What if Gods answer does not agree with what YOU WANT???,
Keep belieiving it . Because YOUR THE LORD OF what exactly? -
No I trust My LORD Jesus Christ to know what is best even when I can not believe it I trust HIM to guide me on a daily bases to a place of knowing HIS WILL BE DONE in my life not my own.
Your not a humble man Mike your an ego trip trying to be a semi-god that can dictate to the whole world.
Your a liar.
The most darkest times in my life , when I could hardly pray much less believe the grief I was in, My God gave me my Lord, to comfort me and to know I am loved by Him regardless of what this life may bring.
As Jesus sat in the garden He begged God for another way, God denied His prayer Mike, was the Christ of all mankind and his pleading for any way to continue to be with those He so loved , not good enough was that the mental assent you speak of?
Jesus never wanted to leave us not for a minute nor did He want to suffer the manner He did , yet the God He worshipped before no other told Him "NO" to his believing prayer.
My Lord said "THY WILL BE DONE" not because He believed for it to be done , but because God told Him it will be done and He obeyed.
?Another totally critical factor to bring into this mix is the difference between believing and mental assent.?
And then you commented:
?A distinction Wierwille stole from Kenyon, incidentally.?
To which I was shocked. I still am interested where you saw the deed of ownership.
Your ignorance is amusing. It's not called a "deed of ownership" in publishing. It's called a copyright. If you still have trouble finding it, let me know. I'll help you.
I commend you on your valiant expansion of the "Blame The Believer" (BTB) explanation of why the Law of Believing doesn't work. I don't see how it's any different from what I said earlier: "You didn't really believe, you know. It was just mental assent." No matter how flowery your speech, it was still BTB, an extension of your overall M.O. of Horse Manure Masquerading As Disciplined Devotion (HMMADD).
When HMMADD is being operated, one can easily observe the manufacture of a dichotomy between the way things were done after 1982 and the way they were done before 1982. The Person Exercising HMMADD (PEHMMADD) will then, with a straight face, appropriate the arguments of the post 1982 TVT leadership while claiming to have a pre-1982 heart.
Remarkable. But stil HMMADD.
As for the definition of "law," I define it the way Wierwille did.
"All believing equals receiving." No it doesn't.
"What you believe for or expect, you get." No you don't.
"Fear is believing in reverse." No it isn't.
"Fear is negative believing." No it's not.
"God would have to change the laws of the universe not to accomodate you."No, He wouldn't.
Why don't YOU define Law? That way I can hold you to it, rather than have you dance around any definition I would put forward.
I think if everyone would just spend their time mastering the Dale Carnegie books, with careful application of the principles, we could then get on to the mastering of the Zig Ziglar books.
I looked behind the curtain and saw that it was bad
Copyright laws don't mean anything deeper than the men who steward them. They are a mere convention of men.
George Harrison at one time had a copyright on "My Sweet Lord" but it was later determined that he did not OWN it.
He claims that it came to him independently, but too late to get the legal ownership.
In order for copyrights to prove ownership, a title search, something like those done in real estate, would have to be done. But unlike real estate which is relatively finite, searching the relatively infinite universe of all possible songs for a title conflict is not so well executable a task. The ownership proof of a copyright is only as good as the search for conflicting claims.
Who knows where Kenyon got his material from? How might we search all that he had available to him to see if his ownership is ?valid.?
But I?m not nearly as interested in legal, 5-senses ownership as spiritual ownership. In fact I?m bored silly with copyright ownership. In all, it?s a 5-senses crock, and will be someday done away with.
We?ve hardly discussed this possibility, but might God have stoln material from Kenyon and gave it to Dr?
Another possible scenario: God gave it to both.
Another scenario: Kenyon came up with it (or close to it) via his 5-senses. But Dr got it by revelation.
Each passage in question could have a different origination scenario, or a permutation of several.
People who get all uptight about copyright laws must REALLY do backflips when they see God giving all that real estate to Abraham in Genesis, and then Joshua collecting it by force. Look at all those property violations!
This ownership thing needs some serious thinking through.
****
About the word ?law? it seems that you have certain criteria that you apply to determine that it is not a law, according to your definition. But it?s Dr?s definition that we need to determine. I simply have not yet done that. But it does seem that you already do have a certain definition that you reserve for ?law? and you seem to be using it. I?m just suggesting that we determine what is being said first, and then later we can decide if we want to accept the whole story.
The best I understand SO FAR about laws is that they apply to every person, in every place, at all times, and they?re relatively simple. That?s some of the most important elements that go into defining laws in the realm of science, but I?m not sure yet as to what degree Dr defines ?law? this way too.
It's a very loose term for those grads who were even just a little matured in PFAL during the period 1982-85. I feel it was us OLGs who dropped the ball by failing to perceive and obey Dr's post presidency ministry. It's also us OLGs who saw PFAL work well in the 70's, so we are the ones with the most motivation to come back to PFAL.
I agree with you that the law of believing must be operated within GOD'S will. There is no promise that God will give us anything according to our unrenewed mind desires as long as we believe. Finding out what God's will is crucial to believing. I teach that and Dr teaches that.
In order to operate the law of believing we don't look for which one of our own desires we want to "believe for" next.
In order to operate it right we must find out, as you stated, what GOD?S will and desires are.
In order to operate the law of believing we look for a promise of GOD to believe.
If it?s a promise of God already, then we KNOW God?s will.
If it?s a promise of God already, then His answer is always ?Yes.?
quote:I feel it was us OLGs who dropped the ball by failing to perceive and obey Dr's post presidency ministry.
NOBODY dropped the ball. We have the choice to master God's Word; pfal is not all God's Word even though it may contain SOME of it. Get over yourself Mike. A comment like that accuses people. You have no right to do that.
Exy:
hahaahahahahah I lie how you call a spade a spade.
Kind words can be short and easy to speak, but their echoes are truly endless.
