You beat me to the punchline, that Mike would distrust those translators who put their lives on the line for the accurate transcription and translation of the Bible, but would have us believe that a plagiaristic, drunken, sexual predator is to be trusted to accurately impart God's Word. Nicely said.
Dear Exy,
Sounds like you're starting to see why Mike isn't my favorite cup of tea. It isn't the illogic of his doctrines, it is the inhumanity of his point of view.
Dizzydog,
It's a forum. Say what you want, back off when you want. Your words are well thought out, and are welcome, at least by me.
Mike,
Don't start getting all excited that I am going to afford you lots of opportunity to filibuster your ideas, or pick apart the minutiae of what I am saying. I just didn't want your attempt at scholarship to stand unchallenged, making it appear as if we all agreed with you.
Dizzydog certainly didn't seem to me like a "conversation constrictor," or to exhibit "cowardice," as you said. He, like the rest of us, just gets tired of trying to talk to you. Your post to him smacks of the things you whine that we say to you. You like to dish it out, but you have trouble taking it....
You said
quote:...ten world respected authors all giving their summation opinions on the texts is not the kind of authority I regard as the highest.
But you regard a second-rate, unscholarly, immoral preacher as the highest authority, and a faithful purveyor of what you claim God revealed to him. Not to mention that we are talking about HUNDREDS of world-respected scholars over the centuries, when we talk about the translation of the Bible into modern English.
I stand by what I said about most of the textual variations being minor. A prepositional phrase deleted here, a spelling error there. Most are easily resolved by using the techniques of lower criticism. Most do not change history or doctrine. Are there more glaring differences in the texts at times? Certainly, but they are rare. I have read that the Bible stands out from other ancient texts by how few changes there are. So I think that to imply that the original is lost to us is incorrect. A few details may be lost, but the original is incredibly intact.
You said
quote:I?m thankful many men worked to the best of their natural and supernatural abilities in preparing texts and passages so that when Dr came to them he learned, and improve them via God?s direction. People like Kenyon and Styles saved God and Dr a lot of work, and I see rewards there for them.
I do not see anyone who got it all put together accurately, besides Dr since the first century. All other prior successful efforts were partial and preparatory.
I posted before what I thought about your assertion that God spoke a little bit to Stiles, then spoke the same thing to Wierwille and then some. (Don't remember what I said before? It's okay, I won't make you go look it up, I can paraphrase my own words!) Revelation, according to PFAL, doesn't work word-for-word, but thought-for-thought. The authors used their own vocabulary, according to Wierwille. So then how could Wierwille come up with the exact same words as Stiles, and that on a minor point, using a phrase ("faith blasters") that I never heard him or anyone else (besides Stiles) use anywhere but in RTHST?
Sadly, I think that your "spiritual mastery" of PFAL lends itself to a denial of the validity and importance of emotions, common sense, and humanity. At least, those are the traits that seem to me to be missing in you as you post. Perhaps your lost empathy predated your PFAL search. I would rather follow the Man from Galilee whose very bowels moved for people, as revealed in those imperfect fragments, than revel in having found the perfect Will of God, making me more enlightened than the sniveling masses. Life is too short not to live it.
Dizzydog: You're wasting your time. Mike is only interested in the sound of his own voice. The fundamental premise of his argument is circular: VPW said God spoke to him in 1942, therefore all that he wrote was directly from God. Since all the he wrote was directly from God, therefore God actually did speak to him in 1942.
No matter how many empty paragraphs he dumps here, no matter how much arrogant pontification he hands down from the altar of VPW, it's all based on that ludicrous tautology.
It doesn't matter that the promise was "I will teach you the Word as it has not been known since the first century", Mike's stupidity conveniently overlooks the fact that PFAL didn't exist in the first century. There was no promise for new Scripture, but that also doesn't fit in with Mike's idiotic theory.
Like any filibuster, Mike continues to pump out reams of nonsense to wear down the opponents instead of critically examining the merits of the argument. He has admitted that he intentionally dodges any question he doesn't want to answer.
It is a well-known fact in symbolic logic that any false statement can be proven if one of its premises is false. His circular axiom is completely subjective, and he keeps trying to bury this falsehood-foundation of sand in post after post of idolatrous self-righteousness. Professing himself to be wise, he is become a fool.
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the Word of God..."
About the one positive thing I can admit about PFAL is this: it was my first comprehensive introduction and exposure to the Bible and of the material therein, for better or for worst. Many have effectively covered the errors and failings of the class and of the man who taught it here and elsewhere, so I need not go over those arguments, other than to express, in my opinion, that even if one were to "master" PFAL by heart - or if one may, derive as much as one possibly could from the material of the class, there would remain a vast vacuum enshrouding one in the dark in so many other areas, of topics left largely largely untouched and unexplored by the class, if not passed over altogether.
No introduction to the Bible is without it's flaws and failings, and all should be taken with a grain of salt.
For anyone who has had and developed an interest in the Biblical literature and biblical theology, PFAL may have served as a starting point, as one had to begin somewhere. But I think it is a tragedy to think one can derive more from it than what it actually offers. In the context of the PFAL material, one will not learn anything about the history behind the formation and development of the canon, of the variety of early Christian movements and of the various controversies of doctrines and literature arising their interactions, or of any other such developments of Christian history, literature, doctrines, beliefs, communities and thought. It is much more complex and mulifaceted than Wierwille depicted, than perhaps one might expect of any one introductory class predicated along literalist, fundamentalist lines.
Indeed, if one abides solely in the material of PFAL, and restricts themselves solely to that, chances are one is not going to uncover any deep "secrets" relating to the development and transmission of the Biblical literature, that one might gather when visiting a university library and obtaining access to works ranging from critical Greek texts, reconstructions of lost or earlier versions of texts derived from the writings of patristic literature, a snapshot of beliefs and attitudes that may be derived from extra-canonical pseudepigrapha and apocryphal literature, not to overlook the wealth of studies done by scholars, some of whom have spent their entire lifetimes focusing and researching in certain areas, that Wierwille may have foolishly disregarded and dismissed with a grunt or a wave of a hand. The one example that comes to mind is the study of parables, and of their literary form. Knowing what I know now, from reviewing the works of C.H. Dodd and Joachim Jeremias and others, it's painfully obvious from PFAL that Vp had absolutely no valuable insight to contribute on this topic, or no clue as to Jesus' brilliant usage of these, when sweeping it under the assumptions of "no private interpretation".
