I find the best manner is still one on one, in the love of God with a full knowledge of the grace God has provided the sinner. Never from a superior position, without Christ I would still be an enemy of God.
Research for research sake is an empty shell of the abundant life provided by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Although I saw a very cool program called Bibleworks recently. 300 bucks but it might be worth it.
Nice to meet you as well, Danny.
[This message was edited by dizzydog on April 21, 2003 at 12:06.]
You wrote: ?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.) ?
It is the case that Dr was totally up front with us (some will remember) about his ?authorship? and how he went from place to place, person to person to receive the things he taught. He told us that everything he knew he was taught. We assumed God was involved, but we also knew about Adv. Class Key #4, and that he worked the 5-senses approach. We were told that the origination of ideas is not a big deal in the CONTEXT of God?s family, because God was the real originator anyway. He not only told us about his adventures finding things and getting taught things by other men. but he also gave us their names verbally. He also sold some of those authors? books in his bookstore. For us sharp kids who were there, the EXPECTATATION was properly set. Anyone who thinks these many verbal disclaimers were insufficient will have a hard time getting me to pick them on my sandlot team to play baseball.
You then wrote: ?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.?
No, I was trying to say that many grads were (and still are) in the category of spiritual babies.
You then wrote: ?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.?
Why not keep it simple then. God said look over at that book. ?Copy this set of paragraphs, but change this and that.? After that scenario, I?m satisfied. You can take your morals and apply them any way you want, but I?m not buying it. He did the right thing. It helped thousands. Still does. I?m glad he did it. Your moralizing on this bores me, and I will not bee moved.
You then wrote: ?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??
Inncorecto AGAIN! Are you in some kind of contest to see who gets me wrong the most? Think it through with heart logic, not the constricted thoughts you display.
Tell me this, HOW could Dr go out there and get all this wisdom (or partial wisdom) from all these different places, and then I come along and say something as stupid as you just described? There?s LOTS of wisdom out there, it?s just partial in one place and mixed with disabling error in another. Dr was the first in 2000 years that got it, BY GOD?S HELP, all together so that we could do it.
Tell me this, HOW could there be that entry on the green card about separating truth from error, if there?s no truth out there to do the separating ON?
Why don?t you think these things through? Is it because you think I don?t think them through, and that sooner or later you?ll find a contradiction in my story? You still haven?t answered me why you want a ?better? definition of ?master.? Do you think I forgot? I also have been dishing out the questions, and I expect answers. Why do you believe the Bible? Do you believe it? Answers! Answers! Cough ?em up!
You wrote: ?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.?
Like I said, I?m bored with that one. Tell me what you think of Deut.29:29.
How can you say ?normally evade? with a clear conscience? We?ll see how many questions you answer.
The core books (PFAL, RHST) the five collateral books, JCNG, ADAN, and the two Jesus Christ Books (JCOP, JCPS) have been bootlegged into electronic PDF files, even down to the typesetting. Ask around on the more PFAL-friendly ex-Way websites if you really want them. I don't know who produced them, and I don't know anyone who distributes them now, but they are out there.
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the Word of God..."
All right, Mike, tell you what. I'll show you how it's done. I will answer ONE question from you. No dodging, no evasion, no circular arguments. Make it a good one.
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the Word of God..."
We are supposed to imitate Christ and do the work he did. Do you try? Do you not like it when I try? Who are you being loving to in your life? You can try that here, you know.
Dan,
Dan, your idea of unsupervised reading of the materials is exactly what I've been proposing. The yellowing of the paper will soon be a thing of the past. I?ve heard a steady stream of rumors for almost ten years now, that there are MANY grads feeding the books into computers all over the globe. Just like the video class was practically driven into the public domain when TWI started stonewalling bigtime in 1988, the closing of the bookstore sent many more people to computer stores for the latest OCR and scanning software and hardware. Just a few months ago, a poster here reported having received an unsolicited CD in the mail with all of Dr?s books on it. I predict that at least ten such CDs will be floating around for the takers in no time.
Dizzydog,
You wrote: ?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.?
God = the hero
VPW= the man
I?ll buy that. Hey! I?ve already BOUGHT that, long ago, and post to that effect too. You STOLE my idea!!!
Yes, I know God will feed to fill the hunger. Unfortunately the adversary?s got many thinking that there?s ONLY so much available, so they never cultivate their hunger to the maximum. It would seem like sin, if they?re not properly taught. So, God WANTS to feed men even more than they want. This limits God?s ability to deliver.