You have no idea what your talking about. It might sound good in your ears, but it's crap. Life is suffering...and I don't care if John Paul or Ringo says...I WISH... that you prosper and be in health...It DOES NOT mean it's a promise!!!
If you are ill, you need to learn the lesson from it....there is so much more to life than to deny reality and run for cover...Stop blaming the adversary and people...
You have a karmic debt to pay and in this life it appears to be mental illness. Learn the lesson or do it again, Mike!
Your understanding of plagiarism is laughably ignorant. Defend it all you want: Wierwille plagiarized from Kenyon. Sorry to break it to you: your alternate scenarios are beyond preposterous. But you go on believing them, and defending your idol. Be my guest. I'm enjoying it, really.
Oh, and as for what constitutes a law: Go ahead and take all the time you want deciding what Wierwille meant when he said "Law," but until you do, you have NO RIGHT telling me that my definition is wrong.
Some master you turned out to be.
Good luck in your continued idolatry, and your HMMADD.
Just for the "record" :)--> :D--> the lawsuit regarding "My Sweet Lord" was over it's similarity to the song "He's So Fine" by the Chiffons, released in 1963, 7 years before George Harrison released his song. It was a matter of musical similarity in the chorus. And here's a quote from the court regarding Harrison's song:
---
The court in Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 420 F.Supp. 177 (1976), concluded that George Harrison had indeed infringed upon the copyright of He's So Fine . The decision was unique in that the court acknowledged that Harrison may have unconsciously copied the tune. The court stated:
"His subconscious knew it already had worked in a song his conscious did not remember... That is, under the law, infringement of copyright, and is no less so even though subconsciously accomplished."
---
I am a real fan of George Harrison and his music and have some familiarity with the field myself, so I'd have to state two things that could be relevant to the discussion of copyright law and it's moral and ethical underpinnings - 1) George Harrison was certainly familiar with the Chiffons music and the music of that era of that there is no doubt, he was steeped in 50's and 60's rock. The court decided against him because it allowed for a "subconscious appropriation" of the material in the Chiffon's song, and although he may not have deliberately copied it, I doubt he denied the similiarity. Morally there may have been no foul, but in application, the two songs were extremely similar to each other in parts.
2) Nothing musical is new under the sun, unless you count actual sounds such as artificially created sounds. All notes/pitches already exist and it would be safe to say (and I doubt any trained musician would argue) that their various combinations have been rendered at one time or another. So similiarites are going to abound and every musician that learns and develops will also take on an "ownership" of what they learn, in the same way any artist or craftsperson will tend to feel they own their own talents and experience. Still, it's all been done before, and where we see "new" musical renderings are in the various combinations and sounds that are written and performed. But no musician will likely say that their musical output is "new". Improved, rewritten perhaps but not new.
Harrison could never have intelligently argued that he was "too late to get the legal ownership" of the song, because his song was in fact completely separate from the Chiffon's song and came years after the other one which had already been written. He wasn't "too late", he simply wrote his own song based on elements of another one. The similarities were in the melody of the chorus and of course the lyrics were much different.
Because it was George no one held it against him over the long haul. Of all the musicians you could name, his was certainly a good heart when you look at his life. Had he argued and challenged the court I'm sure it would have only worked against him.
Arguing along the lines of no one really owning anything "it's all Gods anyways" is an interesting argument though.
Hey, I like your pants, gimme. They're God's anyways. Don't show me no receipt, GIMME. -->
'when you're in love, there's no time and no space. there's a permanent smile on your face...
and hey somewhere, you threw your fear in the sea of no cares...'
It is refreshing to hear some one tell it like it is. Your posts have been a God send. I have been laying out here in the weeds waiting for someone like you to come along. I?ve been listening to all that disrespectful talk about my beloved Father in the Word, Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille, but you are the only one who has spoken the truth. I?ve read all you posts. They are very very good and the logic is astounding. Don?t let them dumb asses get you down. The ones that would discredit our Father in the Word. Through your posts I can tell that you are a very nice person and concerned about the truth just like me. Well Michael, I hope we can get together someday.
Michael, I have a great idea. If I could get your address and phone number I will drive to your house and pick you up and take you to my property in Northern California just outside of Garberville. Michael, I would love to show you the memorial I have built in honor of our beloved Father in The Word. I think you would be impressed. How does this sound Mike? The Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille Memorial Outhouse. Pretty awe inspiring isn?t it? When you come to my memorial outhouse you will be blessed both physically and spiritually. Only true believers get to enter the Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille Memorial Outhouse. Not many people have attained the great honor and privilege to step into this hallowed outhouse. You Michael have been chosen.
You and I need to keep alive the dear memory of our Father in the Word. And Michael when you visit me in the outhouse I have something very special just for you. For your great concern and tender love towards the memory of Our Father in the Word I have designed and etched into Italian blue marble a plaque about 3 inches wide and 12 inches long. I have etched some very untimely words that Dr. was fond of saying to his spiritually elite. This is a saying for the spiritually mature only and Michael I know that you are one of them. ?A man?s cock is not sacred.? Isn?t that wonderful Michael? I will give you this plaque for all the great truth that you are dispensing. Well Michael, my buddy. It is great to find someone like minded about our Father in the Word. It is great finding new friends. I will write often.
Wayne
[This message was edited by Wayne Bragg on July 10, 2003 at 1:45.]
quote:But I?m not nearly as interested in legal, 5-senses ownership as spiritual ownership. In fact I?m bored silly with copyright ownership. In all, it?s a 5-senses crock, and will be someday done away with.
Ok Mike, so if I copied PFAL and the other collaterals word for word and put it all together in a combined volume and then put my name on it as the author - you would not have a problem with that? I could of course claim that I got it by revelation while holed-up in a hotel room right after a snowstorm in September that no one else saw. I might even one day get a few folks to believe me and start a religion. Maybe I could have my own "Mike" to defend me against the naysayers.
-----------------------------------
Now, about the so-called "law" of believeing:
In regards to "saint and sinner"; One could possibly argue that VPW was using the term 'saint' in it's more sacred meaning and sinner referring to the rest of the believers, but that would not be consistent with Wierwille's theology.