It's a free country. One may worship a class, a man or the tooth fairy. But I would only express my opinion from my own years of experience, in pursuit of my personal interests which has grown over time - if one thinks PFAL is the end-all, cure-all toward building an understanding and mastery of the biblical literature, which may be freshly renewed by returning again and again to "Start", then I think one may be seriously missing out, rather than actually expanding one's horizons, and enjoying that experience of learning new things from the wealth of information and material which one may access through their local libraries. With the former, there are many serious limitations and even pitfalls - with the latter, the sky is the limit. I suppose it all depends on what any person actually wants, or what they're looking for. If one is happy with PFAL (or any one Bible class) and all it offers and feels the need to go no further, I say fine. People do, and should, approach religious literature in their own way, - or in the ways of others -or can approach it in many respects, ranging from the attitude of a critical historian to that of a "believer".
Well you sure have given me a bunch of homework to do! I hope you aren?t the kind of debater who thinks he?s won if he doesn?t get an immediate comeback form his opponent.
Because of the immediacy of the medium (Marshall McLuhan where are you?) I?ll take a stab at a few, and then call it a day. Your post may be around longer than you, so I?ll be working on it for the folks out there in TV land (Newton Minnow where are you?)
***
You wrote: ?When did VPW tell us to view PFAL with the attitude that it is the authoritative Word of God??
In those 90 ?thus saith the lord? statements. Have you seen the three that are handled in earlier posts?
***
Again I?m seeing an assumption in your writing, and when I confront it YOU are the one to ignore and back away. I?ve asked you several ways ?How do you put the Word of God in your hand and read it??
In the class (segment 16, corresponding to page 127 in the book) Dr. says:
"No translation, no translation, and I want you to listen
very carefully; for no translation, and by the way that's
all we have today at best are translations. No translation
may properly be called The Word Of God... ..no translation!"
Then a minute later he repeats:
"Now I said that no translation, no translation, let alone
a version, no translation may properly be called The Word
Of God..."
Then several minutes later he hits it again:
"And in this class on Power For Abundant Living, when I
refer to The Word Of God I may hold the King James Version
or I may hold some other version and point to it; I do not
mean that version. I mean that Word of God which was
originally given when holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Spirit."
Have you incorporated the heart of this into your religion? Or have you forgotten that Dr spoke these words to us?
***
Another area of my questioning you is Dr?s Last/Lost Teaching. Why have you avoided my questions about your knowledge or ignorance of it, and your obedience of disobedience of it? If you obey it, do you encourage or discourage others to do it too, or are you just mum on that? If you do obey it, HOW?
***
There is great simplicity in truth. In dealing with the error that has crept into your life by responding to your posted errors, I have great complications to deal with. I?m up to the task, even though this task of wading through your encrusted religion is not easily entreating. It?s no treat at all, it?s work.
***
You wrote: ?And yes I do believe that the Bible is the Word of God. No seeming to think about it. I can still open the scriptures for someone who is dead in trespasses and sins and show them the way from death unto life, Jesus Christ. Why have you minimized that? I'll tell you why, you dont believe it.?
Hold on, here come some surprises.
Dr didn?t teach us that the Bible is the Word of God. He taught us the Bible is the REVEALED Word of God. You lost one important word in his teaching. However, for THIS context it?s not critical. This context is what is coming up in your post paragraph above. In the context of this thread, the difference of having the word ?revealed? in there or not is critical.
Moving on, I?d agree with the what comes next: ?No seeming to think about it. I can still open the scriptures for someone who is dead in trespasses and sins and show them the way from death unto life, Jesus Christ.? Surprised? I do not minimize this value of this. I thank God it?s true.
What you CAN?T do for that person, after successfully getting them to Romans 10:9, is to get them to all nine all the time.
God wants TWO things for people, and with an approximate KJV understand augmented with an approximate PFAL mastery, I totally expect you to be able to do a lot good towards the first. God wants all men saved AND to come to a knowledge of the truth, and that?s not ?head knowledge? but utilizing the truth in power and in love. You can help people with what you know with the first part, getting holy spirit into them. But you need more accuracy to get them to go all the way. You, yourself, have to first go all the way with God?s plan, learning the ?other? six manifestations, before you can teach them. That?s what PFAL is for.
***
More than once you called me a troll. Would you call Peter a troll for his last epistle, in which he sought to stir up people to see greater things? I?m not pointing at me, I?m pointing at some writings that were bigger than the man who penned them, because God had His hand in them. Why do you hate this?
If Dr and the men who taught him were engaging in commerce, then it wasn?t right for Dr to use what someone else had ?come up with.? The copyright laws are to promote the commerce of intellectual property.
But Dr and Kenyon and Styles and the others were NOT doing it for commerce. They were doing it for the glory of God. It was all within the family. If you want to elevate the arena of commerce to a higher level than God?s family, that may be fine for your life, but I reject it.
Similarly, if Dr had been engaging in the work of ?the academy? which is now known as academic studies, then for the sake of the learning students, plagiarism would be not cool. He?d be expelled from the university, because both students and faculty are strenuously engaged in furthering knowledge, not shifting it around. Again, not so in God?s family, where sharing things around with all is THE RULE, not the prohibition.
Alfakat, you are applying the rules of one game to another. It don?t work.
If you want something on the spiritual side of intellectual ownership, here is what I lean on:
The secret things belong unto the LORD our God:
but those things which are revealed belong unto us
are you saying that since Stiles, Kenyon et al were not in academia, and neither was Wierwille, then it was okay for him to copy what they wrote, often word-for-word and claim that it was own?
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
are you saying that since Stiles, Kenyon et al were not in academia, and neither was Wierwille, then it was okay for him to copy what they wrote, often word-for-word and claim that it was own?
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
[This message was edited by Oakspear on April 21, 2003 at 1:27.]
You wrote: ?He has admitted that he intentionally dodges any question he doesn't want to answer.?
There are MANY questions I don?t want to answer, due to a greater desire to get on with the thread topic, but I do answer them anyway. I have said repeatedly that working AEs in the improper manner deserves dodging. Did you INTENTIONALLY misrepresent me there, or did you not realize the fine distinction? If it?s the latter, I?d suggest reading more carefully.
But speaking of unanswered questions, do you practice what you preach, or imply is proper? Do you answer all my questions? How about the ones I asked dizzydog? How about the ?Why Believe the Bible? question I?ve repeated in your presence? Is it ok for you to dodge my questions, and all the while accuse me of some dishonesty because I answer only 60 percent of the many that are thrown my way?
Want to give me a dollar for every person here who has dodged my questions? Will the pervious question be dodged? Will this one be dodged?
are you saying that since Stiles, Kenyon et al were not in academia, and neither was Wierwille, then it was okay for him to copy what they wrote, often word-for-word and claim that it was own?