Another thing that limits God here is that HE needs to find a man who can not only teach maximum receiving from God, this teacher must OF COURSE be able to receive the teaching directly from God, with no printed backup, if he?s the first to hear this.
God had a hard time getting the mystery through to Peter directly, and HE STILL had a hard time after it got through to Paul and was put into written form. Big ideas are not so easy for God to teach directly. Once God finds one man who is capable of receiving a big revelation into writing, then others can more easily follow by reading it. Paul says this in Ephesians and Colossians, that he was the ONLY one to get it directly, but by reading we can get it now by rising up to it.
Looks like you beat me to the punch on e-books info. I've done a little asking around, but not enough yet. It looks inevitable that those things will be all around in the near future. The ONE hang-up I see are inaccuracies. Have you ever tried proofreading? It?s HARD! The scanning and OCR are very easy, but the formatting is not so easy. I tried a chapter once, and it took much longer than I expected. Then the proofreading got more than tedious. Some people can do that better than others, but I fear some will do a bad job, and there?ll be all sorts of variant readings. Sounds like the first century fragments all over again.
My replies to you are in bold print. You original comments are left within the quote lines in regular type.
quote:Originally posted by Mike:
Oakspear,
I finally got to you. Can you tell me WHY Dr needed to clutter up his collaterals with footnotes?
Yes I can. Because it's honest. Because it would indicate that he was trying to help people, no matter the source, rather than attempting to hog all the glory. He was very good about using footnotes in some of his later publications, notably Jesus Christ is Not God, Jesus Christ Our Passover and Jesus Christ Our promised Seed. It's not clutter, by the way, it's just the way things are done. Copyright laws are the law of the land. The way I read I Peter 2:13-14, Christians are to obey the law. The exception would be when following man's causes us to disobey God's law. What biblical commandment would Wierwille have been breaking by obeying the U.S. copyright law?
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 there any other reasons other than it would be distracting? Mike, you don't strike me as the type to become bewildered by mere footnotes, besides,as another poster pointed out, he could have used endnoters which wouldn't have cluttered up the text at all.
Are you saying that the rules of the academy are paramount? Even when one isn't playing their game?
Of course not. But Wierwille was playing their game. He played up his toy doctorate, he paraded around in his academic robes, he craved acceptance in the academic subset of theological research.
Will I have to repeadedly post my questions to you to get them answered?
Nope. Sorry about the multi-postings, that was unnecessary on my part. Please accept my apology.
How do you answer the questions I asked dizzydog and Zixar?
Well, I don't, since they are not addressed to me. Now that you bring it up, I might, but might not.I've looked through your posts on the last page, and find them somewhat hard to sift through in serach of questions to DD and Zix. Condense them for me and I might, otherwise I don't have the time.
What do you think of Deut 29:29,
Chapter 29 is a recitation of what God did for Israel, especially in getting them out of Egypt and to the borders of the Promised Land. It's an admonition to remember what God did, and moreover that their descendents should remember also. Verse 29 states that there are secret, unrevealed things, but those things that God did for them during the past forty years are not among those secret things,and that God has done these things and wants them remembered so that Israel and their descendents can "do all the words of the law".
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?
Oh, I'm not indignant at all, by the way. And what I have learned from that verse has nothing to do with my observations of copyright infringement.
So you are saying it's alright then?
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 20:51.]
[This message was edited by Oakspear on April 21, 2003 at 20:54.]
quote: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.
ohmygosh
i don't believe i've ever been possessed with devil spirits of revenge, but hey would i know it if i also had devil spirits of delusion
oh and those raging spirits ? god gave me a shrink with an open mind ? so i transferred them over ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
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.
__________________
Was Jesus Christ a part of any of this? You declared that you spent two solid years fighting off ds. The last I read we cannot deal with spiritual matters with the flesh. How does this post help that person reading here who is struggling with such challenges find deliverance. If he looked at your example he would think he would have to fight them off himself.
The post I copied this from is all about what you have done or had to do. No flesh is is capable of finding its own deliverance, before or after the new birth.
But there it is, YOU did it. Jesus Christ is noticeably absent from your numerous posts. Sorta reminded me of athletes of the spirit. I guess you want people to learn about VPW before they learn about Jesus Christ.
Cut the crap Mike. The thing you should be feeding on is God's Word, specifically Romans. You have forgotten, if you ever knew, the state of man before Christ and the subsequent need for Gods' grace. God did not make one believer more equipped than anyone else and your story of deliverance draws attention to only one man, you.
[This message was edited by dizzydog on April 21, 2003 at 16:18.]
