There was no blurring...simply a beligerent demand by Craig to swear loyalty to him.... do it or be flushed down the toilet spiritually.
There was no room for confusion, noone was permited to question.....LCM made it quite specific.
Course it was the best thing that ever happened to us... we knew JUST what kind of mog he was when he stated *and DON`T give me any of that loyalty to God crap* ...
He was a moron ... I think vp really showed how out to lunch he was spiritually, in his choice of such a buffoon as his successor.
Here?s a short answer to your long post. I may have more time later too.
Your conclusion (with my ALL-CAPS) was: ?In the whole paragraph, Wierwille places HIS OWN writings squarely in among the writings of the other men.?
I agree. For HIS OWN writings, they were squarely in among the writings of the other men and NOT God-breathed. But for writings that technically bear his name, but were NOT really HIS OWN but God?s revelation (sometimes via other men like Kenyon), THEN we have some exceptional writings indeed in PFAL.
If ALL of what Wierwille wrote was not God-breathed, then the phrase ?not all? could not be used. It was used.
*************
BTW, when we get down to some of the finer points in grammar, we will find that there is no authoritative authority as to what they are.
Like there are no authoritative definitions for English words, there is no authoritative ?last word? on the finer rules of grammar. For fine definitions we must look to DOCTOR?S vocabulary above the various competing ?official? dictionary publications. For finer grammar we must look to how DOCTOR?S use of certain finer rules plays out above the various competing ?Manuals of Style? a few big newspapers seem to have generated.
I don?t see things being bent in any way out of shape with my handling of page 82. It fits seamlessly with all the other things Dr said and wrote. Because I decided to run with PFAL unreservedly in 1998, it?s EASY for me to see no problem at all with this page. It even CONFIRMS things from my perspective.
I count this page as one of the bigger, more overt, of the 90 ?Thus saith the Lord? statements I?ve found of Dr?s. When the divine inspiration is accepted in many clear statements of Dr?s, then page 82 is very easy to see as confirmatory, not contradictory.
It?s slightly hidden in complex grammar, as I?ve stated before here, but it?s strong in that it apprears as a major exception to the context being cultivated. Surely you see that IF IF IF these PFAL writings are God-breathed, then they would HAVE to be an exception to all that?s said in the context of page 82?
Surely IF IF IF God is allowed to inspire perfect writings still, even in these modern times, THEN these writings of His would be excepted from the majority context of page 82, even if His spokesman?s name is placed as the author on their covers. Surely you agree with this? Right?
**************
I remember the folly of English teachers thinking that they could have an ultimate authority on the finer rules of grammar back in the 1950's. There was a large effort to strike the word ?aint? from useage, maybe as an anti beatnik measure. A lot of the literary establishment didn?t like the beats in the 50?s.
As a ?grammar? school child I remember us kids making fun of this effort with a sentence we?d try to utter just barely within earshot of our beloved English teacher, Mrs. Crabbtree.
............... ?Ain?t? ain?t a word because it ain?t in the dictionary...............
Obvious to even us little kids, it WAS a word because WE just had used it as a word. We were a big enough authority to make it an ?official? word and use it as a word so that it was understandable to others. It?s just an trivial accident of history, we defiantly thought, that Mrs. Crabbtree?s ?office? was a little bigger and fancier than ours.
It?s for reasons like this that we were taught that God gave the revelation in the vocabulary of the man of God, and not Webster?s.
Besides, where did Webster look up HIS words? Which authority did HE get them from?
The ?how? of dictionary making is worth looking into. It?s interesting.
[This message was edited by Mike on June 19, 2003 at 21:45.]
As far as your second post, another degeneration to the depths of the generically named ?You?re possessed!? tactic. Pretty soon and people will start numbing out to the shock value of it. Sparing use of this tactic was one of the rules to maintain that edge of ?intimidating and sweeping.? The tactic is used to sweep information off the table and away from consideration; the exact thrust of your post.
Now I will agree with you that you have identified a POSSIBLE problem with my invitation of ?Try it you?ll like it.? But that?s no great spiritual insight, because that?s a possibility with EVERYTHING that comes our way and looks good. Even your own well embraced paradigms SHOULD get the same possibility thought through as you have warned of mine.
I warned myself of this in 1998 as I was deciding to accept this and try it. But I also was aware that to NOT come back to PFAL carried the same possibilities.
In other words, we never know (on one level) if something is going to bite back unless we try it.