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Thank you for admitting that yours was a hunch, that PFAL is not as rich as I portray it. And, if it was the case that VPW wrote or pulled together the class by his 5-senses, than everything you said would be how I place my bet also.
The difference in our approaches comes here: WHAT IF God really did give Dr revelation to teach it the way he taught it.
THEN it could well be the case that there is hidden richness in PFAL that we simply didn?t see the first time through. All through the PFAL writings is the notion of coming back, and doing it again. It was designed to be mined a second time for hidden treasures. How do I know this? I dared to obey Dr?s final instructions to look closely in mastering it. THAT?S when it started to unfold before my very eyes.
In Volume V, ?Order My Steps In Thy Word,? Dr?s last book, he says this on page 26:
?Take a microscope, even a low-powered one. Focus under its lens an eyeglass,
for example. You would see some imperfections in the glass, although perhaps
only a few. Next, focus a high-powered microscope on the same eyeglass. You
will find that the more high-powered the microscope, the greater the imperfec-
tions that will be seen in the glass. There are imperfections in anything man-made.
?This example of the eyeglass demonstrates a principle. The more high-powered
the micro-scope used to observe the works of man, the more imperfect the object
appears. On the other hand, the more high-powered the microscope used to look
upon something that God formed or made, the more perfect and orderly it appears.
The closer the scrutiny of God's Word, the more obvious become its beauty and
perfection. It is only a man who uses a poor microscope who never sees the great-
ness of God's Word. He does not observe it to see its perfection.?
When I set myself down to begin mastering , looking at PFAL with a high-power microscope, when I decided to do this it wasn?t because I already believed it was OF GOD. I already thought it was ?sort of? of God, but it was very vague and waning in recent decades. I simply did it out of obedience. I saw that NO ONE ELSE thought Dr?s last teaching was worth anything or they didn?t know anything about it at all. When told, most reverted to the ?no care? attitude anyway. I thought with such PROFOUND disregard for this last teaching, maybe it was spiritual, and that the adversary didn?t want us to know about it. I couldn?t attribute this synchronized rejection of this last teaching and it?s instructions to master to the true God, because the reasons different people and different splinter groups gave for ignoring it were so disparate.
It?s when I came back to PFAL that I discovered that your hunches were wrong. There?s MUCH awaiting us there.
I finally got to you. Can you tell me WHY Dr needed to clutter up his collaterals with footnotes? I can think of some reasoins why he didn't. I'm glad he didn't. If he had, that'd be ONE more distraction I'd have to have dealt with as a young believer. I'm glad he simplified it for us.
Are you saying that the rules of the academy are paramount? Even when one isn't playing their game?
Will I have to repeadedly post my questions to you to get them answered?
How do you answer the questions I asked dizzydog and Zixar?
What do you think of Deut 29:29, that is (thanks to MJ's timely reminder) for our learning? What have you learned from that scripture as it applies to your copyrighteous indignation?
It is VERY hard to change the mind when these kind of hurts are raging. I spent two solid years fighting off ds of revenge and other bad things that the terrible soap opera of my life tempted me with. I?m not talking about Dr here, but previous best friends and close leadership in the West here. On some low ebbs in that two years I had to fight off ds attacks like this a hundred times in one day.
I did change my mind there, but it?s still weak. I thank God that He protected me so well in how I?ve simply not seen a single one of my tormentors in years. If I had called them up, or gone to their house, or talked with any of their close friends, my irritation would have slowed my healing.
When people hurt bad in these areas, like I did once, then it?s important to not tempt God and engage in heavy reminders of what is still troublesome.
We all have areas of hurt that are VERY difficult to deal with. Sometimes the hurt is because WE were not so smart about something, sometimes it?s because someone ELSE was malicious, sometimes it?s both. For me it was both. The past can?t be changed, but NOW I can place myself and my thoughts where the hurt isn?t going to get worse. We all must make practical decisions like that.
I think as we all come back and get PFAL right, people like Exy will get a big, wonderful, but perfectly gentle push in the right direction of PFAL by God, or some trusted friend, or both. When there is a well functioning support system of PFAL re-believers, then people like her will be much more enabled to walk away from the crap of the past and enjoy the benefits of what DID go right in Dr?s ministry to us.
I like the thread you started on the hippies. Before I was shown Dr?s last teaching I tried many theories on what went right, what went wrong, and what can we do about it. There were MANY things I looked in during this phase from around 1987 to ?98, but one of the biggest projects I had going was a study of the sixties and the hippies.
The reason I did this was because of Dr?s home run of going to SF and signing up the hippies. To hear Dr on old SNS tapes from this time trying to prepare the Ohio farmers for what he knew were coming to summer school 1969 is very interesting. My theory was that it was the hippie ?element? that broke Dr?s ministry out of OHIO and nationwide. Dr tried to do this in previous years, but it was the hippie element that moved it fast and far. The jocks helped too, but they couldn?t have done it without the hippies.
I know this FOR SURE, that if it weren?t for a bunch of hippies telling me that Dr was cool, in spite of his hayseed looks and redneck accent, I?d have NEVER listened to two minutes of his teaching.
Have you ever read a bedtime story to a little child? Have you ever memorized one so that it could be told in the dark? Do you think it?s immoral if you were the storyteller in such a situation with real children, to tell the story, and not footnote it with references? What if the child thinks that you wrote it, and this becomes apparent to you? Would you think it your duty to inform the child that, no, you didn?t write it? Do you think it would hurt the child? Would the child be interested?
********
As far as the mechanics goes, why do you think it has to be cut and dry? There are many permutations of how things could have gone between Dr and the other authors. Some could have even given him verbal permission. Have you looked into that?
With some, it could have been an accurate revelation for their audience. Then Dr comes along and sees it with his 5-senses, and God tells him spiritually to use it. Or to use only part because the other part is corrupted. Or to use part because the other part is to a different audience. Or to use part, because the revelation changed for the other part.
With some it could have been a 5-senses thing they came up with for their audience. Then Dr comes along and sees it with his 5-senses, and God tells him spiritually to re-write it to get it perfect
With some it could have been THEY TOO got it from some other author, and all of the above permutations apply.
I find your characterizations of these possibilities most disappointing. Think it through better.
You wrote: ? Mike, If you spend significant amounts of time among learned Christians who never heard of vpw or twi, you'll make at least one amazing discovery.... They've learned amazing things that somehow were never part of our "education". ?
