I never said I was PAID for research by an institution.
You're also jumping to concussions about my places of employment.
For the past 23 years I?ve been cleaning windows, as I have stated here on GS. I?ve also worked for institutiuonal pay in the field of electronics up to Sr. technician level at an atom smasher, also avionics, also telephonics, also audio tape, also steam turbines... all without a degree. In the 1990?s I participated in weekly 2 hour small classroom sized meetings for 7 years run by several internationally known scientists. I?m willing to tell you their names on the telephone.
[This message was edited by Mike on May 29, 2003 at 19:39.]
Just so that we can get back to the CHOSEN topic of farts, I searched my memory and my postings.
Once ?igotout? questioned me about having a degree. I called him on the phone that day and told him I NEVER stated on Grease Spot in any way that I had a degree.
Then I posted to the same effect a few days later, just in case anyone else assumed I had a degree. I wanted to up front and totally honest with this, just like everything else. I realize it requires computer savvy to search for these posts on a board like GS with thousands of other posts, but I did put it in the record once, and now twice.
Here?s what igotout posted, and then what I posted:
?When I finished my WOW year in 1983, the WOW vet teaching we got was to maintain the WOW lifestyle. I have done this ever since. It's the reason I clean windows alone with no employees, it's the reason I clean windows instead of finishing my Physics degrees and teaching at the university level. It's the reason I started gently confronting leadership in 1983.?
posted by Mike on March 14, 2003 8:34
on ?Why Entertain Lovers of PFAL and VPW???? page 2
EWB - I also was involved with spiritualism when I first took PFAL. I had reached a stage where I realized that the spirits would tell me whatever they thought I wanted to hear. The question on my heart was, "How can I find out what's true, if they're only going to say what they think I want to hear?" PFAL convinced me that the Word of God really is an objective standard for judging the truth of spiritual matters.
For years of my involvement with TWI and for years afterward, I unthinkingly accepted TWI's explanation of spiritual matters. It's only been within the past couple of years that I've begun to question the whole spiritual/senses dichotomy taught in PFAL. The spirits are real, and they have some abilities that we cannot at present duplicate, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that they are just as much a part of the "natural" cosmos as we are. I no longer think that it's necessary to interpret the Word of God to mean that there are two realms, one natural and another spiritual, and that "spiritual" laws supercede "natural" laws. I still regard the Word of God as the objective standard for judging spiritual truth, but I no longer regard PFAL as a standard for judging the Word of God.
From now on, if anybody comes up to me and tells me that there is an invisible world, and that they are the only ones who can open it up to me, I'm going to do regard them as frauds until they prove otherwise, and not with stage-magicians' conjuring tricks, either.
Mike - Welcome back. The kitchen hasn't been the same without you. I hope you can stand the heat a little longer this time
In the real world, when a person puts himself forward as a candidate for mastery in some particular field of knowledge, he isn't just required to write a thesis. He is also required to defend his thesis before a hostile jury. If the candidate can successfully defend his thesis, he is considered to have mastered the material.
Evasion of questions and rationalizations of error are signs that the candidate has not mastered the material, and cannot successfully defend his thesis.
With those things being stated, in your post of April, 01, 2003, 00:19, on this thread, as part of your thesis, you quoted extensively from pages 23-25 of "The Bible Tells Me So". You included the following sentence in that quote.
"As there are four kingdoms in this world, and one supercedes the other: the plant kingdom, animal kingdom, kingdom of man and the Kingdom of God; so, there is a natural world and a supernatural or spiritual world."
My first question is this, in what way do these kingdoms supercede each other, such that their supercession can be used as an illustration of how the supernatural world supercedes the natural world?
The animal kingdom has growth life plus soul life.
The kingdom of man has body, soul and spirit.
The kingdom of God is where the ?Christ Formed In You? teaching, posted on an earlier page on this thread, comes into play.
The conception of a human can progress through all of these. From conception to birth to receiving pneuma hagion to forming Christ within.
Forming Christ within is the perfectly renewed mind. It?s forming Christ?s mind in the soul. This is the stage we didn?t mature to see during Dr?s lifetime. It?s the part of his ubiquitously hidden teaching that was TOTALLY hidden from us. Until now.
The credence in my message is that we ALL did once believe the PFAL message.
Anyone who wants world based credentials of my own is out of luck.
In other words, I?ll only tolerate so much discussion of me before I steer things back to the topic some want to run away from, that we are not finished receiving what God taught Dr and Dr taught us in written form.