We can never try something with wise confidence, though, until we?ve run it past God?s Word to the best we know it.
So, how well do we KNOW God?s Word?
Are there areas we are unfamiliar with?
My message addresses the deep foundational beliefs we all carried as grads, but not an area we all got real familiar with. Several times I?ve thrown out the challenge here ?Why believe the Bible?? and got no takers. This question is deep at the beginning of the belief system, and for some, it hasn?t been even examined in years, let alone thought through well. People seem to be willing to talk about anything here BUT ?Why believe the Bible?? and I think because they don?t really know. It?s a scary question to ask oneself. Some people NEVER think about it, and defer it to others to do that kind of thinking for them.
Steve, I?m well aware of the adversary?s first tactic on Eve was to get her to question the integrity of God?s Word. It probably looks like I?m doing the same here. I?m not.
One difference is that Eve had a perfectly renewed mind and we don?t. If Eve was to change her mind from what it was it would SURELY be bad.
But for us to change our minds, sometimes it?s bad because we were right, and sometimes it?s good because we were wrong to begin with and now closer to or on the truth.
Because we don?t start out perfect like Eve, we must experiment around and sometimes even take risks to get to the truth or to more of the truth.
From what I?ve presented PFAL mastery should look like a reasonable risk.
From what I?ve presented about KJV verses being on every page, encouragement of context reading in PFAL, and many other checks and balances like the exclusion of TWI and other ogre-nizations, this ?Try it, you?ll like it? invitation should look pretty safe.
People satisfied with their level of ?NON-allnineallthetime? knowledge will not take any such risk, and I understand that. But for those who think that maybe something got missed in the dumping of PFAL, I?m presenting a viable option: come back to PFAL master it like we never did.
Steve, with your knowledge of the Bible, why aren?t you more concerned with the multitudes of infectious experimentation with ideas presented here on GS all the time that are obviously contrary to God and love?
Please don?t tell me that my message is OBVIOUSLY contrary. If it is contrary it?s subtle, otherwise you wouldn?t feel the need to warn others about it who are less academically nerdy than me, and likely to get tricked by my subtlety. No, there?s no OBVIOUS evil in what I propose, yet you look away from the obvious evil all around you and go after an "evil" that you must admit is in a very subtle and foundational area.
*************
I thought all this through LONG before posting here. Many aspects of what I had to think through on this maybe being wrong go back 30 years.
So I understand why you warn of devil spirits in my message. It is logical from your perspective outside of PFAL mastery, and outside of obedience to Dr?s final instructions.
[This message was edited by Mike on June 19, 2003 at 22:28.]
quote:I see Dr saying his situation (1942 promise) is a little different from the others on THAT page, and then I see him elaborating in OTHER pages (Green 34, 116) on that ?little? difference being not so little, depending on the context it?s viewed. If it weren?t for the slight differences of punctuation, slightly different synonym useage, inclusion of ?necessary? and ?not all,? then this page 82 would definitely contradict the others. But the differences are there, and they all add up to it agreeing with the other pages if you remember the 1942 promise and what it necessitates.
No Mike, P 82 - 83 would only then contradict YOUR your proprietary interpretation of the others. IMO the '42 promise was most likely fabricated by VPW and necessitates nothing more than it's own rejection as infalible fact.
quote:I?m not trying to prove it to you that you should come back and master PFAL. ... I?m simply telling you, or presenting it to you.
Then what are all of the other thousands of words your have posted here all about then - if not for evidence or proof? Your message of telling us to "master" PFAL is clear and simple enough - Master PFAL . What then all of the other thousands and thousands of your uer here for - fluff amd filler? Why does it take thousands and thousands of words just to tell someone to master PFAL?
quote:Now you are correct that I assume Dr handled the words carefully there on page 82 of PFAL. Handling words accurately and precisely is possible for humans at times, especially in their fields of expertise and practice.
I did not say you handled them carefully Mike. On, the contrary, I strongly implied that your handling of the grammar was conjuring up and fabricatiing meanings that were not there. - Nice try.
quote:I talked to one of Dr?s editors of the PFAL about this very same sentence. When I first quoted it to him on the phone a few years ago he IMMEDIATELY said ?Oh yeah! I remember THAT sentence.? Dr worked that sentence well before filming the class because it slides out so smoothly when he says it on the tape, and he then worked it with his editors. Those words were carefully chosen on the tape, and hardly changed at all in the book after much thought.