VPW clearly taught that the believers were the saints. And the Bible is pretty plain that all have sinned and are therefore sinners. In the OT the distinction between saint an sinner was pretty clear. Saints observed the law as best they could and 'sinners' did not. In the NT the Law being filfilled, the saints became those that believe in Christ and the sinners- those that did not. So then technically we have saints that are sinners( all have sinned) and then we have just plain old sinners. One can therefore only conclude that in VPW's statement that 'saint' refers to believers and 'sinner' refers to unbelievers - otherwise there would be no distinction between the two.
What advantage then does the saint (Christian) have over the sinner (unbeliever) when it comes to faith (believing)? Not much according to Wierwille's formula-based law of believing that works for "saint and sinner alike" Just follow the formula and voila!
Since I no longer own a PFAL book (I wish I did) I will use the quotes from Rafael's post as to what VPW said about this so called law.
* "All believing equals receiving."
(All without distinction?) 'All' must refer to both positive and negative believing. Equality implies that where there is one there will also be the other. In other words - it is immutable. I think that VPW was using this in the PFAL class as a set-up for speaking in tongues. To try and make sure that no one missed.
* "What you believe for or expect, you get."
Only according to "what is available" which VPW got wrong quite a bit. It was many times VPW errors here and his failure to corrrect them that led to what you call TVT's.
* "Fear is believing in reverse"
I will quote Rafael here: "No it isn't." VPW was attempting on again to redefine the English language to suit his formula. Fear is a feeling of of anxiety brought on by either the real or perceived presence of danger. While fear is many times baseless and debilitating, at other times it is a good thing and can save your life. The Bible speaks of no such thing as reverse believing (faith). One either believes something or not whether is it a promise of God or something totally absurd like red drapes or a parking spot at the mall or for little Johnny to get run over by a Mack truck. God honors His promisses. God has not prommised to give us illness and death if we believe for it. This is not from God or from a spiritual law.
Here is another thing to think on. Wierwille postulated in his formula that needs and wants should be parallel in order to receive from God. If we have a sipritual law that works in reverse, then the needs and wants part should also apply on the reverse side. So then if I believe for a truck to kill my kid then I should also need it and want it before I can receive it. And God also must be willing and able to bring it to pass. Another quite serious flaw in Werwille's "law of believing". Wierwille puts qualifiers on the positive side and not on the "reverse".
* "Fear is negative believing."
See Above
* "God would have to change the laws of the universe not to accomodate you."
If I recall, this was in the part PFAL where VPW told of someone who predicted the time of their own death.
This implies a universal law that would apply to all people. VPW makes it very impersonal, as if there were spiritual lines of flux permeating the universe that can 'sense' whether one is 'believing' or 'fearing' and then somehow bring about the results and consequences. Like like "The Force" from Star Wars.
Let me tell you, I was really fearful of dying when I had my last heart attack and resultant surgeries. I even prepared for death. But by God's grace, here I am. So much for VPW's formula. It Looks good on paper but it simply does not work out like VPW taught it.
An immutable and universal "law of believing" that works in reverse would preclude God's grace and mercy. Therefore, according to Wierwille, God would have to "change the laws of the universe" when he gives His grace and mercy. But also according to Wierwille God cannot break his own laws. Go figure.
My conculsion: There is no "law of believing" anything like what Wierwille taught Attempting reduce God's Word into simple 5 step formulas will usually result in error
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
You cracked me up. I hope Mike appreciates it half as much as I did. He needs all the followers he can get, 'cuz it's pretty lonely where he is. He deserves you!
Thanks for the "My Sweet Lord" explanation. You'll notice that I didn't address it originally, and that's primarily because I recognized it for what it was: a distraction/evasion from the fact of Wierwille's plagiarism.
You know, I have very little problem with anyone who says the information was more important than the source and they're willing to overlook the plagiarism. That's everyone's right. But when the plagiarism is denied, well, I just giggle. The fact that Wierwille plagiarized is so clear that anyone with two eyes and two books can see it.
Those who think it doesn't matter should just say so: Wierwille plagiarized, but it doesn't matter to me. FINE!
Wierwille didn't plagiarize? God plagiarized and gave it to Wierwille? As if God couldn't find a better way to express His own heart than EW Kenyon? HMMADD.
You wrote "In order to operate the law of believing we look for a promise of God to believe. "
Ok Mike BUT the bible is no longer your standard because it is a mere translation of a man.
so we are back to my original question of , Where is your base line of truth?
Where do YOU GET THESE PROMISES OF GOD to be able to believe for ?
pfal???
If you say it is revelation then I know a whole butch of voices, said to insane people claiming direction to them to do absolute evil.
that is a mental disorder that holds no bar for truth at all.
God told me to do it, the devil told me to do it.
Jesus Christ knew what He had to do to fullfill Gods wishes by what was written in scrpture, the same words we read today from a book we call the Holy bible.
that was His standard.
What is yours?
How do a find a list of the promises of God and His will for my life so I can believe for them?
In school we learned of the huge food chain in a rain forest. a simple tiny spider can be a part of a network of survival for millions of species of plants and animals.
the impact of that one little spider on a rain forest is so huge that the result of its life or death determines outcomes for the entire forest.
I look at Gods will in this manner.
A network of His children.
A conducter of a mass band playing the music to save the souls of Gods children, Jesus Christ directs us towards the Gods will for mankind in a song in which we each play instruments and notes that fullfill His desires .
I need to recognize the music, I need to practice my instrument to be able to sound beautiful , I need to hear the other instruments and recognize how I fit in the music.
I must always watch the conductor and follow his tempo and direction as He is the only one who has the sheet music .
Sometimes I can do a solo and that is great but what good is it without the band to appreciate the music we all live for?
For me this idea of believing is a selfish greedy gimmmme life.
God created a body for His Head Jesus Christ.