You might also review the context. I was not seeking to post my credentials above, merely to establish that I have NOT made false claims.
It also establishes the fact that my message, though often attacked, is rarely read with precision and thoroughness. It?ll be interesting to see who will be next to play home detective and dig up some ?dirt? on me. As long as people go after me they demonstrate to all readers that they cannot deal with my message, and so attack the messenger. In a sense, my minor bruises from such skirmishes are my credentials.
Mike - Thank you for your prompt and concise answer. Your thinking makes much more sense to me now. Looking back, I see you've said the same thing over and over, but the parts were scattered through so many lengthy and complex postings, I didn't see how they fit together.
I want to explore more deeply your interpretation of the simile Wierwille drew to illustrate how the spirit realm supercedes the natural realm, but, since your understanding is conditioned by your interpretation of his "Christ Formed In You" teaching, I want to study that teaching more deeply before proceeding. I think I'll be ready to pick up again early next week.
May I suggest this? Instead of your plan to ?explore more deeply your [MY] interpretation of the simile Wierwille drew...? might you instead explore more deeply exactly what Dr wrote? That?s what I?m repeating over and over, that we come back to the actual text of PFAL instead of our memories. I?m a student of this material, not an authoritative interpreter.
There are lots more places where Dr overtly brings up this dichotomy, and there are many, MANY more places where he simply and briefly UTILIZES key words that emphasize one side or the other of the dichotomy. We should more deeply explore NOT my interpretations of all this, but the actual text. It?s the difference between reading the Word and reading around the Word.
Instead of being your interpreter, I?ll be your tour guide, with many page references to discuss.
I'm not sorry, I feel the same way you do. And I like your pic...
Mike,
So what?
You talk like none of us knew that VPW saw a physical and spiritual side to everything. Shoot -- we all saw life that way in TWI. Your big news is no news.
It's news when you come back and read the books AGAIN. By paying closer attention to the long list of words I posted much earlier, then more can be learned from the books.
I'll get to some examples of where this key is useful one of these days. I have in the past applied this key in posts before this thread existed, and the usefulness of the key was not seen. Maybe I'll find a few of them and re-present them.
I disagree. My posts are often poorly read, or not read at all by you both. Many others here exhibit similar low levels of precision in the way they receive my words, and as I see, low levels of precision in the way they received Dr's too.
[This message was edited by Mike on May 29, 2003 at 11:42.]
quote:I disagree. My posts are often poorly read, or not read at all by you both. Many others here exhibit similar low levels of precision in the way they receive my words, and as I see, low levels of precision in the way they received Dr's too.
Oh, and it couldn't possiby be the lack of precision and wishy-washy way in which you deliver your words? - Like using 1,000 words trying to make a point that could be made with 50 or less? No, it couldn't anything like that - now could it?
Goey
"Many of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
[This message was edited by Goey on May 29, 2003 at 12:41.]
Geeze Mike, it ISN`T that we have a low level of preception of your words, it is that we see all TOO clearly what you ARE promoting....
As a matter of fact...I believe that we CLEARLY percieve what you are saying, even BETTER than you yourself....and thereby are capable of discerning the spiritual counterfit that you are attempting to entice us into entertaining.....
[This message was edited by rascal on May 29, 2003 at 13:39.]
...and since you were the one who once accused me of saying something I didn't say, I think you are the wrong one to worry about a lack of thoroughness.
Occasional mistakes can easily be remedied by restating your position, Mike, not by painting us with some kind of "Jane, you ignorant sl**" brush. In fact, restating your position if you feel we have misunderstood you would sure save a lot of keystrokes spent criticizing our imprecision.
Mike - You wrote, "May I suggest this? Instead of your plan to 'explore more deeply your [MY] interpretation of the simile Wierwille drew...' might you explore more deeply exactly what Dr. wrote."
This is exactly what "Dr." wrote, "As there are four kingdoms in this world, and one supercedes the other: the plant kingdom, animal kingdom, kingdom of man and the Kingdom of God; so, there is a natural world and a supernatural or spiritual world."
I asked, "In what way do these kingdoms supercede each other, such that their supercession can be used as an illustration of how the supernatural world supercedes the natural world?"
You replied, "The plant kingdom has growth life (body). The animal kingdom has growth life plus soul life. The kingdom of man has body, soul and spirit. The kingdom of God is where the 'Christ Formed In You' teaching posted on an earlier page on this thread, comes into play."
So you see, my friend, we cannot explore what *you* say about PFAL without exploring *your interpretation* of what Wierwille wrote.
Your interpretation of Wierwille's simile falls short in three ways.