Why would Wierwille and his editors have to "work" reveleation from God to make it come out smoothly. If Wierwille and his editors worked it and chose the words, then it cannot be the Word of God - by Wierwille' own definition.
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
I think we?re quibbling over nomenclature. I?m not saying Craig was right in any way on the demands or the firings. I found the tape from 1972 where Dr talks about ministry employment and Craig seems to have applied. However, when Dr said that in ?72 it was in a context where he well defined the difference between the 5-senses corporation and the Body. It?s that difference that got blurred LONG before the firings, and in EVERYONE?S head, not just Craig?s. Dr took pains to document the difference in the record BECAUSE he saw it being blurred.
By the time of the firings Craig was in some many strange heads, just about all bad. He thought he was God?s man for the Body of Christ and he wasn?t that at all, hence the arrogance. He was ONLY the president of a 5-senses corporation with a payroll he had some legal control over. He could ONLY demand loyalty in the confines of that employment, but he thought it went further and acted thusly.
Likewise those fired had long since forgotten the subtle difference between the corporation and the Body, having disobeyed Dr?s oft issued ?master PFAL? instructions to them, especially his final, crystal clear instructions. They were just as confused as Craig and could not explain themselves well to him. They weren?t able to assure him that his 5-senses presidency was not in jeopardy, and at the same time, let him know they were disappointed with the spiritual leadership they had ?sort of? granted him in their lives. This was too complicated a message to compose or receive, and by 1989 all was lost anyway. All was lost in 1985 when Dr?s final instructions were universally ignored.
Just to fluff things up a bit: it appears like you hold to the ?divine dictation? model of Scriptural revelation and inspiration.
Written revelation doesn't HAVE to be all divine dictation. In fact, in the Thessalonians University of Life, Dr TWICE mentions in covering verse 1:1 for both of these epistles, that there is a reason why there are three names mentioned as authors: Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy. At these two points Dr teaches that written revelation is usually NOT divine dictation, but first the revelation to Paul was discussed between the three, and then later put into written form. In I Peter 1:20-21 we see the WRITTEN scripture mentioned in verse 20 as coming from a process where (next verse) holy men of God SPAKE.
I now shy away from the ?divine dictation? model because it seems to leave room for the possibility that the receiver doesn?t completely understand the string of words. If a revelation is ?hashed? out in conversation then it has a chance of coming out into manifestation in a fuller way or an a way more fully understood by that man of God who can then also teach on the words better.
The idea of editing or discussing or hashing out a revelation to get it into written form comes up in a Psalm. (forget number) Bulinger and others have noted that the KJV rendering isn?t correct, and that it SHOULD say something like (I?m in a rush) ?Every word of God is pure, words of earth, tried in an oven seven times.? Starts out with ?words of earth? or 5-senses words and it ends up with pure or spiritual words. Hey! We?re back on topic.
quote:Just to fluff things up a bit: it appears like you hold to the ?divine dictation? model of Scriptural revelation and inspiration.
Actually, I do not. I have written about this many times here at GS. It is on the record. But Wierwille did. That is why I said "by Wierwille' own definition."
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Several times, and some very recently, I?ve posted that I am NOT trying to make a formal logical argument to prove my position that PFAL is worth mastering. For ME it?s proved.
Several times I?ve posted on the limitations of formal logic. It?s usually at it?s best in trivial applications like math or physics. It?s application to vastly complex systems such as human beings and spiritual searching and confirmation is useful in segmented ways only. In no way can anyone maintain a purely formal lifestyle or belief system. Many times breaks or jumps are called for and executed. Hunches, guesses, experimentation, revelation and many more things in the real word call for the segmented application of formal logic, when things can be reduced to its parameters. Often times they can?t be.
Have you seen the other comments on logic I did these past two days? It seemed your questions about three posts ago reflected an unawareness that I?m purposely not trying to always prove things in formal logic. I like logic and reason, but I recognize their human limitations. Whenever we reason outside the Word we?re on shaky ground. I?m NOT saying leave your brains at the door when you want to come in and talk to me, but I AM SAYING don?t be surprised if I refuse to comply with all the logic and proof demands placed on me.
I?m not trying to prove what can only be proved by obedience and mastering PFAL.
MIKE: WE GET IT--WE "ALL" UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE GETTING AT. We, however, disagree--the Word of GOD is MUCH BIGGER than your "tattered remnants" euphemism!! I do not hold as my "goal" in life some tired, man-originated cliche like "All Nine All The Time" phhhhthh!! is what I say to that. My clear, untattered, un-remnant-like goal is found in Philippians 3:10-14. As vpw correctly stated in PFAL, I need no commentary nor even a dictionary for that one, nor 95% of the rest of Scripture.