Mike makes the rules, as he goes along. That's how your "mastery" works.****
*********************
Ya know, in the past few months I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I now find you to be equally as dishonest, intellectually as vic-en-heimer. And you have one-upped him, to boot, in fanciful and far-flung premises...
You and I differ on this, bud-- I may believe I am right about certain things....BUT... I am equally willing to learn, to see where I may have been in error or had incomplete knowledge. Not you--Mike is apparently ALWAYS right and has NOTHING to learn here!!
Mike---buzz off! take a hike!! Your story has been told, we get it. We just don't buy it. You are sadly deluded--I pray for your eyes to be opened to your excuses and twisted reasonings to support vic's mish-mash of "borrowings" from all and sundry....
Questions that I raised in my last post (other than the request for a Cliff's Notes version of your questions to DD and Zix) are rhetorical in nature, so don't stress out about answering them, okay?
In fact, if you don't want to take the time to condense a version for me, I'll understand; but otherwise I just don't have the time to wade through those long posts.
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
All right, Mike, tell you what. I'll show you how it's done. I will answer ONE question from you. No dodging, no evasion, no circular arguments. Make it a good one.
quote:Originally posted by Mike:
Zixar,
Which one should I ask?
Preferably one which would not have wasted your sole opportunity. -->
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the Word of God..."
I see the non-footnoted books as a bigger deal than you. In this view the importance of these books eclipses the kingdom of man. I said long ago in my posting efforts here that I have NO PROBLEM with the issues raised here or elsewhere about plagiarism or copyright infringement.
Those two words (plagiarism or copyright infringement) belong to entirely different and distantly separate arenas of activity than the one Dr ministered in. Commerce and Academia were NOT a part of Dr's ministry to us. Dr didn?t do it for the money nor the status. He could have gotten MUCH more elsewhere, so I see him as having given up those motivations. I reject your judgement of his heart?s intentions.
I see those two words and all they entail, including all the moral man-made baggage you are capable of conjuring up, as utterly trivial and your preoccupation with them laughable.
Now there is another area where I feel some similar sentiments... and some not similar. When people talk of Dr?s so called violations of this ethics area of plagiarism or copyright infringement I REALLY blow off the charges with little thought. Not so in the area of the sex accusations. There I know that more is involved, and damage is much more serious, because people?s hearts are involved. I?m very focused when people hurt in the sex area, but these issues with Dr and other authors bores me silly. People who have benefited greatly don?t give a hoot about the footnotes. Neither do I.
quote:"...God said look over at that book. ?Copy this set of paragraphs, but change this and that.? After that scenario, I?m satisfied..."
Oh, you there Mike? I should have known. It must be grand being privy to the conversations between God and VPW.
Now, according to Mike, we have God himself telling VPW to plaigerize the works of others. God told VPW to break the law ( plaigerism is illegal) and to despense with professional ethics (morals).
Then Mike adds:
quote:After that scenario, I?m satisfied. You can take your morals and apply them any way you want, but I?m not buying it. He did the right thing. It helped thousands. Still does. I?m glad he did it. Your moralizing on this bores me, and I will not bee moved.
According to Mike, VPW's breaking of the the law is doing the right thing. VPW's casting aside of ethics and morals is doing the right thing. But let's not forget, God told VPW to do it - because it would help thousands.
I wonder what other laws or moral and ethical codes God told VPW to break? I suppose it must have been God who told VPW is was the "right thing to do" when he used his position of authority to sexually abuse women or to commit adultery. After all, if VPW could not get his needs met at home in his marriage, then adultery and other forms of illicit sex were the only possible way to get his sexual needs met. VPW certainly could not have "helped thousands" if his "sexual needs" were not met. So I suppose that we should be "glad he did it" eh Mike? It was the right thing to do, huh?
Mike, since you seem to know exactly what God told VPW about plaigerizing Stiles, Bullinger, and Leonard, why don't you tell us what God told VPW right before he commited sexual abuse, rape, or adultery?
You seem to have missed the part where I said any and all of the permutations COULD be the case. I don?t care about the exact mechanics or the exact conversations. I offered one possibility. So drop that line of inquiry; it?s a dead end for you.
As far as morals, you have completely ignored my often stated observance of GOD?S ultimate ownership of everything in this world, both physical and mental. Since you completely ignore this, I feel very free to completely ignore you pompous moralizing.
Your copyrighteous indignation will not deter me from respecting the work that God in injecting His Word into the world. Your disapproval of God?s sneak attack on the adversary is as solid as Lindbergh?s pacifism. I suppose you tore Balaam?s prophecy out of your Bible, because he was dishonest. If not, please explain this double standard.