First, you interpret the supercession of the kingdoms as a progression from "growth life" to "soul life" to "body, soul and spirit" to "Christ formed within". However, you don't demonstrate how this progression teaches us anything about the supernatural world superceding the natural world.
Second, by injecting your ideas about "Christ formed within" into your interpretation, you've created a circular explanation. In your introduction to the "Christ Formed In You" teaching (posted April 13, 2003, 16:13, on this thread) you wrote, "This teaching depends heavily on an understanding of the Natural/Factual versus the Spiritual/True." We can't understand "Christ formed within" without understanding the supercession of worlds. We can't understand the supercession of worlds without understanding "Christ formed within". Do you see how you've caught your own tail in a recursive loop?
Third, your explanation doesn't make any sense on the face of it. If the kingdom of man includes spirit (as in "body, soul and spirit"), then at least part of the spirit world is a subset of the kingdom of man. If the kingdom of man is a subset of the natural world, then how can the spiritual world supercede the natural world?
So... what meaning exactly are we to come away with, when we read exactly what Wierwille wrote?
I'll probably be off line until early next week. See you then!
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
Mike
I've stated here that I do NOT have a degree.
No degree in ANYTHING!
This shows how close you both have been paying attention.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
So, without a degree in ANYTHING,
you found a place willing to employ you doing
"thirty years of research in quantum physics
INCLUDING THE MATH". (Emphasis yours.)
I openly challenge THAT happened, then.
BTW,
if you are under 45,
that means that you started younger than age 15,
and have just finished doing that research.
If you are 50, you started at age 18 and
stopped to years ago. (Or just stopped and
started at age 20.)
----------------------------------------------
Unless you have your own special definition of
"research" or "30 years". Was that it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
Please recalibrate.
My age is 54.
I never said I was PAID for research by an institution.
You're also jumping to concussions about my places of employment.
For the past 23 years I?ve been cleaning windows, as I have stated here on GS. I?ve also worked for institutiuonal pay in the field of electronics up to Sr. technician level at an atom smasher, also avionics, also telephonics, also audio tape, also steam turbines... all without a degree. In the 1990?s I participated in weekly 2 hour small classroom sized meetings for 7 years run by several internationally known scientists. I?m willing to tell you their names on the telephone.
[This message was edited by Mike on May 29, 2003 at 19:39.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Just so that we can get back to the CHOSEN topic of farts, I searched my memory and my postings.
Once ?igotout? questioned me about having a degree. I called him on the phone that day and told him I NEVER stated on Grease Spot in any way that I had a degree.
Then I posted to the same effect a few days later, just in case anyone else assumed I had a degree. I wanted to up front and totally honest with this, just like everything else. I realize it requires computer savvy to search for these posts on a board like GS with thousands of other posts, but I did put it in the record once, and now twice.
Here?s what igotout posted, and then what I posted:
****************************************************
?Mike - now you've done it! Now I am going to start a whole website called "Mikewille".
Be warned. You will be outed and exposed.
Where did you claim your degree came from? Hmmmmm ... we must look into that for starters.?
posted by igotout on March 11, 2003 21:12
on ?Dr?s Last Teaching ? Lost for 17 Years!? page 11
****************************************************
?When I finished my WOW year in 1983, the WOW vet teaching we got was to maintain the WOW lifestyle. I have done this ever since. It's the reason I clean windows alone with no employees, it's the reason I clean windows instead of finishing my Physics degrees and teaching at the university level. It's the reason I started gently confronting leadership in 1983.?
posted by Mike on March 14, 2003 8:34
on ?Why Entertain Lovers of PFAL and VPW???? page 2
****************************************************
I don?t need no stinking credentials! Please pass the beans.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
EWB - I also was involved with spiritualism when I first took PFAL. I had reached a stage where I realized that the spirits would tell me whatever they thought I wanted to hear. The question on my heart was, "How can I find out what's true, if they're only going to say what they think I want to hear?" PFAL convinced me that the Word of God really is an objective standard for judging the truth of spiritual matters.
For years of my involvement with TWI and for years afterward, I unthinkingly accepted TWI's explanation of spiritual matters. It's only been within the past couple of years that I've begun to question the whole spiritual/senses dichotomy taught in PFAL. The spirits are real, and they have some abilities that we cannot at present duplicate, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that they are just as much a part of the "natural" cosmos as we are. I no longer think that it's necessary to interpret the Word of God to mean that there are two realms, one natural and another spiritual, and that "spiritual" laws supercede "natural" laws. I still regard the Word of God as the objective standard for judging spiritual truth, but I no longer regard PFAL as a standard for judging the Word of God.