If you had read me better you?d know that I agree with this, and I DID THIS very thing all through my life. It was only five years ago that I started focusing exclusively on PFAL. You ASSUMED I had not done this because MANY people influenced by the TVT DID have this problem. I did not. I frequented other churches and academic institutions. Often TVT leadership would criticize me for ?spreading myself thin.? I would remind them that Dr said all leaders should read the Harvard Classics. That shut them up. I?m all for the rounding of education, and I?m all for mastering PFAL.
Did he give away the PFAL book, or sell it? Your argument that Wierwille did it for a higher cause does not hold up.
Since he sold it, the laws of copyright definitely apply. Stiles wrote something to that effect that he was unhappy with others stealing his work, in the beginning of one of the later editions of his book, which I read.
And as I recall, TWI got into a little copyright trouble with printing the lyrics to some of the songs in the Sing Along the Way book, even though TWI gave that book away. In later editions, some songs didn't appear, and others had the copyright information attached, as they had to get permission to use it.
"I will teach you the Word like it has not been known since the first century, if you will sell it to others...."
I want to make it clear that while I studied PFAL after leaving TWI I have also studied many other writers.
For me PFAL was a starting point. Until I got involved with TWI I had no clue what the scriptures said. When I left I realized that the scriptures were still there and TWI was not. The natural starting point for me was PFAL, I also believed at the time that TWI had moved off the Word, not PFAL.
I might add that not only TWI but PFAL is not here either. Yes many of us still have old materials yellowing on the bookshelf but nothing to provide to the next generation, if anyone would really want to do that. For all of Mike's declaration about the divine deliverance of PFAL in our midst there is one problem, the class and all materials are no longer available to the mere mortals of this earth. To start reprinting these materials in its as written form would land one in court.
A person would have to rewrite the material, reteach the class, change the form of enough of it to keep the Board of Trustees, and their attorneys, off their backs and would not be able to put VPW's name on what is produced. Of course that would not be a problem in Mike's world since he has already excused VPW for doing the same thing to other writers.
These materials are only available, in limited form, to those still in TWI. If I did want to take the class again I would never subject myself to that devilish organization.
I still wonder how Mike proposes to declare these materials to the masses since he has this little copyright problem to deal with. Dont bother answering me Mike, I am not really asking you the question.
As my knowledge of the scriptures grew I began studying other texts, reference materials and at times other writers. This has led me into a much greater understanding of the scriptures than I ever would have had in the TWI of the eighties when I left.
Yes I know PFAL. I have studied it at great length, as well as a large number of other writers. Throughout all of this I have kept an objective opinion of the writers, VPW included.
If he did some of the things he has been accused of I am apalled. I find the behavior reprehensible. I have not burned my collaterals because of it though, I paid a lot of money for them. They sit next to many other study materials. I am more convinced than ever of the keys to how the scripture interprets itself.
The point is that God's Word is available to the one who hungers and thirsts after righteousness. God will feed him. Mike's limited view of God's ability reach the man who wants to know him is telling. As I quoted before there were many writers but one author. I see God as the hero and VPW as a man.
[This message was edited by dizzydog on April 21, 2003 at 9:32.]
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
82
119
656
81
Popular Days
Jun 15
86
Jul 3
73
Jul 12
50
Mar 31
49
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 82 posts
mj412 119 posts
Mike 656 posts
Steve Lortz 81 posts
Popular Days
Jun 15 2003
86 posts
Jul 3 2003
73 posts
Jul 12 2003
50 posts
Mar 31 2003
49 posts
Popular Posts
Yanagisawa
Did you say "get the ball rolling" or get the kaballa rolling...for it sounds like that's your current freak - some sort of hidden, mystical kaballa-esque gnostic esotericism. I'm fascinated with you
shazdancer
Dear Oakspear,
You beat me to the punchline, that Mike would distrust those translators who put their lives on the line for the accurate transcription and translation of the Bible, but would have us believe that a plagiaristic, drunken, sexual predator is to be trusted to accurately impart God's Word. Nicely said.
Dear Exy,
Sounds like you're starting to see why Mike isn't my favorite cup of tea. It isn't the illogic of his doctrines, it is the inhumanity of his point of view.
Dizzydog,
It's a forum. Say what you want, back off when you want. Your words are well thought out, and are welcome, at least by me.
Mike,
Don't start getting all excited that I am going to afford you lots of opportunity to filibuster your ideas, or pick apart the minutiae of what I am saying. I just didn't want your attempt at scholarship to stand unchallenged, making it appear as if we all agreed with you.
Dizzydog certainly didn't seem to me like a "conversation constrictor," or to exhibit "cowardice," as you said. He, like the rest of us, just gets tired of trying to talk to you. Your post to him smacks of the things you whine that we say to you. You like to dish it out, but you have trouble taking it....
You said
But you regard a second-rate, unscholarly, immoral preacher as the highest authority, and a faithful purveyor of what you claim God revealed to him. Not to mention that we are talking about HUNDREDS of world-respected scholars over the centuries, when we talk about the translation of the Bible into modern English.
I stand by what I said about most of the textual variations being minor. A prepositional phrase deleted here, a spelling error there. Most are easily resolved by using the techniques of lower criticism. Most do not change history or doctrine. Are there more glaring differences in the texts at times? Certainly, but they are rare. I have read that the Bible stands out from other ancient texts by how few changes there are. So I think that to imply that the original is lost to us is incorrect. A few details may be lost, but the original is incredibly intact.
You said
I posted before what I thought about your assertion that God spoke a little bit to Stiles, then spoke the same thing to Wierwille and then some. (Don't remember what I said before? It's okay, I won't make you go look it up, I can paraphrase my own words!) Revelation, according to PFAL, doesn't work word-for-word, but thought-for-thought. The authors used their own vocabulary, according to Wierwille. So then how could Wierwille come up with the exact same words as Stiles, and that on a minor point, using a phrase ("faith blasters") that I never heard him or anyone else (besides Stiles) use anywhere but in RTHST?
Sadly, I think that your "spiritual mastery" of PFAL lends itself to a denial of the validity and importance of emotions, common sense, and humanity. At least, those are the traits that seem to me to be missing in you as you post. Perhaps your lost empathy predated your PFAL search. I would rather follow the Man from Galilee whose very bowels moved for people, as revealed in those imperfect fragments, than revel in having found the perfect Will of God, making me more enlightened than the sniveling masses. Life is too short not to live it.
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Dizzydog: You're wasting your time. Mike is only interested in the sound of his own voice. The fundamental premise of his argument is circular: VPW said God spoke to him in 1942, therefore all that he wrote was directly from God. Since all the he wrote was directly from God, therefore God actually did speak to him in 1942.