Please feel free to answer any of the questions I've asked the others here.
It's very instructive to examine fundamental assumptions and beliefs. Our belief in the original Bible is about the most basic belief we have.
Strengthening it by close examination is spiritually profitable. However this forum may not be the best place for everyone to do it. The adversarial atmosphere is not the most conducive to successfully answering that question. I somewhat understand why no one wants to answer it here, and with me.
However, it?s good to think about on one?s own, at the very least.
I?ve been adversarial about presenting this question, but upon discussion, I?d be a strong proponent of the original Bible being the perfect, pure God-breathed Word.
I see the non-footnoted books as a bigger deal than you.
Of course you do.
In this view the importance of these books eclipses the kingdom of man.
IF what you think about Wierwille's work were true, then yes, his books WOULD eclipse the kingdom of man
Those two words (plagiarism or copyright infringement) belong to entirely different and distantly separate arenas of activity than the one Dr ministered in.
Since (as I documented above) obeying man's laws IS obeying God's law (as long as they don't conflict), then we ARE NOT talking about two realms of activity
Commerce and Academia were NOT a part of Dr's ministry to us. Dr didn?t do it for the money nor the status.
Even assigning Wierwille the purest of motives, Commerce and Academia were part of his minitsry, even if not a primary part. For whatever reason, he SOLD things. There's nothing wrong with that, but that's commerce. While holding academia in contempt, he still participated in the trappings of it: the academic robes, the doctorate, etc.
That he didn't do it for money and status is your opinion. You have your reasons for holding that opinion that are coinsistant with your view of the man. I think he did. That's MY opinion, consistant with what I know about him. I don't know what his motives were and neither do you.
He could have gotten MUCH more elsewhere,...
How do you know that? Because he SAID so? He never worked outside being a pastor and later leader of the Way. May Way Corps found out just how little their "leadership" ability was worth on the open market a few years ago.
so I see him as having given up those motivations. I reject your judgement of his heart?s intentions.
Of course you do, as I reject yours.
I see those two words and all they entail, including all the moral man-made baggage you are capable of conjuring up, as utterly trivial and your preoccupation with them laughable.
I'm not preoccupied with them; just raising the question. I find the paragraph by you that I just quoted as insulting.
Any particular reason that you want to p*ss me off?
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
No, I have no reason, nor intention of pi$$ing you off. I have simply stated that this particular issue has no sway with me. You?re NOT just raising the question, you?re raising it over, and over, and over, along with others who bring up the same thing over, and over, and over. The reason you?re insulted is I have STRONGLY stated my stand, and you can be satisfied ONLY with me rolling over and saying ?Uncle.? Prepare for the frustration of no satisfaction, because it ain?t coming from me. If my being intractable to all you can conjure makes you insulted, prepare for more, because I?m not going to consider this issue any more, than I did ten years ago. I?m settled on it.
You wrote: ?Since (as I documented above) obeying man's laws IS obeying God's law (as long as they don't conflict), then we ARE NOT talking about two realms of activity?
I?m unimpressed with your documentation and with your argument.
The ?(as long as they don't conflict)? that you so casually dismiss is the whole point. They conflict. God wins. Period.
Commerce was not a part of the heart of the ministry. You are looking at the outward form. Same with the status trappings. Open your eyes to the greater reality of God intervening to give us His Word. Your protests are useless.
Money and status are what the world worships, and I learned how to not regard them under Dr?s ministry. I reject your judgement on these items. I have an access to his motives which you reject: his written words. You attempt to recall them, I re-read them. I see his heart and you don?t. Come and see.
quote:Your disapproval of God?s sneak attack on the adversary is as solid as Lindbergh?s pacifism. I suppose you tore Balaam?s prophecy out of your Bible, because he was dishonest. If not, please explain this double standard.
Let's examine your statement here. I disaprove of your contrived and imagined scenario which you declare by fiat and claim to be "God's sneak attack upon the adversary. I disapprove of your claiming to know what God told to VPW. Your tactic of trying to make me seem in opposition to God is obvious.
Now about Baalam. I doubt you have studied the record of Balaam very much if you are using Balaam as an example to prove Wierwille's fitness as a man of God and as the messenger of a new convenant from God to mankind. First, Balaam was not a prophet of Israel. He was no man of God . He may possibly have been a "prophet at large" at one time, but it is clear that he was a conjurer similar to Simon Magus at the time of the record in Numbers. He was in the curse for hire business. God told Balaam, that "thy way is perverse before me." God had no respect for Balaam's ways.