From now on, if anybody comes up to me and tells me that there is an invisible world, and that they are the only ones who can open it up to me, I'm going to do regard them as frauds until they prove otherwise, and not with stage-magicians' conjuring tricks, either.
Mike - Welcome back. The kitchen hasn't been the same without you. I hope you can stand the heat a little longer this time
In the real world, when a person puts himself forward as a candidate for mastery in some particular field of knowledge, he isn't just required to write a thesis. He is also required to defend his thesis before a hostile jury. If the candidate can successfully defend his thesis, he is considered to have mastered the material.
Evasion of questions and rationalizations of error are signs that the candidate has not mastered the material, and cannot successfully defend his thesis.
With those things being stated, in your post of April, 01, 2003, 00:19, on this thread, as part of your thesis, you quoted extensively from pages 23-25 of "The Bible Tells Me So". You included the following sentence in that quote.
"As there are four kingdoms in this world, and one supercedes the other: the plant kingdom, animal kingdom, kingdom of man and the Kingdom of God; so, there is a natural world and a supernatural or spiritual world."
My first question is this, in what way do these kingdoms supercede each other, such that their supercession can be used as an illustration of how the supernatural world supercedes the natural world?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Jesus Christ came in the flesh and had a ministry on earth, the 5-senses realm.
Now he's in the spiritual realm, in a better or superceding ministry, seated at the right hand of God.
**********
Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
[This message was edited by Mike on May 28, 2003 at 4:00.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The plant kingdom has growth life (body).
The animal kingdom has growth life plus soul life.
The kingdom of man has body, soul and spirit.
The kingdom of God is where the ?Christ Formed In You? teaching, posted on an earlier page on this thread, comes into play.
The conception of a human can progress through all of these. From conception to birth to receiving pneuma hagion to forming Christ within.
Forming Christ within is the perfectly renewed mind. It?s forming Christ?s mind in the soul. This is the stage we didn?t mature to see during Dr?s lifetime. It?s the part of his ubiquitously hidden teaching that was TOTALLY hidden from us. Until now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Steve, I'm betting you catch what I saw in
the last post, in answer to your question.
Since it's your question, I'll let you address
it, though.
:)-->
---------------------------------------------
Mike, for now, I'll drop the discussion of
credentials, training, education and experience,
mainly because, at present, it's not going to
enhance the discussions. Keep in mind that I
reserve the right to do so if it becomes
germane to any thread. (Like someone claiming
qualifications.) It's certainly not because
I thought your answer addressed my question.
For now, I can agree to "table" it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Agreed, Wordwolf. Mike's listing of his "credentials" could be read so many different ways that his list doesn't mean much, as written.
Moving on, but taking note that Mike still can't write a simple answer to a simple question...
shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The credence in my message is that we ALL did once believe the PFAL message.
Anyone who wants world based credentials of my own is out of luck.
In other words, I?ll only tolerate so much discussion of me before I steer things back to the topic some want to run away from, that we are not finished receiving what God taught Dr and Dr taught us in written form.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf and Shazdancer,
You might also review the context. I was not seeking to post my credentials above, merely to establish that I have NOT made false claims.
It also establishes the fact that my message, though often attacked, is rarely read with precision and thoroughness. It?ll be interesting to see who will be next to play home detective and dig up some ?dirt? on me. As long as people go after me they demonstrate to all readers that they cannot deal with my message, and so attack the messenger. In a sense, my minor bruises from such skirmishes are my credentials.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Mike - Thank you for your prompt and concise answer. Your thinking makes much more sense to me now. Looking back, I see you've said the same thing over and over, but the parts were scattered through so many lengthy and complex postings, I didn't see how they fit together.
I want to explore more deeply your interpretation of the simile Wierwille drew to illustrate how the spirit realm supercedes the natural realm, but, since your understanding is conditioned by your interpretation of his "Christ Formed In You" teaching, I want to study that teaching more deeply before proceeding. I think I'll be ready to pick up again early next week.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Steve,
May I suggest this? Instead of your plan to ?explore more deeply your [MY] interpretation of the simile Wierwille drew...? might you instead explore more deeply exactly what Dr wrote? That?s what I?m repeating over and over, that we come back to the actual text of PFAL instead of our memories. I?m a student of this material, not an authoritative interpreter.