No matter how many empty paragraphs he dumps here, no matter how much arrogant pontification he hands down from the altar of VPW, it's all based on that ludicrous tautology.
It doesn't matter that the promise was "I will teach you the Word as it has not been known since the first century", Mike's stupidity conveniently overlooks the fact that PFAL didn't exist in the first century. There was no promise for new Scripture, but that also doesn't fit in with Mike's idiotic theory.
Like any filibuster, Mike continues to pump out reams of nonsense to wear down the opponents instead of critically examining the merits of the argument. He has admitted that he intentionally dodges any question he doesn't want to answer.
It is a well-known fact in symbolic logic that any false statement can be proven if one of its premises is false. His circular axiom is completely subjective, and he keeps trying to bury this falsehood-foundation of sand in post after post of idolatrous self-righteousness. Professing himself to be wise, he is become a fool.
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the Word of God..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
About the one positive thing I can admit about PFAL is this: it was my first comprehensive introduction and exposure to the Bible and of the material therein, for better or for worst. Many have effectively covered the errors and failings of the class and of the man who taught it here and elsewhere, so I need not go over those arguments, other than to express, in my opinion, that even if one were to "master" PFAL by heart - or if one may, derive as much as one possibly could from the material of the class, there would remain a vast vacuum enshrouding one in the dark in so many other areas, of topics left largely largely untouched and unexplored by the class, if not passed over altogether.
No introduction to the Bible is without it's flaws and failings, and all should be taken with a grain of salt.
For anyone who has had and developed an interest in the Biblical literature and biblical theology, PFAL may have served as a starting point, as one had to begin somewhere. But I think it is a tragedy to think one can derive more from it than what it actually offers. In the context of the PFAL material, one will not learn anything about the history behind the formation and development of the canon, of the variety of early Christian movements and of the various controversies of doctrines and literature arising their interactions, or of any other such developments of Christian history, literature, doctrines, beliefs, communities and thought. It is much more complex and mulifaceted than Wierwille depicted, than perhaps one might expect of any one introductory class predicated along literalist, fundamentalist lines.
Indeed, if one abides solely in the material of PFAL, and restricts themselves solely to that, chances are one is not going to uncover any deep "secrets" relating to the development and transmission of the Biblical literature, that one might gather when visiting a university library and obtaining access to works ranging from critical Greek texts, reconstructions of lost or earlier versions of texts derived from the writings of patristic literature, a snapshot of beliefs and attitudes that may be derived from extra-canonical pseudepigrapha and apocryphal literature, not to overlook the wealth of studies done by scholars, some of whom have spent their entire lifetimes focusing and researching in certain areas, that Wierwille may have foolishly disregarded and dismissed with a grunt or a wave of a hand. The one example that comes to mind is the study of parables, and of their literary form. Knowing what I know now, from reviewing the works of C.H. Dodd and Joachim Jeremias and others, it's painfully obvious from PFAL that Vp had absolutely no valuable insight to contribute on this topic, or no clue as to Jesus' brilliant usage of these, when sweeping it under the assumptions of "no private interpretation".
It's a free country. One may worship a class, a man or the tooth fairy. But I would only express my opinion from my own years of experience, in pursuit of my personal interests which has grown over time - if one thinks PFAL is the end-all, cure-all toward building an understanding and mastery of the biblical literature, which may be freshly renewed by returning again and again to "Start", then I think one may be seriously missing out, rather than actually expanding one's horizons, and enjoying that experience of learning new things from the wealth of information and material which one may access through their local libraries. With the former, there are many serious limitations and even pitfalls - with the latter, the sky is the limit. I suppose it all depends on what any person actually wants, or what they're looking for. If one is happy with PFAL (or any one Bible class) and all it offers and feels the need to go no further, I say fine. People do, and should, approach religious literature in their own way, - or in the ways of others -or can approach it in many respects, ranging from the attitude of a critical historian to that of a "believer".
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dizzydog,
Well you sure have given me a bunch of homework to do! I hope you aren?t the kind of debater who thinks he?s won if he doesn?t get an immediate comeback form his opponent.
Because of the immediacy of the medium (Marshall McLuhan where are you?) I?ll take a stab at a few, and then call it a day. Your post may be around longer than you, so I?ll be working on it for the folks out there in TV land (Newton Minnow where are you?)
***
You wrote: ?When did VPW tell us to view PFAL with the attitude that it is the authoritative Word of God??
In those 90 ?thus saith the lord? statements. Have you seen the three that are handled in earlier posts?
***
Again I?m seeing an assumption in your writing, and when I confront it YOU are the one to ignore and back away. I?ve asked you several ways ?How do you put the Word of God in your hand and read it??
In the class (segment 16, corresponding to page 127 in the book) Dr. says:
"No translation, no translation, and I want you to listen
very carefully; for no translation, and by the way that's
all we have today at best are translations. No translation
may properly be called The Word Of God... ..no translation!"
Then a minute later he repeats:
"Now I said that no translation, no translation, let alone
a version, no translation may properly be called The Word
Of God..."
Then several minutes later he hits it again:
"And in this class on Power For Abundant Living, when I
refer to The Word Of God I may hold the King James Version
or I may hold some other version and point to it; I do not
mean that version. I mean that Word of God which was
originally given when holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Spirit."
Have you incorporated the heart of this into your religion? Or have you forgotten that Dr spoke these words to us?
***
Another area of my questioning you is Dr?s Last/Lost Teaching. Why have you avoided my questions about your knowledge or ignorance of it, and your obedience of disobedience of it? If you obey it, do you encourage or discourage others to do it too, or are you just mum on that? If you do obey it, HOW?
***
There is great simplicity in truth. In dealing with the error that has crept into your life by responding to your posted errors, I have great complications to deal with. I?m up to the task, even though this task of wading through your encrusted religion is not easily entreating. It?s no treat at all, it?s work.
***
You wrote: ?And yes I do believe that the Bible is the Word of God. No seeming to think about it. I can still open the scriptures for someone who is dead in trespasses and sins and show them the way from death unto life, Jesus Christ. Why have you minimized that? I'll tell you why, you dont believe it.?
Hold on, here come some surprises.
Dr didn?t teach us that the Bible is the Word of God. He taught us the Bible is the REVEALED Word of God. You lost one important word in his teaching. However, for THIS context it?s not critical. This context is what is coming up in your post paragraph above. In the context of this thread, the difference of having the word ?revealed? in there or not is critical.
Moving on, I?d agree with the what comes next: ?No seeming to think about it. I can still open the scriptures for someone who is dead in trespasses and sins and show them the way from death unto life, Jesus Christ.? Surprised? I do not minimize this value of this. I thank God it?s true.