Anyway, Balaam disregards God's charge to him and goes with the princes of Moab, yet they had not called him first - as was God's requirement. So we have a pretty wicked, disobedient, conjurer here in Balaam.
So finally Balaam, knowing that he is not supposed to curse Israel goes up with Balak anyway hoping that somehow he can do it, but God prevents him and instead of a curse out comes a blessing. Not giving up and instead of telling Balak to take a hike, Balaam goes to another place with Balak, hoping that if he looks in a different direction that he can muster up a curse for Balak, but again God instead puts His words in Balaam's mouth. This happens once again and thus we have Balaam's Prophecy. It is a record of how God can, if He chooses, use evil and wicked people to further His ends. Is that your contention? If so then I agree. I also agree that inspite of Wierwille's wicked and perverse ways, that GOD was able to have some good come of his pathetic life. Just like with Balaam.
But Mike, God did not exalt Balaam to MOGFOT. Balaam was not made the king of Israel. Balaam did not write "scripture". Balaam was not entrusted with a new covenant. God did not make Balaam a teacher or apostle or entrust him with the spiritual nurturing of others. Everything that Balaam said was not mined for hidden messages. Balaam just went home - probably irked that he did not get the booty and status the he so desired. He was a minor player in a "ministry" most likely againt his will, that lasted for a few days. God intervened and constrained Balaam from doing his own will of cursing God's people for money and status, and then constrained Balaam to bring forth a blessing instead.
What I see here with Balaam is that wicked men, Balak and Balaam, conspired to do evil, and that God intervened and some good came of it. Arguably this is might be what happened with VPW.
So, Mike why would I want to tear this record of Balaam out of my Bible? It is a very poignant lesson. There is no double standard at all.
BTW , why are you appealing to OT scripture which according to you are "unreliable remnants." Now that does appear to be somewhat of a double standard.
quote:Matthew 12:43: When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
44: Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.
45: Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.
Pope Mike
quote: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.
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the Word of God..."
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
dizzydog
Website? No.
I find the best manner is still one on one, in the love of God with a full knowledge of the grace God has provided the sinner. Never from a superior position, without Christ I would still be an enemy of God.
Research for research sake is an empty shell of the abundant life provided by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Although I saw a very cool program called Bibleworks recently. 300 bucks but it might be worth it.
Nice to meet you as well, Danny.
[This message was edited by dizzydog on April 21, 2003 at 12:06.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
no mike
I do not pretend I am Jesus christ like you do, so i can t imagine nearly like you can.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf
You wrote: ?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.) ?
It is the case that Dr was totally up front with us (some will remember) about his ?authorship? and how he went from place to place, person to person to receive the things he taught. He told us that everything he knew he was taught. We assumed God was involved, but we also knew about Adv. Class Key #4, and that he worked the 5-senses approach. We were told that the origination of ideas is not a big deal in the CONTEXT of God?s family, because God was the real originator anyway. He not only told us about his adventures finding things and getting taught things by other men. but he also gave us their names verbally. He also sold some of those authors? books in his bookstore. For us sharp kids who were there, the EXPECTATATION was properly set. Anyone who thinks these many verbal disclaimers were insufficient will have a hard time getting me to pick them on my sandlot team to play baseball.
You then wrote: ?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.?
No, I was trying to say that many grads were (and still are) in the category of spiritual babies.
You then wrote: ?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.?
Why not keep it simple then. God said look over at that book. ?Copy this set of paragraphs, but change this and that.? After that scenario, I?m satisfied. You can take your morals and apply them any way you want, but I?m not buying it. He did the right thing. It helped thousands. Still does. I?m glad he did it. Your moralizing on this bores me, and I will not bee moved.
You then wrote: ?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??
Inncorecto AGAIN! Are you in some kind of contest to see who gets me wrong the most? Think it through with heart logic, not the constricted thoughts you display.
Tell me this, HOW could Dr go out there and get all this wisdom (or partial wisdom) from all these different places, and then I come along and say something as stupid as you just described? There?s LOTS of wisdom out there, it?s just partial in one place and mixed with disabling error in another. Dr was the first in 2000 years that got it, BY GOD?S HELP, all together so that we could do it.
Tell me this, HOW could there be that entry on the green card about separating truth from error, if there?s no truth out there to do the separating ON?
Why don?t you think these things through? Is it because you think I don?t think them through, and that sooner or later you?ll find a contradiction in my story? You still haven?t answered me why you want a ?better? definition of ?master.? Do you think I forgot? I also have been dishing out the questions, and I expect answers. Why do you believe the Bible? Do you believe it? Answers! Answers! Cough ?em up!
