAL, the latter is TVT. Let’s stop dredging up this story from memory and look carefully again at the text for a minute. There are key points that describe the intensity of the woman’s fear in this text. This fear was CULTIVATED by her systematically. She had some teaching available to her by someone who was a good example in this area, and she still let this fear grow and grow. These quotes below in red fonts are from the film class transcript that I posted above in green fonts: this woman... was always frustrated, always nervous, always afraid. this one woman ...boy she was a nervous frustrated woman if you ever saw one. week after week and month after month it got worse. in the first grade she did the same thing--in the second grade--third grade. And she called on this minister ...He relinquished them to the Lord. The fear in the heart in the life... Her own fears were the contributing factors that ultimately made possible... [Note from 2023-02-04 - Were you able to see all these intensity indicators in the green fonts? You should hear it in the original audio with this intensity idea in mind.] */*/*/*/*/*/* Mike Posted July 12, 2003 karmicdebt, I guess I'm doomed to the same fate of ignorance Jesus seems to have had to suffer from having no DNA children. */* dizzydog, I'm off to work, and I want the story of the woman and her little boy to settle. Remind me again. Please don't forget that from 1971 to 1998 I did more Bible study than most. Plus in all my recent PFAL study, I'm seeing KJV verses on every page. Also remember that a translation of the Word of God is only as authoritative as the authority of the translator. For all your expressed believing in God giving His Word in ancient times, why does your paradigm forbid God from doing the same kind of giving to us in modern times of His Word in English? */*/*/*/* dizzydog Posted July 12, 2003 Mike, Do you think my post forbade God from delivering his Word to us today? How did I disagree with you? */*/*/*/* karmicdebt Posted July 12, 2003 Mike, Show me other comparisons you have with JC manifested in this world. Then maybe you can be can be listed in the same company... Do we need to list what Christ did his short time on this planet? We won't even talk historically, we can just use the stuff VPW mentioned in his books, teachings, etc. */*/*/*/* Mike Posted July 12, 2003 Now that I re-read it, it only seems to imply it. If I didn't have a better replacement of God's Word given in English as PFAL is, then I'd NEVER have complained about the "difficulties" with the ancient received scriptures. Prior to 1998 I figured that these difficulties were God's problem and not mine. I just worked what was available to the best of my ability. I think God's answer to the difficulties in the ancient scriptures, translation being a biggie, has been to re-issue His Word in a different format, PFAL. When I say God has delivered His Word to us today in this form of PFAL, don't you say "no" and thus forbid this kind of process’ */*/*/*/* Mike Posted July 12, 2003 karmicdebt, I'm willing to fail your tests. Give me my "F" and let me out. I want to talk about things better than me, OK? */*/*/*/*/* Mike Posted July 12, 2003 It COULD be an allegory, but he seems to make it literal when he says he went to the funeral. */*/*/*/* dizzydog Posted July 12, 2003 My post implied that God forbids this? "When I say God has delivered His Word to us today in this form of PFAL, don't you say "no" and thus forbid this kind of process’" How did I say that in this post’ Indeed I believe God is fully capable of keeping his Word throughout all generations. */*/*/*/* Mike Posted July 12, 2003 Ginger, I think the big point Dr was making was how intensely the woman in the story cultivated the wrong things. There are religious circles where people who DON'T exhibit a fear of going to hell, then that kind of cocky attitude places them right on the edge of the pit. These circles encourage fear bigtime. Advertising and the news foster fear. If fear isn't resisted it's damaging. This is the whole point.

Funny meeting you here. You must be Ubiquitous.

Actually, when you see my analysis, this story is NOT hyperbole but literal. I will try to post it soon. It needs a lot of cleaning up to make it readable.

Right. It is a figure of speech.