His will is for us to live a life worthy of glorifying HIM . Life was never created for us to have our own way with a God who we demand tokens from. He says He will give us the desires of our heart. What we are to think about is as Jesus Christ thinks and He thought obedience was the only way to go in life and death.
Our heart is to be like His is and Jesus Taught us God wants us to trust and obey and most of all WORSHIP HIM.
I use the story of the band because I think people tend to get stuck in a small world of gee how can I pay the bills this month, where will I work and what is my health like and then pray and believe God should make it all good.
I think Jesus conducts Gods will for each one of us , while playing in His band. In other words it is bigger than me or you or our township God is massive and How His will is done is massive.
Like the spider in the rainforrest, I do not know what could happen if I was not playing my part in the food chain and network but I believe it is much much bigger than I could imagine.
This is how I see Gods will in my life , and as time has passed the music just gets richer and more beautiful to hear, so much so being a part of the band is so great and meaningful that every other desire in life is not worth anything. God does give me the desires of my heart, and He actualy knows what I like better than I do!!
honestly He does. It is my only reason to live to see what Jesus Christ and I can do today together to hear the music His body plays together in a network of the Love God wants for each of His creation.
Yes I pray of course I do , I mostly discuss issues with God and then wait to see where The Lord of my life takes me to see it happen , or and this is just as important to me , to have Him teach me a lesson on why and how that may not be Gods will at all for my life.
that is why I love Jesus christ so much, he is a gentle teacher of the soul and every single lesson I have learned (which some may say is an unanswered pray) is to allow me the priviledge of knowing the music so much better and to be able to hear the sound of what He is doing within the band.
Jesus christ has a purpose you know, I see christians get stuck with what they can do for the Lord, their power, their abilities, naw not me I know who got the job done and saved mankind of total destruction and death. It was ONLY JESUS CHRIST , today He is our Lord showing us how to get Gods will done in each individual life, yet within HIS body because we are one now.
I may be a cymbol I may be a bass drum , I may think the flute is the greatest sound I ever heard, but in the end it isnt about what I play in life it is and always will be Gods music Jesus is directing not our own.
Mike: I would like to hear your theory on the following:
I'm trying to "master" Solitaire"... and the theory I was taught and always follow (unless I miss a card) is that you try to play all of the "down" cards as first option (before the deck), and play them from left to right (in order of secondary option).
I'm thinking the believing is that this will get more cards into play and also more quickly give you open spots to move your kings to.
It works pretty well most of the time... but sometimes I wonder if there's a better way... I would really like to "master" this and would appreciate hearing any thoughts or theories you might have on the subject...
Thanks for your prompt reply.
Your bud, Tom.
I looked behind the curtain and saw that it was bad
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
mj412
What if the answer to your believing is no?
What if Gods answer does not agree with what YOU WANT???,
Keep belieiving it . Because YOUR THE LORD OF what exactly? -
No I trust My LORD Jesus Christ to know what is best even when I can not believe it I trust HIM to guide me on a daily bases to a place of knowing HIS WILL BE DONE in my life not my own.
Your not a humble man Mike your an ego trip trying to be a semi-god that can dictate to the whole world.
Your a liar.
The most darkest times in my life , when I could hardly pray much less believe the grief I was in, My God gave me my Lord, to comfort me and to know I am loved by Him regardless of what this life may bring.
As Jesus sat in the garden He begged God for another way, God denied His prayer Mike, was the Christ of all mankind and his pleading for any way to continue to be with those He so loved , not good enough was that the mental assent you speak of?
Jesus never wanted to leave us not for a minute nor did He want to suffer the manner He did , yet the God He worshipped before no other told Him "NO" to his believing prayer.
My Lord said "THY WILL BE DONE" not because He believed for it to be done , but because God told Him it will be done and He obeyed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Mj.....whew THAT was powerfull .... and so true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Your ignorance is amusing. It's not called a "deed of ownership" in publishing. It's called a copyright. If you still have trouble finding it, let me know. I'll help you.
I commend you on your valiant expansion of the "Blame The Believer" (BTB) explanation of why the Law of Believing doesn't work. I don't see how it's any different from what I said earlier: "You didn't really believe, you know. It was just mental assent." No matter how flowery your speech, it was still BTB, an extension of your overall M.O. of Horse Manure Masquerading As Disciplined Devotion (HMMADD).
When HMMADD is being operated, one can easily observe the manufacture of a dichotomy between the way things were done after 1982 and the way they were done before 1982. The Person Exercising HMMADD (PEHMMADD) will then, with a straight face, appropriate the arguments of the post 1982 TVT leadership while claiming to have a pre-1982 heart.
Remarkable. But stil HMMADD.
As for the definition of "law," I define it the way Wierwille did.
"All believing equals receiving." No it doesn't.
"What you believe for or expect, you get." No you don't.
"Fear is believing in reverse." No it isn't.
"Fear is negative believing." No it's not.
"God would have to change the laws of the universe not to accomodate you." No, He wouldn't.
Why don't YOU define Law? That way I can hold you to it, rather than have you dance around any definition I would put forward.
Raf
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on July 09, 2003 at 15:55.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I think if everyone would just spend their time mastering the Dale Carnegie books, with careful application of the principles, we could then get on to the mastering of the Zig Ziglar books.
I looked behind the curtain and saw that it was bad
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
oh... and MJ... here's a big kiss and hug... (std, tvt, btb and hmmadd free)
(((xxx((mj))xxx)))
I looked behind the curtain and saw that it was bad
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Here's a neat quote (that I was told was from Satchel Page):
"Work like you don't need the money,
Love like you've never been hurt,
Dance like nobody's watching."
That quote makes a lot more sense to me than the ramblings of Mike, I think I'll try to master it's ubiquitously hidden meaning...
I looked behind the curtain and saw that it was bad
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
TS:
That sounds a lot more fun than mastering pfal.
Kind words can be short and easy to speak, but their echoes are truly endless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Rafael,
Copyright laws don't mean anything deeper than the men who steward them. They are a mere convention of men.
