no i don't want to say it again, mr. ubiquitous :)-->
---
just a few thoughts from "Brainwaves through Time" by Robert DeMoss
quote:Generally, our brains show a marked bias toward believing (as opposed to disbelieving)... It is much quicker for the brain to have a built-in bias when evaluating new information than be forced to fully consider all the possibilities.(p. 58-60)
Thinking about thinking is one of the best ways to spot errors in logic and generate alternative solutions. Focusing on our own thinking is also a means of improving it. Just as we can exercise our bodies, we can exercise our minds with good results.(p. 222)
Knowing that [our thinking is heavily biased within social settings] can increase our perceptiveness. Just knowing about various brain biases can improve our thinking... We can do a lot to counter our brains' built-in biases just by knowing those biases exist and deciding that countering them is important. (p. 224)
we are far more likely to seek out evidence that supports what we already believe than to seek out or spot evidence that contradicts our beliefs.(p. 233)
[This message was edited by excathedra on July 13, 2003 at 15:05.]
You wrote: "The fear you are referring to, as negative fear ~ very possibly has it's root in a brain chemistry misfire or disorder."
Yes, some extreme runaway fears that happen are due to "brain chemistry misfire or disorder" causes.
BUT, there are also some fears that CAUSE "brain chemistry misfire or disorder" symptoms to occur.
Sometimes BOTH kinds are happening at the same time feeding each other. It can get quite complicated, so complicated that there's NO way to sort through any events or anecdotal information without revelation.
The only things we can efficiently sort through are our own thoughts and bringing them into obedience to Christ, who IS the Word.
*****
You wrote: "Are there still bible-thumpers out there who believe everyone must have perfect health, and if they don't, they have brought ALL circumstances of this on themselves by their own thoughts and actions? YES!"
Yes, but not me, and not Dr.
*****
You wrote: "Explain the challenges of aging than...cellular death...etc."
Life sometimes seems like a series of battles. Even the ones we win take their tolls. The BIG win here though is the new body we receive in a moment of time. That seems to be LAST on the list. Right now it's the perfectly renewed mind that's been made available.
*****
You wrote: "If people are so impressionable in their youth, w/o life experience and mature sensibilities...when they take a class like PFAL...concepts that are completely new to them, some which are mis-taught by the instructor who does not have a WORKING understanding of the material anyway, who is only attempting to assign a moral connection to things he does not/can not legitimately do service to...we have something like an 'experiment' that doesn't pan out...or goes bad...you know?"
Playing the "What IF" game is pretty shakey, but it looks to me that there is one implied here. Let's see if I can draw it out.
The "What IF" game was exploited by SNL for several skits worth of comedy because it can get really ridiculous, really fast if we're not careful. I only want to illustrate ONE point by this, so stretching it out will naturally bring out unwanted points.
What if ... we in our impressionable youth had NOT been sold PFAL?
How bad would THAT experiment go is the question that your posted challenge implies.
.
.
Let's see... my impressionable youth...............
Is that the Moody Blues I?m hearing? I wonder where I can find some pure mescaline to go with this music? I?ve been reading the Tibetan Book of the Dead lately and this death thing is looking more and more fascinating. Maybe I could go down in a blaze of glory resisting the Vietnam war. Or an overdose of acid. That would be great! Maybe I?ll just veg out with all my friends.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
MIKE! ...DIDDLE ITTLE ITTLE ITTLE IT!..............SNAP OUT OF IT!!!!
.
.
.
Oh! What a bad ?what if? I just had! Oh thank God I got sold PFAL!!!.
.
.
.
[This message was edited by Mike on July 13, 2003 at 17:01.]
I don't see the ultimate goal of God working His Word with DR in the PFAL writings as a reaching out to the masses, like a revival.
I see God's purpose here as MUCH bigger than mere revival.
I also see God's purpose as much more focused on just one small group of people, PFAL grads, because He has a job for us. It's not yet a reach out to the masses thing. That can come only after we fully master this Word, so we can fully answer the call, and fully carry out the job.
Dr's Last/Lost Teaching says just this: first master, THEN serve.
You wrote: ?God calls Job BLAMELESS. Those who place
the blame on JOB, therefore, contradict God.
"Why did Job's kids die? Oh, Job was afraid."
For those of you who somehow missed it,
that's BLAMING JOB.?
I?ve mentioned before here that when I use the word ?blame? it?s not in the usual hard, harsh sense. I see a soft blame that can be useful for limited conversation. It?s an abbreviation for the much more complex topic of locating what went wrong, what HAD been going right, and how do we FIX it to get it right again.