You wrote: ?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.?
Like I said, I?m bored with that one. Tell me what you think of Deut.29:29.
How can you say ?normally evade? with a clear conscience? We?ll see how many questions you answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
The core books (PFAL, RHST) the five collateral books, JCNG, ADAN, and the two Jesus Christ Books (JCOP, JCPS) have been bootlegged into electronic PDF files, even down to the typesetting. Ask around on the more PFAL-friendly ex-Way websites if you really want them. I don't know who produced them, and I don't know anyone who distributes them now, but they are out there.
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the Word of God..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
All right, Mike, tell you what. I'll show you how it's done. I will answer ONE question from you. No dodging, no evasion, no circular arguments. Make it a good one.
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the Word of God..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
MJ,
We are supposed to imitate Christ and do the work he did. Do you try? Do you not like it when I try? Who are you being loving to in your life? You can try that here, you know.
Dan,
Dan, your idea of unsupervised reading of the materials is exactly what I've been proposing. The yellowing of the paper will soon be a thing of the past. I?ve heard a steady stream of rumors for almost ten years now, that there are MANY grads feeding the books into computers all over the globe. Just like the video class was practically driven into the public domain when TWI started stonewalling bigtime in 1988, the closing of the bookstore sent many more people to computer stores for the latest OCR and scanning software and hardware. Just a few months ago, a poster here reported having received an unsolicited CD in the mail with all of Dr?s books on it. I predict that at least ten such CDs will be floating around for the takers in no time.
Dizzydog,
You wrote: ?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.?
God = the hero
VPW= the man
I?ll buy that. Hey! I?ve already BOUGHT that, long ago, and post to that effect too. You STOLE my idea!!!
Yes, I know God will feed to fill the hunger. Unfortunately the adversary?s got many thinking that there?s ONLY so much available, so they never cultivate their hunger to the maximum. It would seem like sin, if they?re not properly taught. So, God WANTS to feed men even more than they want. This limits God?s ability to deliver.
Another thing that limits God here is that HE needs to find a man who can not only teach maximum receiving from God, this teacher must OF COURSE be able to receive the teaching directly from God, with no printed backup, if he?s the first to hear this.
God had a hard time getting the mystery through to Peter directly, and HE STILL had a hard time after it got through to Paul and was put into written form. Big ideas are not so easy for God to teach directly. Once God finds one man who is capable of receiving a big revelation into writing, then others can more easily follow by reading it. Paul says this in Ephesians and Colossians, that he was the ONLY one to get it directly, but by reading we can get it now by rising up to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Zixar,
Which one should I ask?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Zixar,
Looks like you beat me to the punch on e-books info. I've done a little asking around, but not enough yet. It looks inevitable that those things will be all around in the near future. The ONE hang-up I see are inaccuracies. Have you ever tried proofreading? It?s HARD! The scanning and OCR are very easy, but the formatting is not so easy. I tried a chapter once, and it took much longer than I expected. Then the proofreading got more than tedious. Some people can do that better than others, but I fear some will do a bad job, and there?ll be all sorts of variant readings. Sounds like the first century fragments all over again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Mike:
My replies to you are in bold print. You original comments are left within the quote lines in regular type.
So you are saying it's alright then?
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 20:51.]
[This message was edited by Oakspear on April 21, 2003 at 20:54.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Mike, on Wierwille's plagiarism
So now GOD'S a plagiarist!
shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
mama mia
mike:
ohmygoshi don't believe i've ever been possessed with devil spirits of revenge, but hey would i know it if i also had devil spirits of delusion
oh and those raging spirits ? god gave me a shrink with an open mind ? so i transferred them over ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dizzydog
Mike, you wrote:
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.
__________________
Was Jesus Christ a part of any of this? You declared that you spent two solid years fighting off ds. The last I read we cannot deal with spiritual matters with the flesh. How does this post help that person reading here who is struggling with such challenges find deliverance. If he looked at your example he would think he would have to fight them off himself.
The post I copied this from is all about what you have done or had to do. No flesh is is capable of finding its own deliverance, before or after the new birth.
But there it is, YOU did it. Jesus Christ is noticeably absent from your numerous posts. Sorta reminded me of athletes of the spirit. I guess you want people to learn about VPW before they learn about Jesus Christ.
Cut the crap Mike. The thing you should be feeding on is God's Word, specifically Romans. You have forgotten, if you ever knew, the state of man before Christ and the subsequent need for Gods' grace. God did not make one believer more equipped than anyone else and your story of deliverance draws attention to only one man, you.