What you CAN?T do for that person, after successfully getting them to Romans 10:9, is to get them to all nine all the time.
God wants TWO things for people, and with an approximate KJV understand augmented with an approximate PFAL mastery, I totally expect you to be able to do a lot good towards the first. God wants all men saved AND to come to a knowledge of the truth, and that?s not ?head knowledge? but utilizing the truth in power and in love. You can help people with what you know with the first part, getting holy spirit into them. But you need more accuracy to get them to go all the way. You, yourself, have to first go all the way with God?s plan, learning the ?other? six manifestations, before you can teach them. That?s what PFAL is for.
***
More than once you called me a troll. Would you call Peter a troll for his last epistle, in which he sought to stir up people to see greater things? I?m not pointing at me, I?m pointing at some writings that were bigger than the man who penned them, because God had His hand in them. Why do you hate this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
blah, blah, blah....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
all nine all the time???
lol
which number that KILLED him from cancer???
or had him sexualy abuse..
but most important what a cute little wordy phrase MIKE what chapter and verse did you learn that IN???
not a pfal book which bible verse says we need to learn these things HMMM?//
to be instructed exactly . no it isnt in there it says Jesus christ is the only teacher we need now doesnt it that we need no man to teach us...
God enabled a jackass to speak to a man
seems HE is still in business.
did you two read pfal together??/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
alfakat,
If Dr and the men who taught him were engaging in commerce, then it wasn?t right for Dr to use what someone else had ?come up with.? The copyright laws are to promote the commerce of intellectual property.
But Dr and Kenyon and Styles and the others were NOT doing it for commerce. They were doing it for the glory of God. It was all within the family. If you want to elevate the arena of commerce to a higher level than God?s family, that may be fine for your life, but I reject it.
Similarly, if Dr had been engaging in the work of ?the academy? which is now known as academic studies, then for the sake of the learning students, plagiarism would be not cool. He?d be expelled from the university, because both students and faculty are strenuously engaged in furthering knowledge, not shifting it around. Again, not so in God?s family, where sharing things around with all is THE RULE, not the prohibition.
Alfakat, you are applying the rules of one game to another. It don?t work.
If you want something on the spiritual side of intellectual ownership, here is what I lean on:
The secret things belong unto the LORD our God:
but those things which are revealed belong unto us
and to our children for ever,
that we may do all the words of this law.
Deut. 29:29
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
deut is not written to the us . but rather for our learning remember???
we are not under the law..
now now mikey be careful cant use that one can you?
Jesus Christ said He is the only teacher we need..
the holy spirit is what guides us you fool ,not your orange book...
that is instructs not struts mike. lol.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Mike, help me out here...
are you saying that since Stiles, Kenyon et al were not in academia, and neither was Wierwille, then it was okay for him to copy what they wrote, often word-for-word and claim that it was own?
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Exy,
Have you read what?s on the ?Open? forum?s ?I LIKE MIKE? thread?
I thought we already went through the ?father in the Word? thing.
I regard him as MY father in the Word.
It hurts me that he hurt you, and that you still hurt.
It?s a family thing, and it hurts me to see you not comfortable with what he did right.
Your total healing will not go faster by me shutting up on what I believe.
Your total healing will go faster as you focus on good.
If my posts remind you of bad, you can either avoid them or learn to think differently when you see them.
If you want to talk privately, that?s available with me but you?ll need to trust me too.
But dealing your issues in public, in a hot public debate, and how to not offend you... it?s much too big a task for me to always do well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Mike, help me out here...
are you saying that since Stiles, Kenyon et al were not in academia, and neither was Wierwille, then it was okay for him to copy what they wrote, often word-for-word and claim that it was own?
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
[This message was edited by Oakspear on April 21, 2003 at 1:27.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Zixar,
You wrote: ?He has admitted that he intentionally dodges any question he doesn't want to answer.?
There are MANY questions I don?t want to answer, due to a greater desire to get on with the thread topic, but I do answer them anyway. I have said repeatedly that working AEs in the improper manner deserves dodging. Did you INTENTIONALLY misrepresent me there, or did you not realize the fine distinction? If it?s the latter, I?d suggest reading more carefully.
But speaking of unanswered questions, do you practice what you preach, or imply is proper? Do you answer all my questions? How about the ones I asked dizzydog? How about the ?Why Believe the Bible? question I?ve repeated in your presence? Is it ok for you to dodge my questions, and all the while accuse me of some dishonesty because I answer only 60 percent of the many that are thrown my way?
Want to give me a dollar for every person here who has dodged my questions? Will the pervious question be dodged? Will this one be dodged?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Mike, help me out here...
are you saying that since Stiles, Kenyon et al were not in academia, and neither was Wierwille, then it was okay for him to copy what they wrote, often word-for-word and claim that it was own?
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
InvisibleDan,
Thank you for admitting that yours was a hunch, that PFAL is not as rich as I portray it. And, if it was the case that VPW wrote or pulled together the class by his 5-senses, than everything you said would be how I place my bet also.
The difference in our approaches comes here: WHAT IF God really did give Dr revelation to teach it the way he taught it.
THEN it could well be the case that there is hidden richness in PFAL that we simply didn?t see the first time through. All through the PFAL writings is the notion of coming back, and doing it again. It was designed to be mined a second time for hidden treasures. How do I know this? I dared to obey Dr?s final instructions to look closely in mastering it. THAT?S when it started to unfold before my very eyes.
In Volume V, ?Order My Steps In Thy Word,? Dr?s last book, he says this on page 26:
?Take a microscope, even a low-powered one. Focus under its lens an eyeglass,
for example. You would see some imperfections in the glass, although perhaps
only a few. Next, focus a high-powered microscope on the same eyeglass. You
will find that the more high-powered the microscope, the greater the imperfec-
tions that will be seen in the glass. There are imperfections in anything man-made.
?This example of the eyeglass demonstrates a principle. The more high-powered
the micro-scope used to observe the works of man, the more imperfect the object
appears. On the other hand, the more high-powered the microscope used to look
upon something that God formed or made, the more perfect and orderly it appears.
The closer the scrutiny of God's Word, the more obvious become its beauty and
perfection. It is only a man who uses a poor microscope who never sees the great-
ness of God's Word. He does not observe it to see its perfection.?