There?s no condemnation, so there?s no blame in that sense. It?s just useful to get to ultimate causes of things to effectively eliminate symptoms. Like I?ve mentioned just a few posts above, getting into specifics about actual situations can be hopelessly complicated without revelation.
When God places some situations in His Word about people screwing up, HERE we do have revelation, and this affixing of soft blame on Job by God in His Word is not an unloving thing at all. God shows how He FIXES the situation, as I mentioned above.
God does some much heavier, overt affixing of this ?soft? blame in the accounts on David. Once again, we have revelation here on David, not a rumor mill, or a set of first-hand eye witness human 5-senses affidavits, it?s the written revelation. But, again God shows us the FIX where David comes back. God knew this in His foreknowledge, and knew that hard blame wasn?t called for. God already knew that adversary was going to kill David?s son, and that David?s believing to build the temple was totally shot.
************
The 9/11 and SARS ?fear? you pointed out I see as worry and concern. For SOME people these worries and concerns can grow to fear, but it takes time and repetition, just like full blown believing.
I can only see the 'listener' at a disadvantage if they are sold bad items?
I often marvel at how Joseph in Egypt was given the revelation how to trick his brothers into doing the right thing, even to the point of the entire family moving to Egypt.
PFAL was not a harmful thing that people were tricked into. I do see bad items that came later, in the TVT, but not in PFAL.
I don?t see an overall flaw in Dr?s approach. It worked. We got the Word.
Dr did what I see Paul doing in Acts 17 where he made his sales pitch that worked for some. When you look at the details of his sales pitch there he goes to their PAGAN alter to the unknown god, and he quotes to them their own PAGAN poet. Looking at Paul?s approach, not knowing he was working with God?s revelation, you might think Paul was a bit of an aggressive huckster. Looks can be deceiving. Dr got revelation how to sell a bunch of us boomers on a good thing.
******
I know that there were things that DID go wrong. Same with Paul?s ministry. When he went to Thessalonica there was a riot. Similar things happened a lot around Paul?s ministry. Paul had an exclusive revelation and the adversary hounded the perimeters of Paul?s ministry looking for whatever he could exploit to make it look bad. Ditto with the construction of the TVTs to make Dr?s exclusive (1942 promise) revelation look bad.
You wrote: ?I think PFAL had the potential, and did, in places, apply unrealistic, and unproven absolutes (fear is negative believing, unbelief, etc.), fool-heartedly I must add, that could not and would not hold-up under scruitiny...I'm not talking about the Word of God as someone understands it...I'm referring to the application of it with unsound and unproven absolutes that were not biblically based whatsoever, in concept or design.?
I don?t think you yet know what is REALLY in PFAL, but you do know some of it mixed with a lot of experiences, most of which are with people (TVT) and not with sentences in the books.
THERE, in that TVT counterfeit of PFAL, your analysis of some flaws seems to fit.
Many aspects of the TVT would not stand up to scrutiny.
But PFAL, free of TVT, stands up to scrutiny marvelously.
The scrutiny of the world?s philosophy, psychology, world history, archeology, english literature, world literature, science, physics, calculus is uninteresting to me. Those diciplines are fine in their own field, but that?s a 5-senses field only. They are incapable of competent scrutiny of PFAL. Just the opposite: PFAL scrutinizes them and they come up wanting. God?s Word is the critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart, and PFAL is revelation form God.
quote:For Job?s fear to be documented as it is in Chapter One means to me that it was runaway fear, like the poor woman with the little boy.
If you were any more predictable, I could use you to set my alarm.
There is no documentation of Job's fear in chapter one. There is evidence of his faithfulness and devotion to God, which Wierwille interpreted as evidence of fear. Wierwille was wrong, of course. But you are so busy worshipping every word he wrote, and a few words he stole, that you will never see that.
There is no "law of believing." Job bore NONE of the blame for what happened. No hard blame. No soft blame. When Job repeatedly asked God why, why, why, God NEVER mentioned Job's fear. The worst fear of any parent is that something will happen to their children. Wierwille took that perfectly natural fear and turned it into an indictment. You come along with this happy horse manure and call it "soft blame."
HMMADD, Mike. There is no law of believing that God was compelled to honor, thus allowing Job's children to DIE! Job's calamity was unjust, unfair, and NOT in accordance with some fictional law of believing. MC, BTB, HMMADD.