...simply put, end of story, QED.
[This message was edited by alfakat on June 20, 2003 at 0:58.]
[This message was edited by alfakat on June 20, 2003 at 0:58.]
sheesh, ya'd think it wouldn't take me 3 tries to spell Philippians... yea, Vickles--Mike has made up his mind-good for him! But I, too have the spirit of God and I have been thinking, too for the last 18 years...I just do not share Mike's conclusions; about PFAL, VPW OR "olgs" , nor mostly about the received value of the Bible, in it's various versions and translations. And if he thinks HE'S stubborn, he has obviously never met me......
well, i'm sure we were a bit over the top sometimes ;)--> but as I look back, the only reason the 3 of us could get away with it was we had really learned to trust one another. Which is to say, though we might not have admitted it, we did have a lot of love for one another in those fellowships back then...
knowing you three were the best times I had in twi. I learned that I could have fun and not be so religous. I also learned from you all that it really didn't matter what others thought. It was ok to be different.
Its so nice not to have to read those pfal books anymore....can you imagine???? Having to get a concordance out for vp's books? That is going way too far in my book. Not having to put up with people putting us down. For us to listen. Just as mike does at times.
mike your not making much sense at all. You are going around in circles and changing a word here or there whenever you choose.
I'm still wondering what those signs, miracles and wonders.......
Ok!! I will not try to be a nice person...ok? I will not!!
quote:On Your conclusion (with my ALL-CAPS) was: ?In the whole paragraph, Wierwille places HIS OWN writings squarely in among the writings of the other men.?
I agree. For HIS OWN writings, they were squarely in among the writings of the other men and NOT God-breathed. But for writings that technically bear his name, but were NOT really HIS OWN but God?s revelation (sometimes via other men like Kenyon), THEN we have some exceptional writings indeed in PFAL.
So Wierwille writes that his own writings are in the same boat as other men, but that PFAL isn't REALLY his own.
-->
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
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
rascal
There was no blurring...simply a beligerent demand by Craig to swear loyalty to him.... do it or be flushed down the toilet spiritually.
There was no room for confusion, noone was permited to question.....LCM made it quite specific.
Course it was the best thing that ever happened to us... we knew JUST what kind of mog he was when he stated *and DON`T give me any of that loyalty to God crap* ...
He was a moron ... I think vp really showed how out to lunch he was spiritually, in his choice of such a buffoon as his successor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
what a sad thread
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Steve,
Here?s a short answer to your long post. I may have more time later too.
Your conclusion (with my ALL-CAPS) was: ?In the whole paragraph, Wierwille places HIS OWN writings squarely in among the writings of the other men.?
I agree. For HIS OWN writings, they were squarely in among the writings of the other men and NOT God-breathed. But for writings that technically bear his name, but were NOT really HIS OWN but God?s revelation (sometimes via other men like Kenyon), THEN we have some exceptional writings indeed in PFAL.
If ALL of what Wierwille wrote was not God-breathed, then the phrase ?not all? could not be used. It was used.
*************
BTW, when we get down to some of the finer points in grammar, we will find that there is no authoritative authority as to what they are.
Like there are no authoritative definitions for English words, there is no authoritative ?last word? on the finer rules of grammar. For fine definitions we must look to DOCTOR?S vocabulary above the various competing ?official? dictionary publications. For finer grammar we must look to how DOCTOR?S use of certain finer rules plays out above the various competing ?Manuals of Style? a few big newspapers seem to have generated.
I don?t see things being bent in any way out of shape with my handling of page 82. It fits seamlessly with all the other things Dr said and wrote. Because I decided to run with PFAL unreservedly in 1998, it?s EASY for me to see no problem at all with this page. It even CONFIRMS things from my perspective.
I count this page as one of the bigger, more overt, of the 90 ?Thus saith the Lord? statements I?ve found of Dr?s. When the divine inspiration is accepted in many clear statements of Dr?s, then page 82 is very easy to see as confirmatory, not contradictory.
It?s slightly hidden in complex grammar, as I?ve stated before here, but it?s strong in that it apprears as a major exception to the context being cultivated. Surely you see that IF IF IF these PFAL writings are God-breathed, then they would HAVE to be an exception to all that?s said in the context of page 82?