There are lots more places where Dr overtly brings up this dichotomy, and there are many, MANY more places where he simply and briefly UTILIZES key words that emphasize one side or the other of the dichotomy. We should more deeply explore NOT my interpretations of all this, but the actual text. It?s the difference between reading the Word and reading around the Word.
Instead of being your interpreter, I?ll be your tour guide, with many page references to discuss.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
mikey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i'm sorry, i think
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Dear exy,
I'm not sorry, I feel the same way you do. And I like your pic...
Mike,
So what?
You talk like none of us knew that VPW saw a physical and spiritual side to everything. Shoot -- we all saw life that way in TWI. Your big news is no news.
shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Shaz and Exy,
It's news when you come back and read the books AGAIN. By paying closer attention to the long list of words I posted much earlier, then more can be learned from the books.
I'll get to some examples of where this key is useful one of these days. I have in the past applied this key in posts before this thread existed, and the usefulness of the key was not seen. Maybe I'll find a few of them and re-present them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Uh,
No, Mike, it's NOT news.
Many of us ARE quite capable of reading with
comprehension, and have been doing so for
years.
(Even when material isn't quite up to scratch.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
hi shaz
you're right
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf and Exy,
I disagree. My posts are often poorly read, or not read at all by you both. Many others here exhibit similar low levels of precision in the way they receive my words, and as I see, low levels of precision in the way they received Dr's too.
[This message was edited by Mike on May 29, 2003 at 11:42.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Mike Posted:
Oh, and it couldn't possiby be the lack of precision and wishy-washy way in which you deliver your words? - Like using 1,000 words trying to make a point that could be made with 50 or less? No, it couldn't anything like that - now could it?
Goey
"Many of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
[This message was edited by Goey on May 29, 2003 at 12:41.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Geeze Mike, it ISN`T that we have a low level of preception of your words, it is that we see all TOO clearly what you ARE promoting....
As a matter of fact...I believe that we CLEARLY percieve what you are saying, even BETTER than you yourself....and thereby are capable of discerning the spiritual counterfit that you are attempting to entice us into entertaining.....
[This message was edited by rascal on May 29, 2003 at 13:39.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
...and since you were the one who once accused me of saying something I didn't say, I think you are the wrong one to worry about a lack of thoroughness.
Occasional mistakes can easily be remedied by restating your position, Mike, not by painting us with some kind of "Jane, you ignorant sl**" brush. In fact, restating your position if you feel we have misunderstood you would sure save a lot of keystrokes spent criticizing our imprecision.
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Mike - You wrote, "May I suggest this? Instead of your plan to 'explore more deeply your [MY] interpretation of the simile Wierwille drew...' might you explore more deeply exactly what Dr. wrote."
This is exactly what "Dr." wrote, "As there are four kingdoms in this world, and one supercedes the other: the plant kingdom, animal kingdom, kingdom of man and the Kingdom of God; so, there is a natural world and a supernatural or spiritual world."
I asked, "In what way do these kingdoms supercede each other, such that their supercession can be used as an illustration of how the supernatural world supercedes the natural world?"
You replied, "The plant kingdom has growth life (body). The animal kingdom has growth life plus soul life. The kingdom of man has body, soul and spirit. The kingdom of God is where the 'Christ Formed In You' teaching posted on an earlier page on this thread, comes into play."
So you see, my friend, we cannot explore what *you* say about PFAL without exploring *your interpretation* of what Wierwille wrote.
Your interpretation of Wierwille's simile falls short in three ways.
First, you interpret the supercession of the kingdoms as a progression from "growth life" to "soul life" to "body, soul and spirit" to "Christ formed within". However, you don't demonstrate how this progression teaches us anything about the supernatural world superceding the natural world.
Second, by injecting your ideas about "Christ formed within" into your interpretation, you've created a circular explanation. In your introduction to the "Christ Formed In You" teaching (posted April 13, 2003, 16:13, on this thread) you wrote, "This teaching depends heavily on an understanding of the Natural/Factual versus the Spiritual/True." We can't understand "Christ formed within" without understanding the supercession of worlds. We can't understand the supercession of worlds without understanding "Christ formed within". Do you see how you've caught your own tail in a recursive loop?
Third, your explanation doesn't make any sense on the face of it. If the kingdom of man includes spirit (as in "body, soul and spirit"), then at least part of the spirit world is a subset of the kingdom of man. If the kingdom of man is a subset of the natural world, then how can the spiritual world supercede the natural world?
So... what meaning exactly are we to come away with, when we read exactly what Wierwille wrote?
I'll probably be off line until early next week. See you then!
Love,
Steve
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.