[This message was edited by dizzydog on April 21, 2003 at 16:18.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
so Mike, I get it!!!
Mike makes the rules, as he goes along. That's how your "mastery" works.****
*********************
Ya know, in the past few months I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I now find you to be equally as dishonest, intellectually as vic-en-heimer. And you have one-upped him, to boot, in fanciful and far-flung premises...
You and I differ on this, bud-- I may believe I am right about certain things....BUT... I am equally willing to learn, to see where I may have been in error or had incomplete knowledge. Not you--Mike is apparently ALWAYS right and has NOTHING to learn here!!
Mike---buzz off! take a hike!! Your story has been told, we get it. We just don't buy it. You are sadly deluded--I pray for your eyes to be opened to your excuses and twisted reasonings to support vic's mish-mash of "borrowings" from all and sundry....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Mike:
Questions that I raised in my last post (other than the request for a Cliff's Notes version of your questions to DD and Zix) are rhetorical in nature, so don't stress out about answering them, okay?
In fact, if you don't want to take the time to condense a version for me, I'll understand; but otherwise I just don't have the time to wade through those long posts.
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
Zixar
Preferably one which would not have wasted your sole opportunity.
-->
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the Word of God..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oakspear,
I see the non-footnoted books as a bigger deal than you. In this view the importance of these books eclipses the kingdom of man. I said long ago in my posting efforts here that I have NO PROBLEM with the issues raised here or elsewhere about plagiarism or copyright infringement.
Those two words (plagiarism or copyright infringement) belong to entirely different and distantly separate arenas of activity than the one Dr ministered in. Commerce and Academia were NOT a part of Dr's ministry to us. Dr didn?t do it for the money nor the status. He could have gotten MUCH more elsewhere, so I see him as having given up those motivations. I reject your judgement of his heart?s intentions.
I see those two words and all they entail, including all the moral man-made baggage you are capable of conjuring up, as utterly trivial and your preoccupation with them laughable.
Now there is another area where I feel some similar sentiments... and some not similar. When people talk of Dr?s so called violations of this ethics area of plagiarism or copyright infringement I REALLY blow off the charges with little thought. Not so in the area of the sex accusations. There I know that more is involved, and damage is much more serious, because people?s hearts are involved. I?m very focused when people hurt in the sex area, but these issues with Dr and other authors bores me silly. People who have benefited greatly don?t give a hoot about the footnotes. Neither do I.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Mike Posted:
Oh, you there Mike? I should have known. It must be grand being privy to the conversations between God and VPW.Now, according to Mike, we have God himself telling VPW to plaigerize the works of others. God told VPW to break the law ( plaigerism is illegal) and to despense with professional ethics (morals).
Then Mike adds:
According to Mike, VPW's breaking of the the law is doing the right thing. VPW's casting aside of ethics and morals is doing the right thing. But let's not forget, God told VPW to do it - because it would help thousands.I wonder what other laws or moral and ethical codes God told VPW to break? I suppose it must have been God who told VPW is was the "right thing to do" when he used his position of authority to sexually abuse women or to commit adultery. After all, if VPW could not get his needs met at home in his marriage, then adultery and other forms of illicit sex were the only possible way to get his sexual needs met. VPW certainly could not have "helped thousands" if his "sexual needs" were not met. So I suppose that we should be "glad he did it" eh Mike? It was the right thing to do, huh?
Mike, since you seem to know exactly what God told VPW about plaigerizing Stiles, Bullinger, and Leonard, why don't you tell us what God told VPW right before he commited sexual abuse, rape, or adultery?
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Goey,
You seem to have missed the part where I said any and all of the permutations COULD be the case. I don?t care about the exact mechanics or the exact conversations. I offered one possibility. So drop that line of inquiry; it?s a dead end for you.
As far as morals, you have completely ignored my often stated observance of GOD?S ultimate ownership of everything in this world, both physical and mental. Since you completely ignore this, I feel very free to completely ignore you pompous moralizing.
Your copyrighteous indignation will not deter me from respecting the work that God in injecting His Word into the world. Your disapproval of God?s sneak attack on the adversary is as solid as Lindbergh?s pacifism. I suppose you tore Balaam?s prophecy out of your Bible, because he was dishonest. If not, please explain this double standard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Zixar,
Please feel free to answer any of the questions I've asked the others here.
It's very instructive to examine fundamental assumptions and beliefs. Our belief in the original Bible is about the most basic belief we have.
Strengthening it by close examination is spiritually profitable. However this forum may not be the best place for everyone to do it. The adversarial atmosphere is not the most conducive to successfully answering that question. I somewhat understand why no one wants to answer it here, and with me.