Surely IF IF IF God is allowed to inspire perfect writings still, even in these modern times, THEN these writings of His would be excepted from the majority context of page 82, even if His spokesman?s name is placed as the author on their covers. Surely you agree with this? Right?
**************
I remember the folly of English teachers thinking that they could have an ultimate authority on the finer rules of grammar back in the 1950's. There was a large effort to strike the word ?aint? from useage, maybe as an anti beatnik measure. A lot of the literary establishment didn?t like the beats in the 50?s.
As a ?grammar? school child I remember us kids making fun of this effort with a sentence we?d try to utter just barely within earshot of our beloved English teacher, Mrs. Crabbtree.
............... ?Ain?t? ain?t a word because it ain?t in the dictionary...............
Obvious to even us little kids, it WAS a word because WE just had used it as a word. We were a big enough authority to make it an ?official? word and use it as a word so that it was understandable to others. It?s just an trivial accident of history, we defiantly thought, that Mrs. Crabbtree?s ?office? was a little bigger and fancier than ours.
It?s for reasons like this that we were taught that God gave the revelation in the vocabulary of the man of God, and not Webster?s.
Besides, where did Webster look up HIS words? Which authority did HE get them from?
The ?how? of dictionary making is worth looking into. It?s interesting.
[This message was edited by Mike on June 19, 2003 at 21:45.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
Agreed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You two must like slumming.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Steve,
As far as your second post, another degeneration to the depths of the generically named ?You?re possessed!? tactic. Pretty soon and people will start numbing out to the shock value of it. Sparing use of this tactic was one of the rules to maintain that edge of ?intimidating and sweeping.? The tactic is used to sweep information off the table and away from consideration; the exact thrust of your post.
Now I will agree with you that you have identified a POSSIBLE problem with my invitation of ?Try it you?ll like it.? But that?s no great spiritual insight, because that?s a possibility with EVERYTHING that comes our way and looks good. Even your own well embraced paradigms SHOULD get the same possibility thought through as you have warned of mine.
I warned myself of this in 1998 as I was deciding to accept this and try it. But I also was aware that to NOT come back to PFAL carried the same possibilities.
In other words, we never know (on one level) if something is going to bite back unless we try it.
We can never try something with wise confidence, though, until we?ve run it past God?s Word to the best we know it.
So, how well do we KNOW God?s Word?
Are there areas we are unfamiliar with?
My message addresses the deep foundational beliefs we all carried as grads, but not an area we all got real familiar with. Several times I?ve thrown out the challenge here ?Why believe the Bible?? and got no takers. This question is deep at the beginning of the belief system, and for some, it hasn?t been even examined in years, let alone thought through well. People seem to be willing to talk about anything here BUT ?Why believe the Bible?? and I think because they don?t really know. It?s a scary question to ask oneself. Some people NEVER think about it, and defer it to others to do that kind of thinking for them.
Steve, I?m well aware of the adversary?s first tactic on Eve was to get her to question the integrity of God?s Word. It probably looks like I?m doing the same here. I?m not.
One difference is that Eve had a perfectly renewed mind and we don?t. If Eve was to change her mind from what it was it would SURELY be bad.
But for us to change our minds, sometimes it?s bad because we were right, and sometimes it?s good because we were wrong to begin with and now closer to or on the truth.
Because we don?t start out perfect like Eve, we must experiment around and sometimes even take risks to get to the truth or to more of the truth.
From what I?ve presented PFAL mastery should look like a reasonable risk.
From what I?ve presented about KJV verses being on every page, encouragement of context reading in PFAL, and many other checks and balances like the exclusion of TWI and other ogre-nizations, this ?Try it, you?ll like it? invitation should look pretty safe.
People satisfied with their level of ?NON-allnineallthetime? knowledge will not take any such risk, and I understand that. But for those who think that maybe something got missed in the dumping of PFAL, I?m presenting a viable option: come back to PFAL master it like we never did.
Steve, with your knowledge of the Bible, why aren?t you more concerned with the multitudes of infectious experimentation with ideas presented here on GS all the time that are obviously contrary to God and love?
Please don?t tell me that my message is OBVIOUSLY contrary. If it is contrary it?s subtle, otherwise you wouldn?t feel the need to warn others about it who are less academically nerdy than me, and likely to get tricked by my subtlety. No, there?s no OBVIOUS evil in what I propose, yet you look away from the obvious evil all around you and go after an "evil" that you must admit is in a very subtle and foundational area.