RIGHT ! That is what I posted above. If the literal understanding is made available by the author, then the figurative is acceptable, and not misleading. The Bible uses figurative language a times, but not in a misleading way for the diligent reader. Since it interprets itself (same Author; 66 books) somewhere the Author supplies the necessary literal understandings. We were not diligent enough to seek out and find the ALL literal understandings to the figurative parts of the PFAL teaching. Many of us barely graduated from the film class audio soundtrack to the written form; many not at all. I vaguely remember that Oldiesman or johniam opined once that PFAL has some figurative teaching in it. Did they? If you are reading, did yous guys opine that? I know I tried to chase down the literal understanding of the Great Principle, AND I also know from asking around, that almost no one else did. I did, however, neglect plenty of other chase-downs. I just happened to be interested in the GP because it looked like a computer interface, and I was also real interested in the comparisons of human to animal consciousness levels and abilities. It wasn't until 1998 that I got more systematic at how I attempt to master the material. Opining that PFAL was sometimes figurative was all I was knowledgeable enough to come up with myself on that ancient 2003 thread I found in the archives. I did not know very well, the word "hyperbole," at that time. I will soon, maybe today, post a smoothed out version and the URL to the original thread where this very thing came up, sans the word "hyperbole." There is also, smack dab in the middle of this ancient thread, another surprise endorsement of some things by Raf. I was stunned again. I had no memory of his comments on that same old thread.

I will. I am working on it now. It is difficult to read because of code glitches in one of the software overhauls here years ago. I'm smoothing it out for readability.

Do you think ALL exaggeration is lying? I don't. It can be, but there are legitimate purposes for hyperbole. It is a super attention getter. It can help summarize. It highlights the important points. It helps memory recall. I think that SOME things VPW taught were hyperbole, at least in the early stages. Sometimes the Bible uses hyperbole. I think this was mostly for new people in their early learning. Later in their curriculum they learn enough to deal with the literal understandings. Hyperbole is not lying if the literal understandings are also supplied.

I've been reading the archives on that little boy in the film class. I found some interesting things that I will be soon reporting on about this topic. I found a spot where I was struggling in my ignorance of how "hyperbole" worked, like I reported the other day here.

I did not say they were grammatically equivalent. I say that they are identical IN HEART. Get you head out of your stupid grammar. Listen to the heart of the meme !!! Listen to the heart of the statement made by Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.

You are continually missing the part where I say "...in my life." That is where that meme is identical to THE HEART of what Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego said. Both the meme in question and Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego are saying IN HEART the same thing, which is the following: "Even if these promises of God are not happening today, now, in my life, I will still believe the promises of God, because they WILL come to pass in my life at the Return."

It actually is Biblical when you look at Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego properly applying the idea I heard in VPW's use of that phrase. Can that phrase be improperly applied by someone? someone including VPW? yes! I always heard that phrase to mean "When a failure happens with trying to apply the Word, or get results from the Word, that failure is ALWAYS on my part and never on God's." I always heard, and always applied that phrase to a situation where I failed at my believing, or failed to find the right promise of God, or I didn't believe long enough, or I didn't act on it right, that it was always my fault and not God's....... because, as we all agree, God's promises never fail, even if they never come to pass IN MY LIFE, I know they will eventually for everyone at Christ's Return.

I had written: "It’s the Word, even if it never comes to pass" T-Bone and OldSkool were wondering what I meant. I was just paraphrasing a passing comment I heard VPW say on more than one occasion. Sorry I used that line without better explanation for those unfamiliar with VPW saying it. The usual context for that line is someone experiencing a failure to see one of God's promises come to pass. I have this problem, and at times it rages. Everyone has this problem at times. Abraham had it; it took him YEARS to receive. The way I calm myself down is by claiming the failure is TOTALLY on my part, and that the Word is still perfect, even if I NEVER see it come to pass in this time period before the Return. Now I am in agreement with OldSkool's comment. */*/*/* A more full form of the statement is: The Word is still magnificently perfect, even if I never see it come to pass in my doubt ridden life. */*/*/* The abbreviated form of the statement is: "It’s the Word, even if it never comes to pass"

Actually, what looks like a complaint from me about your long posts, is more often a plea to forgive me for not having the time to do a full reading and/or a full response. I do long posts to deal with very complex ideas untangling errors and miscommunications. But when I can I prefer to keep my post length down.

Polished writing with proof readings and ample time go hand in hand.