When I set myself down to begin mastering , looking at PFAL with a high-power microscope, when I decided to do this it wasn?t because I already believed it was OF GOD. I already thought it was ?sort of? of God, but it was very vague and waning in recent decades. I simply did it out of obedience. I saw that NO ONE ELSE thought Dr?s last teaching was worth anything or they didn?t know anything about it at all. When told, most reverted to the ?no care? attitude anyway. I thought with such PROFOUND disregard for this last teaching, maybe it was spiritual, and that the adversary didn?t want us to know about it. I couldn?t attribute this synchronized rejection of this last teaching and it?s instructions to master to the true God, because the reasons different people and different splinter groups gave for ignoring it were so disparate.
It?s when I came back to PFAL that I discovered that your hunches were wrong. There?s MUCH awaiting us there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oakspear,
I finally got to you. Can you tell me WHY Dr needed to clutter up his collaterals with footnotes? I can think of some reasoins why he didn't. I'm glad he didn't. If he had, that'd be ONE more distraction I'd have to have dealt with as a young believer. I'm glad he simplified it for us.
Are you saying that the rules of the academy are paramount? Even when one isn't playing their game?
Will I have to repeadedly post my questions to you to get them answered?
How do you answer the questions I asked dizzydog and Zixar?
What do you think of Deut 29:29, that is (thanks to MJ's timely reminder) for our learning? What have you learned from that scripture as it applies to your copyrighteous indignation?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi Ginger,
It is VERY hard to change the mind when these kind of hurts are raging. I spent two solid years fighting off ds of revenge and other bad things that the terrible soap opera of my life tempted me with. I?m not talking about Dr here, but previous best friends and close leadership in the West here. On some low ebbs in that two years I had to fight off ds attacks like this a hundred times in one day.
I did change my mind there, but it?s still weak. I thank God that He protected me so well in how I?ve simply not seen a single one of my tormentors in years. If I had called them up, or gone to their house, or talked with any of their close friends, my irritation would have slowed my healing.
When people hurt bad in these areas, like I did once, then it?s important to not tempt God and engage in heavy reminders of what is still troublesome.
We all have areas of hurt that are VERY difficult to deal with. Sometimes the hurt is because WE were not so smart about something, sometimes it?s because someone ELSE was malicious, sometimes it?s both. For me it was both. The past can?t be changed, but NOW I can place myself and my thoughts where the hurt isn?t going to get worse. We all must make practical decisions like that.
I think as we all come back and get PFAL right, people like Exy will get a big, wonderful, but perfectly gentle push in the right direction of PFAL by God, or some trusted friend, or both. When there is a well functioning support system of PFAL re-believers, then people like her will be much more enabled to walk away from the crap of the past and enjoy the benefits of what DID go right in Dr?s ministry to us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
look at that last paragraphs of mikes.
In caps is says NO ONE ELES thought dr.s teaching was worth anything or they didnt know anything about it etc...
then He out and out says it was in caps again 'PROFOUND"
OK does this sound like Mike believes He is the answer?
the one and only and profound at that??/
Mike thinks he is a saviour , and the one and only with the truth out of obedience to dr.
read it and weep people.
is this a humble person able to teach others??/
he thinks he is God replacing his God vpw...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oakspear,
I like the thread you started on the hippies. Before I was shown Dr?s last teaching I tried many theories on what went right, what went wrong, and what can we do about it. There were MANY things I looked in during this phase from around 1987 to ?98, but one of the biggest projects I had going was a study of the sixties and the hippies.
The reason I did this was because of Dr?s home run of going to SF and signing up the hippies. To hear Dr on old SNS tapes from this time trying to prepare the Ohio farmers for what he knew were coming to summer school 1969 is very interesting. My theory was that it was the hippie ?element? that broke Dr?s ministry out of OHIO and nationwide. Dr tried to do this in previous years, but it was the hippie element that moved it fast and far. The jocks helped too, but they couldn?t have done it without the hippies.
I know this FOR SURE, that if it weren?t for a bunch of hippies telling me that Dr was cool, in spite of his hayseed looks and redneck accent, I?d have NEVER listened to two minutes of his teaching.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oh Mj! Are you having fun? What do you get out of this? Can you imagine Jesus Christ carrying on like you are?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Translation for the home audience:
Yes, Mike thinks it's perfectly fine for vpw
to lift exact quotes from the books of others
and put them in his own book, without citing
that they are quotes, or citing the source.
He does NOT view that as intellectually
dishonest, since he deems that the end-teaching-
justifies the means-misrepresentation, and
what's now referred to as "idea theft".
Further, the act of citing would have cluttered
up the book and make it difficult to read, despite
the fact that many books group all their footnotes
at the END of the book or chapter to prevent just
that sort of thing. Since vpw was a genius with a
degree, he obviously considered such an approach,
but obviously deemed his normal method-absence of
citation-would be so much more beneficial to us.
That's how much he loved us-he would use an
approach unpopular among intelligensia and in
virtually all 'research' books in order to provide
the maximum blessing to us.
Further yet, since those approaches were typical
of the establishment, he used his
'anti-establishment' posture to claim solidarity
with us.
___________________________________________________
I am unsure if his current stance also reflects a
belief that vpw did NOT lift whole sentences
word-for-word out of the books of others; his
earlier statements had reflected a stance that
got "airlifted" whole sections verbatim to vpw,
coincidentally using EXACTLY the same words as
writers vpw just happened to have read before.
That assertion was alluded to on page 10 of this
thread and addressed.
--------------------------------------------------
Mike,
If you spend significant amounts of time among
learned Christians who never heard of vpw or twi,
you'll make at least one amazing discovery....
They've learned amazing things that somehow were
never part of our "education". Among them are
far MORE detailed studies of the history of
Scripture than we were exposed to. If you go
out there expecting you know it all, you will get
a rude awakening from experts in areas you've
barely scratched the surface in.
Our education was grossly deficient in showing
the history of the texts. However, some information
DID reach us. What do the names "Masoretic Text"
and "Samaritan Pentateuch" mean to you?
(That's in initial response to the question you
claim no one wants to address.)
It's only fair, since you've made an attempt at my
question, that I make one at yours. This is not
my FINAL word on this subject, just as I'm hoping
for a definition of mastery. (Seems someone else
is asking for it, as well, Mike-perhaps you didn't
define it as clearly as you thought?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
Have you ever read a bedtime story to a little child? Have you ever memorized one so that it could be told in the dark? Do you think it?s immoral if you were the storyteller in such a situation with real children, to tell the story, and not footnote it with references? What if the child thinks that you wrote it, and this becomes apparent to you? Would you think it your duty to inform the child that, no, you didn?t write it? Do you think it would hurt the child? Would the child be interested?
********
As far as the mechanics goes, why do you think it has to be cut and dry? There are many permutations of how things could have gone between Dr and the other authors. Some could have even given him verbal permission. Have you looked into that?