In the early days of your posting career, I had some respect for your position. You stood pat in the face of almost unanimous (or should I say ubiquitous?) opposition. Your position seemed to flow logically from your premise: that the 1942 "promise" was true, even though I strongly disagreed with it.
In the last few pages I have changed my mind. Several posters, Wordwolf prominent among them, have answered you using, not the words of the "tattered remnants" or common sense, but the words of your dead master himself.
Those posters, joined now by Rafael, address your points using your own source, quoting the context as well as the "verse" so that there is no mistake.
While you are still welcome to your opinion, and I would never suggest that you should be prevented from posting it, your opinion, supposedly based on the writings of "Doctor", is not borne out by those very writings.
Your conclusions are not supported by Wierwille's writings, let alone the bible. Your logic is labarynthine and your application of the rules of grammar defies even the most liberal interpretation.
I'm aware that what I say will not change your mind...you've stated that in this area it's closed. I'm just making a statement based on my observation of how this thread has proceeded.
(I'll still buy you a Leinenkugel ;)-->)
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
I've never addressed it much over the years Mike and I was a little surprised when it got so much discussion here. Just goes to show me. I never gave it much credence. I didn't jump whole hog in to PFAL or the Way because of it.
It was something VP said in PFAL, but right from the get go it seemed like a moot point. I can see now more of why it wasn't, especially because of the way it affected some people that have posted here about it.
It's unprovable and has nothing to do with anything. If it happened, fine. If it didn't, fine. But either way - if VP had a vision, an ecstatic experience of some kind, real snow fell, one hell of a case of dandruff, whatever. It doesn't matter. Nothing is proven because of it. VP said the promise was "teach it and I'll teach it to you like it hasn't been known since..."
So there was never any standard to match that promise up to. Nobody has originals, no one has complete copies of any of the epistles or gospels to refer to. No one knows, that's what the promise WAS he said, "like it hasn't been known since WAY back when". For all practical purposes, VP was out past the edge and entirely on his own.
It's silly to say "if PFAL 'works' then it validates the 'promise'....it doesn't. VP could have taught that pigs fly and if a pig flew, it wouldn't mean the promise was true or that it even happened, it would just mean a pig flew. Are the two related? Oink. Not necessarily.
I was always surprised right from the first time I heard it that he told it. Who cares? What does it mean to me? Why is he telling me that?
I believed and pursued PFAL because I wanted to, and I wanted it to work. Much the same way you're approaching all of this stuff you're doing. You see it the way you want to, and you ignore the things you don't want to consider. And so it goes.
'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...'
If you want others to pan out 'logic', be prepared to 'meet' that, ok?
Actually, I don't expect faith to be logical at all, however, when one claims that that faith is based on something concrete, i.e. The Bible, PFAL, fossil records, gold plates handed down by the angel Moroni, then I expect that the faith/beliefs line up with what the person SAYS they line up with, that's all
It isn't reasonable to require Mike to address every issue or item from PFAL the way, or in the manner you'd like.
I don't "require" Mike to do anything. I don't even expect him to do so. He has a point of view. He has the right to express it. Others have the right to refute it, or attempt to do so.
Some of us do our own concluding.
You (not just you) seem to want something that isn't available.
What? I don't know what you mean here.
Why wrestle?
Or here
Other than the above comments, I take your statements under consideration...thanks! :D-->
Oakspear
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is
For a few hours I was wondering if I should have put in more detail when I implied you did NOT get it. What I meant is that there is a world of fine detail in PFAL that I don?t think ANYONE got. This is the reason Dr kept on saying to master the books. THAT?S where the real action of PFAL is at.
Most of us who dedicated our lives had to have ?got? it to SOME degree, but I now see that there is far more in there to be gotten than any of us saw in the good old days.
Your familiarity with the soundtrack, like most everybody in those days, is probably quite rich. One of the key messages I?ve repeated here over and over is how much more there is to the class that just the soundtrack. The books, and those chapters in the collaterals, have MUCH more detail than the soundtrack. Plus, the written aspects of the class are far more refined and precise.
Lastly, coming back to these books is where the biggest jolt of truth comes. When we were first exposed to them we had different needs, and our maturity allowed only so much absorption. Now that we?ve been through a few of life?s hoops, our RE-exposure to PFAL will be much richer than the first.
The difference between knowing the soundtrack and some chapters years ago, and knowing the entire set of chapters now, is astounding!
Separating out the TVT from the books can ONLY happen as we study the books now. There are lots of surprises in the books that quickly dispel TVT darkness. Separating out these differences can also be a lot of work, as some of the errors are quite complicated.