George Harrison at one time had a copyright on "My Sweet Lord" but it was later determined that he did not OWN it.
He claims that it came to him independently, but too late to get the legal ownership.
In order for copyrights to prove ownership, a title search, something like those done in real estate, would have to be done. But unlike real estate which is relatively finite, searching the relatively infinite universe of all possible songs for a title conflict is not so well executable a task. The ownership proof of a copyright is only as good as the search for conflicting claims.
Who knows where Kenyon got his material from? How might we search all that he had available to him to see if his ownership is ?valid.?
But I?m not nearly as interested in legal, 5-senses ownership as spiritual ownership. In fact I?m bored silly with copyright ownership. In all, it?s a 5-senses crock, and will be someday done away with.
We?ve hardly discussed this possibility, but might God have stoln material from Kenyon and gave it to Dr?
Another possible scenario: God gave it to both.
Another scenario: Kenyon came up with it (or close to it) via his 5-senses. But Dr got it by revelation.
Each passage in question could have a different origination scenario, or a permutation of several.
People who get all uptight about copyright laws must REALLY do backflips when they see God giving all that real estate to Abraham in Genesis, and then Joshua collecting it by force. Look at all those property violations!
This ownership thing needs some serious thinking through.
****
About the word ?law? it seems that you have certain criteria that you apply to determine that it is not a law, according to your definition. But it?s Dr?s definition that we need to determine. I simply have not yet done that. But it does seem that you already do have a certain definition that you reserve for ?law? and you seem to be using it. I?m just suggesting that we determine what is being said first, and then later we can decide if we want to accept the whole story.
The best I understand SO FAR about laws is that they apply to every person, in every place, at all times, and they?re relatively simple. That?s some of the most important elements that go into defining laws in the realm of science, but I?m not sure yet as to what degree Dr defines ?law? this way too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
stop it you .... fruitcake
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
mj412,
I agree with you that the law of believing must be operated within GOD'S will. There is no promise that God will give us anything according to our unrenewed mind desires as long as we believe. Finding out what God's will is crucial to believing. I teach that and Dr teaches that.
In order to operate the law of believing we don't look for which one of our own desires we want to "believe for" next.
In order to operate it right we must find out, as you stated, what GOD?S will and desires are.
In order to operate the law of believing we look for a promise of GOD to believe.
If it?s a promise of God already, then we KNOW God?s will.
If it?s a promise of God already, then His answer is always ?Yes.?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
Mike,
NOBODY dropped the ball. We have the choice to master God's Word; pfal is not all God's Word even though it may contain SOME of it. Get over yourself Mike. A comment like that accuses people. You have no right to do that.
Exy:
hahaahahahahah I lie how you call a spade a spade.
Kind words can be short and easy to speak, but their echoes are truly endless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
Mike,
You have no idea what your talking about. It might sound good in your ears, but it's crap. Life is suffering...and I don't care if John Paul or Ringo says...I WISH... that you prosper and be in health...It DOES NOT mean it's a promise!!!
If you are ill, you need to learn the lesson from it....there is so much more to life than to deny reality and run for cover...Stop blaming the adversary and people...
You have a karmic debt to pay and in this life it appears to be mental illness. Learn the lesson or do it again, Mike!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mike,
Your understanding of plagiarism is laughably ignorant. Defend it all you want: Wierwille plagiarized from Kenyon. Sorry to break it to you: your alternate scenarios are beyond preposterous. But you go on believing them, and defending your idol. Be my guest. I'm enjoying it, really.
Oh, and as for what constitutes a law: Go ahead and take all the time you want deciding what Wierwille meant when he said "Law," but until you do, you have NO RIGHT telling me that my definition is wrong.
Some master you turned out to be.
Good luck in your continued idolatry, and your HMMADD.
Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Hey Raf. Poked in when I saw your name.
Just for the "record"
:)--> 
:D--> the lawsuit regarding "My Sweet Lord" was over it's similarity to the song "He's So Fine" by the Chiffons, released in 1963, 7 years before George Harrison released his song. It was a matter of musical similarity in the chorus. And here's a quote from the court regarding Harrison's song:
---
The court in Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 420 F.Supp. 177 (1976), concluded that George Harrison had indeed infringed upon the copyright of He's So Fine . The decision was unique in that the court acknowledged that Harrison may have unconsciously copied the tune. The court stated:
"His subconscious knew it already had worked in a song his conscious did not remember... That is, under the law, infringement of copyright, and is no less so even though subconsciously accomplished."
---
I am a real fan of George Harrison and his music and have some familiarity with the field myself, so I'd have to state two things that could be relevant to the discussion of copyright law and it's moral and ethical underpinnings - 1) George Harrison was certainly familiar with the Chiffons music and the music of that era of that there is no doubt, he was steeped in 50's and 60's rock. The court decided against him because it allowed for a "subconscious appropriation" of the material in the Chiffon's song, and although he may not have deliberately copied it, I doubt he denied the similiarity. Morally there may have been no foul, but in application, the two songs were extremely similar to each other in parts.
2) Nothing musical is new under the sun, unless you count actual sounds such as artificially created sounds. All notes/pitches already exist and it would be safe to say (and I doubt any trained musician would argue) that their various combinations have been rendered at one time or another. So similiarites are going to abound and every musician that learns and develops will also take on an "ownership" of what they learn, in the same way any artist or craftsperson will tend to feel they own their own talents and experience. Still, it's all been done before, and where we see "new" musical renderings are in the various combinations and sounds that are written and performed. But no musician will likely say that their musical output is "new". Improved, rewritten perhaps but not new.
Harrison could never have intelligently argued that he was "too late to get the legal ownership" of the song, because his song was in fact completely separate from the Chiffon's song and came years after the other one which had already been written. He wasn't "too late", he simply wrote his own song based on elements of another one. The similarities were in the melody of the chorus and of course the lyrics were much different.