With some, it could have been an accurate revelation for their audience. Then Dr comes along and sees it with his 5-senses, and God tells him spiritually to use it. Or to use only part because the other part is corrupted. Or to use part because the other part is to a different audience. Or to use part, because the revelation changed for the other part.
With some it could have been a 5-senses thing they came up with for their audience. Then Dr comes along and sees it with his 5-senses, and God tells him spiritually to re-write it to get it perfect
With some it could have been THEY TOO got it from some other author, and all of the above permutations apply.
I find your characterizations of these possibilities most disappointing. Think it through better.
You wrote: ? Mike, If you spend significant amounts of time among learned Christians who never heard of vpw or twi, you'll make at least one amazing discovery.... They've learned amazing things that somehow were never part of our "education". ?
If you had read me better you?d know that I agree with this, and I DID THIS very thing all through my life. It was only five years ago that I started focusing exclusively on PFAL. You ASSUMED I had not done this because MANY people influenced by the TVT DID have this problem. I did not. I frequented other churches and academic institutions. Often TVT leadership would criticize me for ?spreading myself thin.? I would remind them that Dr said all leaders should read the Harvard Classics. That shut them up. I?m all for the rounding of education, and I?m all for mastering PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
A) When discussing any work, whether in the
spoken or written medium, it is always
understood that the CONTEXT and FORMAT affects
the discussion.
In the case of storytelling to little children,
(or adults), the expectation unless told
otherwise is that you are passing along a story
that you've heard. I've enjoyed hearing such
stories, and enjoyed passing them along.
(Having a high-recall is great for reciting
entire stories verbatim.)
When referring to things anecdotally, however,
I always give my source. That's usually
considered intellectually honest, and is
expected of my by everyone whom I respect.
(Including some sharp children.)
In any literary format, including comic books,
the writer is morally and LEGALLY bound to
cite his references.
Now, unless you're trying to say that vpw's
collateral readings were morally and
situationally equivalent to bedtime stories to
children, that's another strawman.
------------------------------------------
B) Technically speaking, I suppose I could dream
up dozens of theoretical ways that vpw's
sentences could mysteriously duplicate those of
other authors that he'd been previously
exposed to. That's a mental exercise, though.
To state that any or all of them have any
reasonable chance to have happened, though, is
silly. One addresses the possibilities that
had any reasonable chance to have occurred.
I've seen some sad conspiracy theories. One
thing they have in common is an absence of
facts. Another thing they have in common is
the concealment of a lack of data by
insinuating and suggesting that various
theoretical possibilities are likely.
Unless one is trying to blindly push an agenda,
though, this is never seen with respect.
I suppose Johnny Cochran sees this differently
than I do.
C) Yes, you caught me. No denying it.
I assumed you had NOT spent extensive amounts
of time among Christians outside the OLG twi
framework you are fond of.
The reason is very, very simple.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Since there are PLENTY of wise, experienced,
learned Christians out there, and you STILL
have the expectation that only the pfal grads
know stuff, there were 3 possibilities:
A) Mike has met other Christians, and utterly
dismisses their knowledge as effectively worthless
(especially compared to pfal)
B) Mike has met other Christians, but had
somehow missed meeting any with significant
knowledge due to being sheltered from them
C) Mike has NOT met other Christians, and is
honestly overgeneralizing.
Since "C" was the most intellectually-honest,
I assumed that was the correct answer.
That is, you have NOT met other Christians and
blown off all those whose opinions differ from
your own.
-----
So, if I NOW understand correctly, you've been
exposed to the learnings of OTHER CHristians,
and you STILL honestly believe there's no
REAL wisdom outside of pfal? And that the
English versions of the Bible are nearly
worthless "remnants", made virtually useless
by time and forgery??
Let me know if you really do want to address
the whole idea-theft concept. Normally, you
evade it whenever possible, but I'm game to
supporting my view if you're game.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Mike,
Regarding Wierwille's plagiarism:
Did he give away the PFAL book, or sell it? Your argument that Wierwille did it for a higher cause does not hold up.
Since he sold it, the laws of copyright definitely apply. Stiles wrote something to that effect that he was unhappy with others stealing his work, in the beginning of one of the later editions of his book, which I read.
And as I recall, TWI got into a little copyright trouble with printing the lyrics to some of the songs in the Sing Along the Way book, even though TWI gave that book away. In later editions, some songs didn't appear, and others had the copyright information attached, as they had to get permission to use it.
"I will teach you the Word like it has not been known since the first century, if you will sell it to others...."
shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dizzydog
One final post...
I want to make it clear that while I studied PFAL after leaving TWI I have also studied many other writers.
For me PFAL was a starting point. Until I got involved with TWI I had no clue what the scriptures said. When I left I realized that the scriptures were still there and TWI was not. The natural starting point for me was PFAL, I also believed at the time that TWI had moved off the Word, not PFAL.
I might add that not only TWI but PFAL is not here either. Yes many of us still have old materials yellowing on the bookshelf but nothing to provide to the next generation, if anyone would really want to do that. For all of Mike's declaration about the divine deliverance of PFAL in our midst there is one problem, the class and all materials are no longer available to the mere mortals of this earth. To start reprinting these materials in its as written form would land one in court.
A person would have to rewrite the material, reteach the class, change the form of enough of it to keep the Board of Trustees, and their attorneys, off their backs and would not be able to put VPW's name on what is produced. Of course that would not be a problem in Mike's world since he has already excused VPW for doing the same thing to other writers.
These materials are only available, in limited form, to those still in TWI. If I did want to take the class again I would never subject myself to that devilish organization.
I still wonder how Mike proposes to declare these materials to the masses since he has this little copyright problem to deal with. Dont bother answering me Mike, I am not really asking you the question.
As my knowledge of the scriptures grew I began studying other texts, reference materials and at times other writers. This has led me into a much greater understanding of the scriptures than I ever would have had in the TWI of the eighties when I left.
Yes I know PFAL. I have studied it at great length, as well as a large number of other writers. Throughout all of this I have kept an objective opinion of the writers, VPW included.
If he did some of the things he has been accused of I am apalled. I find the behavior reprehensible. I have not burned my collaterals because of it though, I paid a lot of money for them. They sit next to many other study materials. I am more convinced than ever of the keys to how the scripture interprets itself.
The point is that God's Word is available to the one who hungers and thirsts after righteousness. God will feed him. Mike's limited view of God's ability reach the man who wants to know him is telling. As I quoted before there were many writers but one author. I see God as the hero and VPW as a man.
[This message was edited by dizzydog on April 21, 2003 at 9:32.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.