*************
I thought all this through LONG before posting here. Many aspects of what I had to think through on this maybe being wrong go back 30 years.
So I understand why you warn of devil spirits in my message. It is logical from your perspective outside of PFAL mastery, and outside of obedience to Dr?s final instructions.
[This message was edited by Mike on June 19, 2003 at 22:28.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Mike,
Mike Posted:
No Mike, P 82 - 83 would only then contradict YOUR your proprietary interpretation of the others. IMO the '42 promise was most likely fabricated by VPW and necessitates nothing more than it's own rejection as infalible fact.
Then what are all of the other thousands of words your have posted here all about then - if not for evidence or proof? Your message of telling us to "master" PFAL is clear and simple enough - Master PFAL . What then all of the other thousands and thousands of your uer here for - fluff amd filler? Why does it take thousands and thousands of words just to tell someone to master PFAL?
I did not say you handled them carefully Mike. On, the contrary, I strongly implied that your handling of the grammar was conjuring up and fabricatiing meanings that were not there. - Nice try.
Why would Wierwille and his editors have to "work" reveleation from God to make it come out smoothly. If Wierwille and his editors worked it and chose the words, then it cannot be the Word of God - by Wierwille' own definition.
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Goey,
Compared to PFAL, my words ARE like fluff and filler.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
rascal,
I think we?re quibbling over nomenclature. I?m not saying Craig was right in any way on the demands or the firings. I found the tape from 1972 where Dr talks about ministry employment and Craig seems to have applied. However, when Dr said that in ?72 it was in a context where he well defined the difference between the 5-senses corporation and the Body. It?s that difference that got blurred LONG before the firings, and in EVERYONE?S head, not just Craig?s. Dr took pains to document the difference in the record BECAUSE he saw it being blurred.
By the time of the firings Craig was in some many strange heads, just about all bad. He thought he was God?s man for the Body of Christ and he wasn?t that at all, hence the arrogance. He was ONLY the president of a 5-senses corporation with a payroll he had some legal control over. He could ONLY demand loyalty in the confines of that employment, but he thought it went further and acted thusly.
Likewise those fired had long since forgotten the subtle difference between the corporation and the Body, having disobeyed Dr?s oft issued ?master PFAL? instructions to them, especially his final, crystal clear instructions. They were just as confused as Craig and could not explain themselves well to him. They weren?t able to assure him that his 5-senses presidency was not in jeopardy, and at the same time, let him know they were disappointed with the spiritual leadership they had ?sort of? granted him in their lives. This was too complicated a message to compose or receive, and by 1989 all was lost anyway. All was lost in 1985 when Dr?s final instructions were universally ignored.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Mike,
Actually, I must agree with that.Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Goey,
Just to fluff things up a bit: it appears like you hold to the ?divine dictation? model of Scriptural revelation and inspiration.
Written revelation doesn't HAVE to be all divine dictation. In fact, in the Thessalonians University of Life, Dr TWICE mentions in covering verse 1:1 for both of these epistles, that there is a reason why there are three names mentioned as authors: Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy. At these two points Dr teaches that written revelation is usually NOT divine dictation, but first the revelation to Paul was discussed between the three, and then later put into written form. In I Peter 1:20-21 we see the WRITTEN scripture mentioned in verse 20 as coming from a process where (next verse) holy men of God SPAKE.
I now shy away from the ?divine dictation? model because it seems to leave room for the possibility that the receiver doesn?t completely understand the string of words. If a revelation is ?hashed? out in conversation then it has a chance of coming out into manifestation in a fuller way or an a way more fully understood by that man of God who can then also teach on the words better.
The idea of editing or discussing or hashing out a revelation to get it into written form comes up in a Psalm. (forget number) Bulinger and others have noted that the KJV rendering isn?t correct, and that it SHOULD say something like (I?m in a rush) ?Every word of God is pure, words of earth, tried in an oven seven times.? Starts out with ?words of earth? or 5-senses words and it ends up with pure or spiritual words. Hey! We?re back on topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Goey, I think we're posting at the same time and post references are getting skewed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Goey,
Ok I figured out what you agreed with me on.
I guess I should put away this old blank green card then?
Did you add the quote a little after first posting? I seem to have not seen it on first flash
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Actually, I do not. I have written about this many times here at GS. It is on the record. But Wierwille did. That is why I said "by Wierwille' own definition."