However, it?s good to think about on one?s own, at the very least.
I?ve been adversarial about presenting this question, but upon discussion, I?d be a strong proponent of the original Bible being the perfect, pure God-breathed Word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
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
Oakspear,
No, I have no reason, nor intention of pi$$ing you off. I have simply stated that this particular issue has no sway with me. You?re NOT just raising the question, you?re raising it over, and over, and over, along with others who bring up the same thing over, and over, and over. The reason you?re insulted is I have STRONGLY stated my stand, and you can be satisfied ONLY with me rolling over and saying ?Uncle.? Prepare for the frustration of no satisfaction, because it ain?t coming from me. If my being intractable to all you can conjure makes you insulted, prepare for more, because I?m not going to consider this issue any more, than I did ten years ago. I?m settled on it.
You wrote: ?Since (as I documented above) obeying man's laws IS obeying God's law (as long as they don't conflict), then we ARE NOT talking about two realms of activity?
I?m unimpressed with your documentation and with your argument.
The ?(as long as they don't conflict)? that you so casually dismiss is the whole point. They conflict. God wins. Period.
Commerce was not a part of the heart of the ministry. You are looking at the outward form. Same with the status trappings. Open your eyes to the greater reality of God intervening to give us His Word. Your protests are useless.
Money and status are what the world worships, and I learned how to not regard them under Dr?s ministry. I reject your judgement on these items. I have an access to his motives which you reject: his written words. You attempt to recall them, I re-read them. I see his heart and you don?t. Come and see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Mike,
You posted to me:
Let's examine your statement here. I disaprove of your contrived and imagined scenario which you declare by fiat and claim to be "God's sneak attack upon the adversary. I disapprove of your claiming to know what God told to VPW. Your tactic of trying to make me seem in opposition to God is obvious.
Now about Baalam. I doubt you have studied the record of Balaam very much if you are using Balaam as an example to prove Wierwille's fitness as a man of God and as the messenger of a new convenant from God to mankind. First, Balaam was not a prophet of Israel. He was no man of God . He may possibly have been a "prophet at large" at one time, but it is clear that he was a conjurer similar to Simon Magus at the time of the record in Numbers. He was in the curse for hire business. God told Balaam, that "thy way is perverse before me." God had no respect for Balaam's ways.
Anyway, Balaam disregards God's charge to him and goes with the princes of Moab, yet they had not called him first - as was God's requirement. So we have a pretty wicked, disobedient, conjurer here in Balaam.
So finally Balaam, knowing that he is not supposed to curse Israel goes up with Balak anyway hoping that somehow he can do it, but God prevents him and instead of a curse out comes a blessing. Not giving up and instead of telling Balak to take a hike, Balaam goes to another place with Balak, hoping that if he looks in a different direction that he can muster up a curse for Balak, but again God instead puts His words in Balaam's mouth. This happens once again and thus we have Balaam's Prophecy. It is a record of how God can, if He chooses, use evil and wicked people to further His ends. Is that your contention? If so then I agree. I also agree that inspite of Wierwille's wicked and perverse ways, that GOD was able to have some good come of his pathetic life. Just like with Balaam.
But Mike, God did not exalt Balaam to MOGFOT. Balaam was not made the king of Israel. Balaam did not write "scripture". Balaam was not entrusted with a new covenant. God did not make Balaam a teacher or apostle or entrust him with the spiritual nurturing of others. Everything that Balaam said was not mined for hidden messages. Balaam just went home - probably irked that he did not get the booty and status the he so desired. He was a minor player in a "ministry" most likely againt his will, that lasted for a few days. God intervened and constrained Balaam from doing his own will of cursing God's people for money and status, and then constrained Balaam to bring forth a blessing instead.
What I see here with Balaam is that wicked men, Balak and Balaam, conspired to do evil, and that God intervened and some good came of it. Arguably this is might be what happened with VPW.
So, Mike why would I want to tear this record of Balaam out of my Bible? It is a very poignant lesson. There is no double standard at all.
BTW , why are you appealing to OT scripture which according to you are "unreliable remnants." Now that does appear to be somewhat of a double standard.
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dizzydog
Well said Goey.
Dont be surprised by Mike's answer. He will not acknowledge when he is wrong.
We could quote the whole Bible and repeat everything VPW ever said to Mike and he would still assert he is right and everyone else is wrong.
It is all subject to Mike's interpretation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Compare and contrast:
King James
Pope Mike
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the Word of God..."
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.