Because it was George no one held it against him over the long haul. Of all the musicians you could name, his was certainly a good heart when you look at his life. Had he argued and challenged the court I'm sure it would have only worked against him.
Arguing along the lines of no one really owning anything "it's all Gods anyways" is an interesting argument though.
Hey, I like your pants, gimme. They're God's anyways. Don't show me no receipt, GIMME.
-->
'when you're in love, there's no time and no space. there's a permanent smile on your face...
and hey somewhere, you threw your fear in the sea of no cares...'
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wayne Bragg
Dear Mike:
It is refreshing to hear some one tell it like it is. Your posts have been a God send. I have been laying out here in the weeds waiting for someone like you to come along. I?ve been listening to all that disrespectful talk about my beloved Father in the Word, Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille, but you are the only one who has spoken the truth. I?ve read all you posts. They are very very good and the logic is astounding. Don?t let them dumb asses get you down. The ones that would discredit our Father in the Word. Through your posts I can tell that you are a very nice person and concerned about the truth just like me. Well Michael, I hope we can get together someday.
Michael, I have a great idea. If I could get your address and phone number I will drive to your house and pick you up and take you to my property in Northern California just outside of Garberville. Michael, I would love to show you the memorial I have built in honor of our beloved Father in The Word. I think you would be impressed. How does this sound Mike? The Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille Memorial Outhouse. Pretty awe inspiring isn?t it? When you come to my memorial outhouse you will be blessed both physically and spiritually. Only true believers get to enter the Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille Memorial Outhouse. Not many people have attained the great honor and privilege to step into this hallowed outhouse. You Michael have been chosen.
You and I need to keep alive the dear memory of our Father in the Word. And Michael when you visit me in the outhouse I have something very special just for you. For your great concern and tender love towards the memory of Our Father in the Word I have designed and etched into Italian blue marble a plaque about 3 inches wide and 12 inches long. I have etched some very untimely words that Dr. was fond of saying to his spiritually elite. This is a saying for the spiritually mature only and Michael I know that you are one of them. ?A man?s cock is not sacred.? Isn?t that wonderful Michael? I will give you this plaque for all the great truth that you are dispensing. Well Michael, my buddy. It is great to find someone like minded about our Father in the Word. It is great finding new friends. I will write often.
Wayne
[This message was edited by Wayne Bragg on July 10, 2003 at 1:45.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Mike Posted
Ok Mike, so if I copied PFAL and the other collaterals word for word and put it all together in a combined volume and then put my name on it as the author - you would not have a problem with that? I could of course claim that I got it by revelation while holed-up in a hotel room right after a snowstorm in September that no one else saw. I might even one day get a few folks to believe me and start a religion. Maybe I could have my own "Mike" to defend me against the naysayers.
-----------------------------------
Now, about the so-called "law" of believeing:
In regards to "saint and sinner"; One could possibly argue that VPW was using the term 'saint' in it's more sacred meaning and sinner referring to the rest of the believers, but that would not be consistent with Wierwille's theology.
VPW clearly taught that the believers were the saints. And the Bible is pretty plain that all have sinned and are therefore sinners. In the OT the distinction between saint an sinner was pretty clear. Saints observed the law as best they could and 'sinners' did not. In the NT the Law being filfilled, the saints became those that believe in Christ and the sinners- those that did not. So then technically we have saints that are sinners( all have sinned) and then we have just plain old sinners. One can therefore only conclude that in VPW's statement that 'saint' refers to believers and 'sinner' refers to unbelievers - otherwise there would be no distinction between the two.
What advantage then does the saint (Christian) have over the sinner (unbeliever) when it comes to faith (believing)? Not much according to Wierwille's formula-based law of believing that works for "saint and sinner alike" Just follow the formula and voila!
Since I no longer own a PFAL book (I wish I did) I will use the quotes from Rafael's post as to what VPW said about this so called law.
* "All believing equals receiving."
(All without distinction?) 'All' must refer to both positive and negative believing. Equality implies that where there is one there will also be the other. In other words - it is immutable. I think that VPW was using this in the PFAL class as a set-up for speaking in tongues. To try and make sure that no one missed.
* "What you believe for or expect, you get."
Only according to "what is available" which VPW got wrong quite a bit. It was many times VPW errors here and his failure to corrrect them that led to what you call TVT's.
* "Fear is believing in reverse"
I will quote Rafael here: "No it isn't." VPW was attempting on again to redefine the English language to suit his formula. Fear is a feeling of of anxiety brought on by either the real or perceived presence of danger. While fear is many times baseless and debilitating, at other times it is a good thing and can save your life. The Bible speaks of no such thing as reverse believing (faith). One either believes something or not whether is it a promise of God or something totally absurd like red drapes or a parking spot at the mall or for little Johnny to get run over by a Mack truck. God honors His promisses. God has not prommised to give us illness and death if we believe for it. This is not from God or from a spiritual law.
Here is another thing to think on. Wierwille postulated in his formula that needs and wants should be parallel in order to receive from God. If we have a sipritual law that works in reverse, then the needs and wants part should also apply on the reverse side. So then if I believe for a truck to kill my kid then I should also need it and want it before I can receive it. And God also must be willing and able to bring it to pass. Another quite serious flaw in Werwille's "law of believing". Wierwille puts qualifiers on the positive side and not on the "reverse".
* "Fear is negative believing."
See Above
* "God would have to change the laws of the universe not to accomodate you."
If I recall, this was in the part PFAL where VPW told of someone who predicted the time of their own death.
This implies a universal law that would apply to all people. VPW makes it very impersonal, as if there were spiritual lines of flux permeating the universe that can 'sense' whether one is 'believing' or 'fearing' and then somehow bring about the results and consequences. Like like "The Force" from Star Wars.
Let me tell you, I was really fearful of dying when I had my last heart attack and resultant surgeries. I even prepared for death. But by God's grace, here I am. So much for VPW's formula. It Looks good on paper but it simply does not work out like VPW taught it.