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Goey,
Have you heard what Dr said on the Thessalonians tapes about the NON-dictation model?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Goey,
Several times, and some very recently, I?ve posted that I am NOT trying to make a formal logical argument to prove my position that PFAL is worth mastering. For ME it?s proved.
Several times I?ve posted on the limitations of formal logic. It?s usually at it?s best in trivial applications like math or physics. It?s application to vastly complex systems such as human beings and spiritual searching and confirmation is useful in segmented ways only. In no way can anyone maintain a purely formal lifestyle or belief system. Many times breaks or jumps are called for and executed. Hunches, guesses, experimentation, revelation and many more things in the real word call for the segmented application of formal logic, when things can be reduced to its parameters. Often times they can?t be.
Have you seen the other comments on logic I did these past two days? It seemed your questions about three posts ago reflected an unawareness that I?m purposely not trying to always prove things in formal logic. I like logic and reason, but I recognize their human limitations. Whenever we reason outside the Word we?re on shaky ground. I?m NOT saying leave your brains at the door when you want to come in and talk to me, but I AM SAYING don?t be surprised if I refuse to comply with all the logic and proof demands placed on me.
I?m not trying to prove what can only be proved by obedience and mastering PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
MIKE: WE GET IT--WE "ALL" UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE GETTING AT. We, however, disagree--the Word of GOD is MUCH BIGGER than your "tattered remnants" euphemism!! I do not hold as my "goal" in life some tired, man-originated cliche like "All Nine All The Time" phhhhthh!! is what I say to that. My clear, untattered, un-remnant-like goal is found in Philippians 3:10-14. As vpw correctly stated in PFAL, I need no commentary nor even a dictionary for that one, nor 95% of the rest of Scripture.
...simply put, end of story, QED.
[This message was edited by alfakat on June 20, 2003 at 0:58.]
[This message was edited by alfakat on June 20, 2003 at 0:58.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
Nice choice in scripture alfakat!!!! I still don't think he will get it though.....me thinks he has a thick skull.
-->
Ok!! I will not try to be a nice person...ok? I will not!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
sheesh, ya'd think it wouldn't take me 3 tries to spell Philippians... yea, Vickles--Mike has made up his mind-good for him! But I, too have the spirit of God and I have been thinking, too for the last 18 years...I just do not share Mike's conclusions; about PFAL, VPW OR "olgs" , nor mostly about the received value of the Bible, in it's various versions and translations. And if he thinks HE'S stubborn, he has obviously never met me......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
I have and you are rather a stubborn guy....
:D--> I would love to see you in 'action' once again. I remember you all debating...man you were good.... 
Ok!! I will not try to be a nice person...ok? I will not!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
well, i'm sure we were a bit over the top sometimes
;)--> but as I look back, the only reason the 3 of us could get away with it was we had really learned to trust one another. Which is to say, though we might not have admitted it, we did have a lot of love for one another in those fellowships back then...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
knowing you three were the best times I had in twi. I learned that I could have fun and not be so religous. I also learned from you all that it really didn't matter what others thought. It was ok to be different.
Its so nice not to have to read those pfal books anymore....can you imagine???? Having to get a concordance out for vp's books? That is going way too far in my book. Not having to put up with people putting us down. For us to listen. Just as mike does at times.
mike your not making much sense at all. You are going around in circles and changing a word here or there whenever you choose.
I'm still wondering what those signs, miracles and wonders.......
Ok!! I will not try to be a nice person...ok? I will not!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
On the last page Mike writes:
So Wierwille writes that his own writings are in the same boat as other men, but that PFAL isn't REALLY his 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
WordWolf
Mike:
A) Based on the previous posts, and most
prominently the post 6/19, 10:54am, then, I'd
render your clarification of my statement,
also quoted in that post, as follows:
Based on that post and previous posts, you were
saying that, as of 1982, the key revelation,
our True Bible, the Written Word of God, was now
VPW's PFAL class collaterals. This was not an
official position of TWI, but it WAS the
position of God Almighty.
Ok, would you say THAT'S exactly what you
meant?
-----------------------------------------------
B) I think you glossed over my comments about
the studies involving the collateral readings,
the Advanced Class exam, and-oh! I didn't even
mention the Home Studies! I finished those in
record time, as well. THOSE were all based on
the written material, and in each of those I
rated notably high.
(BTW, Mike, back then, I made a correction on
a question in one of the Home Studies, since
it seemed to incorrectly reflect the written
orange book. I even cited the page in my
correction. Have YOU found it?)