What you see now to be damaging aspects of the class, you will either find to be not that way at all in the actual texts, or you will find they are not in them at all.
When you say that some of what is in PFAL is irresponsible, what I see you appraising is a conglomeration of notions and experiences, only some of which are accurately from the books.
********
There are many things I like to discuss along with my presentation of data. Hit me with some of the ones you like, and maybe we can work them into this thread or another. Your attitude and approach make it easier to get into things.
I pay MUCH more respect and attention to what I read on PFAL pages than I do with PFAL for years, and who have a negative attitude towards Dr.
If you were to read PFAL itself, instead of what posters say is in it, I think you're more likely to agree with how I read it.
One of the big differences in where we read differently is PFAL page 83, where Dr uses different handling of his own name in accordance with the many "thus saith the Lord" statements he's made over the years.
If Dr had meant to include his name in that list with others EQUALLY he could have easily and unambiguously written this:
The Bible was written so that you as a believer
need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine
or theory or ideology. This Word of God does not
change. Men change, ideologies change, opinions
change; but this Word of God lives and abides forever.
It endures, it stands. Let?s see this from John 5:39.
?Search the scriptures ....? It does not say search
Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P.
Wierwille?s writings or the writings of a denomination.
No, it says, ?Search the scriptures ....? because
all Scripture is God-breathed. Not what Wierwille
writes will be God-breathed; not what Calvin said,
nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts;
but the Scriptures ? they are God-breathed.
The above paragraph is what you and others WANT that page 83 of PFAL to say, but it does NOT say the above. Here is what is actually written:
The Bible was written so that you as a believer
need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine
or theory or ideology. This Word of God does not
change. Men change, ideologies change, opinions
change; but this Word of God lives and abides forever.
It endures, it stands. Let?s see this from John 5:39.
?Search the scriptures ....? It does not say search
Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P.
Wierwille?s writings or the writings of a denomination.
No, it says, ?Search the scriptures ....? because
all Scripture is God-breathed. Not all that Wierwille
writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what
Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor
Roberts; but the Scriptures ? they are God-breathed.
It?s the addition of just a few words, ?not all? and ?necessarily? that make the big difference.
Here?s the critical sentence (A) your way, and then (B) Dr?s way:
(A) Not what Wierwille writes will be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures ? they are God-breathed.
(B) Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures ? they are God-breathed.
Now let me ask you. Suppose you were writing this book. Suppose that you wrote sentence (A) and then looked at it. You see that it clearly says that none of your writings are going to be God-breathed like the scriptures from the first century.
But then you remember that in 1942, and in many other situations since then, God has told you that you were given the job to first learn God?s Word from Him directly, and then you were to teach it to others in written form like it had nopt been known since the first century.
How would you then correct sentence (A) to reflect this truth that SOME, not all, but SOME of your writings were going to be God-breathed like in the first century?
How would you correct sentence (A)?
Let?s use the sorter sub-sentence versions for simplicity:
(A) Not what Wierwille writes will be God-breathed;
Ok. For if we first change ?Not? to ?Not all? that might help. This is because only SOME, not all, of what you write is in this exceptional category.
(A.4) Not all what Wierwille writes will be God-breathed;
And a minor change would be to fix ?what? to ?that? for better flowing grammar. So now we have.
(A.6) Not all that Wierwille writes will be God-breathed;
Now that could almost do the job of communicating the truth of some of your writings being in this exceptional category.
But something?s missing in the surety department. The context is all these nice guys who have nice writings, but that are NOT God-breathed. The context kind of squelches this contra-contextual piece of information. You want to make this a more positive statement of this exceptional situation of some, not all, but some of your writings being God-breathed.
Add the word ?necessarily? and see what happens.
(A.8) Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed;
Hey! We?re there! This is the same as the book. The word ?necessarily? adds in the idea that OF NECESSITY there is an exception to the rule of this context. Not ALL, but some, of Dr?s writings NECESSARILY are going to be God-breathed.
If you wanted to convey that some of Dr?s writings of necessity were a fulfillment of the 1942 promise, and you wanted to say this on page 83, in that context, then this is how you would have to say it:
Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed.
This means OF NECESSITY, some of what Wierwille writes will be God-breathed.
The other page reading we disagreed on were whether or not Dr says that he originated all the material when he says he researched or wrote something. Dr was totally up front with us, on so many occasions, on NOT being the originator of the material. He told us of his 5-senses exploits in collecting information, and he told us of his special connection with God to sort it all out and put it together. How many times did you hear Dr say that phrase ?put it together? ?? Lots!