An immutable and universal "law of believing" that works in reverse would preclude God's grace and mercy. Therefore, according to Wierwille, God would have to "change the laws of the universe" when he gives His grace and mercy. But also according to Wierwille God cannot break his own laws. Go figure.
My conculsion: There is no "law of believing" anything like what Wierwille taught Attempting reduce God's Word into simple 5 step formulas will usually result in error
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Wayne,
Welcome to da 'Spot!
You cracked me up. I hope Mike appreciates it half as much as I did. He needs all the followers he can get, 'cuz it's pretty lonely where he is. He deserves you!
Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Socks,
Thanks for the "My Sweet Lord" explanation. You'll notice that I didn't address it originally, and that's primarily because I recognized it for what it was: a distraction/evasion from the fact of Wierwille's plagiarism.
You know, I have very little problem with anyone who says the information was more important than the source and they're willing to overlook the plagiarism. That's everyone's right. But when the plagiarism is denied, well, I just giggle. The fact that Wierwille plagiarized is so clear that anyone with two eyes and two books can see it.
Those who think it doesn't matter should just say so: Wierwille plagiarized, but it doesn't matter to me. FINE!
Wierwille didn't plagiarize? God plagiarized and gave it to Wierwille? As if God couldn't find a better way to express His own heart than EW Kenyon? HMMADD.
Wayne, Goey: Brilliant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Mike
You wrote "In order to operate the law of believing we look for a promise of God to believe. "
Ok Mike BUT the bible is no longer your standard because it is a mere translation of a man.
so we are back to my original question of , Where is your base line of truth?
Where do YOU GET THESE PROMISES OF GOD to be able to believe for ?
pfal???
If you say it is revelation then I know a whole butch of voices, said to insane people claiming direction to them to do absolute evil.
that is a mental disorder that holds no bar for truth at all.
God told me to do it, the devil told me to do it.
Jesus Christ knew what He had to do to fullfill Gods wishes by what was written in scrpture, the same words we read today from a book we call the Holy bible.
that was His standard.
What is yours?
How do a find a list of the promises of God and His will for my life so I can believe for them?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
In school we learned of the huge food chain in a rain forest. a simple tiny spider can be a part of a network of survival for millions of species of plants and animals.
the impact of that one little spider on a rain forest is so huge that the result of its life or death determines outcomes for the entire forest.
I look at Gods will in this manner.
A network of His children.
A conducter of a mass band playing the music to save the souls of Gods children, Jesus Christ directs us towards the Gods will for mankind in a song in which we each play instruments and notes that fullfill His desires .
I need to recognize the music, I need to practice my instrument to be able to sound beautiful , I need to hear the other instruments and recognize how I fit in the music.
I must always watch the conductor and follow his tempo and direction as He is the only one who has the sheet music .
Sometimes I can do a solo and that is great but what good is it without the band to appreciate the music we all live for?
For me this idea of believing is a selfish greedy gimmmme life.
God created a body for His Head Jesus Christ.
His will is for us to live a life worthy of glorifying HIM . Life was never created for us to have our own way with a God who we demand tokens from. He says He will give us the desires of our heart. What we are to think about is as Jesus Christ thinks and He thought obedience was the only way to go in life and death.
Our heart is to be like His is and Jesus Taught us God wants us to trust and obey and most of all WORSHIP HIM.
I use the story of the band because I think people tend to get stuck in a small world of gee how can I pay the bills this month, where will I work and what is my health like and then pray and believe God should make it all good.
I think Jesus conducts Gods will for each one of us , while playing in His band. In other words it is bigger than me or you or our township God is massive and How His will is done is massive.
Like the spider in the rainforrest, I do not know what could happen if I was not playing my part in the food chain and network but I believe it is much much bigger than I could imagine.
This is how I see Gods will in my life , and as time has passed the music just gets richer and more beautiful to hear, so much so being a part of the band is so great and meaningful that every other desire in life is not worth anything. God does give me the desires of my heart, and He actualy knows what I like better than I do!!
honestly He does. It is my only reason to live to see what Jesus Christ and I can do today together to hear the music His body plays together in a network of the Love God wants for each of His creation.
Yes I pray of course I do , I mostly discuss issues with God and then wait to see where The Lord of my life takes me to see it happen , or and this is just as important to me , to have Him teach me a lesson on why and how that may not be Gods will at all for my life.
that is why I love Jesus christ so much, he is a gentle teacher of the soul and every single lesson I have learned (which some may say is an unanswered pray) is to allow me the priviledge of knowing the music so much better and to be able to hear the sound of what He is doing within the band.
Jesus christ has a purpose you know, I see christians get stuck with what they can do for the Lord, their power, their abilities, naw not me I know who got the job done and saved mankind of total destruction and death. It was ONLY JESUS CHRIST , today He is our Lord showing us how to get Gods will done in each individual life, yet within HIS body because we are one now.
I may be a cymbol I may be a bass drum , I may think the flute is the greatest sound I ever heard, but in the end it isnt about what I play in life it is and always will be Gods music Jesus is directing not our own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Goey,
part of the reason my post on page 33 (32?)
quoted so much of the blue book and the orange
book was so that those who wanted to quote
directly from them could do so, complete with
the context. vpw's "definition" of "law" was
in there, and consistent with what everybody
else means by "law"-something immutable and
sovereign, not a general guideline or a good
idea.
Mind you, this is consistent with your
understanding of what vpw said. I agree with
your definition, explanation and exposition.
I just object to you saying you only had
Rafael's post to draw from, when I spent all
that time typing in my previous post.
So, if you cut-and-pasted the direct quotes
from vpw's books and the discussion we did on
the other page, and added what you and Rafael
said on the subject, I'd be amenable, even
grateful. It's all the same subject. In fact,
I suspect Rafael saved himself 45 minutes and
just cited the previous page.
===============================================
For everybody else,
Mike said (7/09/03 7:39pm) the following:
====
"About the word 'law' it seems that you have
certain criteria that you apply to determine that
it is not a law according to your definition.