Again, many of us have knowledge of vpw's books
at least the equal of yours, yet, somehow, this
has not required us to hold your position.
---------------------------------------
C) You claimed VPW was an intellectual genius,
and at the level of a professional athlete.
Your claim has never been backed up by a single
IQ test, nor an objective evaluation of him by
a talent scout.
Have you read all the stories of him playing
basketball for hours with all the residents at
headquarters throughout the years, into the
early 80's? Amateur athletes can play into
their early SEVENTIES, even. For fun, former
professional, or professional-level athletes
will continue to play the sports they excel at
as a hobby. It's great fun for them and good
exercise. No? Haven't read those accounts?
Do you know why?
IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
If it did, EVERYONE who was there would have
either SEEN a game or PLAYED in a game.
You can't tell me VPW would have been playing
basketball or soccer or something and NOBODY
would have wanted to watch. When he went
hunting, they wanted to go along. When he drove
around the ground slowly on motorcycle, they
wanted to join or watch. When he went to sit
and do NOTHING, they wanted to join him.
According to VPW, that's how the original
"nightowls" got started. If VPW was HALF the
athlete you claim he was, EVERYONE would have
known. You've made a claim that he was a genius
without objective evidence, and a claim that he
was physically-exceptional and an athlete
capable of playing professionally without
objective evidence. You claimed his was
exceptional both physically, and mentally,
with little more than a handful of overheard
statements here and there.
You DON'T think of that as idolatry.
That's not how I see it, and it's not how an
unbiased observer would see it. There's no
convincing you on this, though.
---------------------------------------------
D) You said
"Recognizing that God appointed Dr as His
spokesman is no more idolatrous than recognizing
that God also appointed Paul 2000 years ago to
a similar status? Why is this hard for you to
see?"
Mike......
IF such a thing were true, and IF evidence could
be brought to support such a claim, and IF the
logical conclusion, based on the evidence, was
that it was true that God appointed vpw as His
spokesman in 1942 or at any other time,
THEN you would be facing a LOT less opposition
to your idolatrous comments, and would find
people who would agree with you who actually
KNOW something about PFAL and/or the Bible.
Your main strength seems to be in saying
"Other people's conclusions don't matter-I'm
right!" "My POV is the correct one despite the
evidence brought against it!" "I don't HAVE to
answer the evidence disproving my claims!"
"If you accepted my POV without evidence and
simply did everything I say, you'd soon agree
with me!"
For some reason, it surprises you that the more
literate GS'ers and people who memorized the
collaterals aren't buying what you're selling.
----------------------------------------------
E) I HAVE learned that trying to illustrate
using analogies doesn't connect with you. So,
I will try to remember not to use them.
---------------------------------------------
F) When I asked
"Are you saying that BG Leonard's work and JE
Stile's work are "counterfeits" and "clones" of
VPW's materials, just as ex-TWI splinter
groups' classes are clones of VPW's materials?"
You responded
"No, they are counterfeits of what God wanted
written in PFAL and distributed around the world
and mastered What they wrote or taught long ago
may have been totally accurate at times, but
revelation can change as circumstances change.
I also see those wonderful men as sometimes
getting a point right and sometimes (bless their
hearts) not getting it right, but close, and
therefore a regrettable counterfeit, ON THAT
ONE POINT."
(Remembering not to use an analogy)
I'm trying to understand EXACTLY what your
position is regarding their work.
A "counterfeit", remember, is not an "error".
An "error" is a mistake-an attempt to do
something correctly that failed in that aspect,
which is identified as the error.
A "counterfeit" is something which is based on
an original which is being counterfeited, and
attempting to pass itself off as that original
upon which it is based.
So, are you saying BG Leonard and JE Stiles
intentionally (it is IMPOSSIBLE to ACCIDENTALLY
forge something) produced work that was the
COUNTERFEIT of something else?
If that's what you're saying, what original were
they working from, which they intended to pass
off their work as?
Or, on the other hand, are you saying their
work was all ERRORS, and when you said the word
"counterfeit", you merely misspoke?
There is a big difference between an ERROR and
a COUNTERFEIT. Which did you mean?
-----------------------------------------------
G) By the way, Mike, don't think your claims
that there are no authoritative rules for the
English language was missed. I just see no
point in trying to educate you on proper
English form and grammar, since attempts to do
so by people FAR more knowledgeable on the
subject than either of us were unable to show
you the truth of the matter.
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.