But it is Dr's definition that we need to determine.
I simply have not yet done that."
"The best I understand SO FAR about laws is that they
apply to every person, in every place, at all times,
and they're relatively simple. That's some of the most
important elements that go into defining laws in the
realm of science, but I'm not sure yet as to what
degree Dr defines 'law' this way too."
========
Ok, Mike's understanding of 'law' doesn't seem to be
that far from what vpw was saying. (As originally
cited a page or so back.)
I'd like to point out, however, that Mike has freely
admitted he doesn't know what vpw said about "laws".
What vpw said about "laws" was all over Session I,
the Blue Book, and the Orange Book!
(See previous citations from same about a page back
if you don't have yours in front of you.)
Some time ago, I cited the first Session of pfal,
"The Greatest Secret in the World Today", and how
its main points contradicted his main thesis.
That's also the same session where vpw outlines his
doctrines on believing and laws and all that.
As we saw (from my earlier post), the collaterals
(Orange, Blue) said the same in them.
(From Rafael's post, we know the other books include
this doctrine also.)
A page ago, Mike utterly mangled the story of Elijah,
whose name he couldn't even get close to remembering.
(He didn't even confuse him with Elisha, which would be
understandable.) This is especially strange, since vpw
taught on Elijah. This is partially understandable, since
Mike has proudly proclaimed the inferiority of the Bible,
and, as such, might well not have opened the book for years.
So, what does this tell us?
This tells us:
A) Mike doesn't know his way around the Bible. Many of the
church-Christians Mike would view as having an inferior
understanding have a greater understanding of the Bible
than he does. (Since he doesn't care what it says, this
should not be seen by him as an insult.) To those of you
wondering if he's using the Bible as criteria for
determining things or ANYTHING ELSE, the answer is "no".
Mike doesn't KNOW the Bible, and doesn't use it for
anything.
B) MIKE DOES NOT KNOW THE CONTENTS OF PFAL.
Mike periodically makes assertions that vpw said certain
things, or "never" said certain other things. Mike never
seems to cite the orange book, the blue book or any other
book in doing so. This is especially peculiar, since Mike's
theology holds that these books hold the same position that
the Bible held to those of us who paid attention in pfal.
So, when we quote PAGE AFTER PAGE of material that vpw
wrote, it becomes obvious what vpw said. We looked at
several pages of vpw's writings a few pages back, more than
once. These quotes were diametrically opposed to what vpw
said. (They said the OPPOSITE what Mike SAID they said.)
Mike's response was NOT to amend his thinking to match the
pfal materials (which would be internally-consistent to
Mike's STATED theology). Mike's response was ALSO not to
cite another place in the same books, trying to refute
the previous quotes. What was Mike's response?
Well, way back when I cited Session One originally, Mike's
response was to pretend I didn't, and hope the points would
go away if he never acknowledged them. More recently, his
responses to DIRECT QUOTATIONS from vpw's writings was to
say 'vpw didn't teach that', or claims vpw's quotes were
misrepresented. First of all, I cited the books and
pages. If vpw DIDN'T teach that, it would be VERY SIMPLE to
turn to those pages, and find that when I said "this is the
entire content of page xx", it said something else entirely.
A simple posting of the true material would certainly have
discredited my post. So, vpw DID teach that, and SOME of
the pages where he did so were listed, and posted.
Second, again, I typed in several pages, often including
CONTEXT. I cited the page numbers each time. If the context
utterly invalidated my points, it would be a simple matter
to turn to the pages, cite the context where the opposite
was said, and discredit my points. Mike's defense was to
distract, dodge and evade, not to bring in EVIDENCE which
would have been very easy to find. (I posted the page
numbers.) Mike holds to his POV even when it is obvious
that vpw taught the opposite, and, according to Mike, it's
vpw's writings that are the greatest way to understand what
God said.
I mentioned this in passing, but I didn't think about the
implications of it until Steve mentioned it as well.
Mike does not know the contents of the Bible, and Mike does
not know the contents of vpw's books. Personally, I'm
curious if he even has a copy of them at present, or if he's
relying on his memory of what he thinks the pfal books said.
Mike's theology is in no way based on the Bible.
Mike's theology is in no way based on vpw's pfal books.
This has been pointed out, in parts, many times. At the
moment, we can see that we probably grossly
misunderestimated the degree to which Mike is ignorant of
the contents of the books upon which he claims to base his
theology.
=======================================
I shall now make a prediction.
Mike will react to this post in one of 3 ways:
A) Stop posting for a while, then, when he resumes
posting, pretend this post never existed.
(Denial is not just a river in Eqypt.)
B) Resume posting immediately, but post on
completely unrelated subjects, pretending this
post never existed.
(Denial is not just a river in Egypt.)
C) Resume posting immediately, making attacks
on my character, attempting to discredit my
post while UTTERLY FAILING TO PROVIDE A QUOTE
FROM VPW'S BOOKS. This will fail to address
my main point, but will serve his main
technique in discussion, as he stated once.
"Dodge, distract, evade. But never admit an
error is an error."
Of course, in this case, admitting an error is
an error would admit his entire theology is
in no way based on vpw's books.
Any bets on which of the three he's going to
use? He's used them all against my posts before...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
my vote is for C, hot and heavy....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
B
But with a whine about how we need to stay on the topic and not make the thread all about him once again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
thank you all for the most excellent posts!
Mike: I would like to hear your theory on the following:
I'm trying to "master" Solitaire"... and the theory I was taught and always follow (unless I miss a card) is that you try to play all of the "down" cards as first option (before the deck), and play them from left to right (in order of secondary option).
I'm thinking the believing is that this will get more cards into play and also more quickly give you open spots to move your kings to.
It works pretty well most of the time... but sometimes I wonder if there's a better way... I would really like to "master" this and would appreciate hearing any thoughts or theories you might have on the subject...
Thanks for your prompt reply.
Your bud, Tom.
I looked behind the curtain and saw that it was bad
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.