When I read pages where Dr talks a little about his research, I bring in all the other things Dr said about it. I don?t put on blinders and look for ways to ?prove? him wrong. I read what?s written.
ps - Will you STILL buy me a Leinenkugel?
[This message was edited by Mike on July 14, 2003 at 1:32.]
I?ve posted here before that I admired the times that Dr eliminated all gray areas concerning his authority to teach us. Either he lied of told the truth are the only two alternatives, when it comes to supernatural claims.
I now see the 1942 promise like I first saw the account on the train in India with the man?s healed arm. When I first heard that story I knew that if Dr was lying here I couldn?t rust him anywhere. He cut out all possibilities of hearing part of what he said and rejecting others. I knew that if he told the truth I should listen very carefully; if he lied I should leave. I had to decide. I stayed.
When I heard the 1942 promise I first blew it off as unimportant. In these later years I?ve seen that it?s like the train story. I?m staying.
What you say about the story being no proof in itself is accurate. It?s the truths, the many truths, in the class that inspires me to believe the promise.
Just so that this promise is not a mere memory remnant, here it is:
"Then Rosalind left. It was the fall of the year. Kids were back in school already. It must have been September. I was sitting in my office, an old dentist's office just around the corner from the church where I served - I'll show you that too when we get there. I bet you it's still there, though I haven't been back here since I left.
"I was praying. And I told Father that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on.
"And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others.
"Well, I nearly flew off my chair. I couldn't believe that God would talk to me." He shakes his head slowly smiling. "It's just too fantastic. People won't believe it. But He spoke to me just as plainly as I'm talking now to you.
"But really, why is it so strange? When you think about it, you see in the Bible that all through the ages God talked to people. God talked to Moses, to all the prophets. God talked to Paul. All through the centuries, God has talked to people in times of great need. And that's what we have today - a terrific need. People are just so far from hearing and believing the Word of God.
"You don't get it in the theological schools. The Word is buried, just like it was in the time of Jeremiah. Oh, they had their priests, their higher echelons, their temples, their rituals. It all looked so religious, you know. But the Word of God was buried. Oh, they were teaching the people something -- they called it the Word of God maybe, but the Word was buried. God spoke directly to Jeremiah.
"The Word is buried today. If there's no one around to teach it, God has to teach it Himself. You see, I am a product of my times. God knew me before the foundations of the world, just like He knew you and everyone else. We were all in God's foreknowledge from the beginnings.
"God knew I would believe His Word. And every day I am more and more deeply convinced of this ministry which teaches people the accuracy and integrity of God's Word. Without this ministry the world would be in far greater spiritual darkness about His Word. There would be less light in the world. Where else but in this ministry do you find the Word of God so living and real? This is truly a time of terrific need." Doctor nods his head abruptly, as if to punctuate his urgency.
"Well, I couldn't believe that God talked to me right then. You see, God's right here. He always has been here. He is still here. And God is willing and able to reveal everything to anyone or everyone. But we are just unable to receive it. We don't believe it. It's like, you can't pour a gallon of water in a teacup. It's just not big enough to receive it, take it all in. You have to make the cup bigger first. You build up the container, and then you fill it little by little. He fills us a little bit at a time as we can take it. He knows how much we can take because God knows everything. God doesn't waste His revelation on people who cannot believe it.
"Paul had to be tremendously built up to believe -receive - the mystery that had been hidden since before the foundations of the world. John, too, had to be built up to receive the revelation set forth in the book of Revelation. It's taken many years and a lot of trips and searching to build my believing to this point also. But God knows our hearts.
"Well, on the day God spoke to me, I couldn't believe it. But then I came to the point by the next day where I said to myself - maybe it's true. So the next day I talked to God again. I said, 'Lord, if it's really true what you said to me yesterday, if that was really you talking to me, you've got to give me a sign so that I really know, so that I can believe.'
"The sky was crystal blue and clear. Not a cloud in sight. It was a beautiful early autumn day. I said, 'If that was really you, and you meant what you said, give me a sign. Let me see it snow.' My eyes were tightly shut as I prayed. And then I opened them.
"The sky was so white and thick with snow, I couldn't see the tanks at the filling station on the corner not 75 feet away." Doctor relates this phenomenon in a joyous voice. The car swerves off the highway, onto a narrow black-top road, and the sign with the arrow reads: "Payne, 2 miles." The overcast sky turns restlessly over our heads, and the sparse sprinkling of snowflakes thickens on the windshield. Doctor laughs aloud.
"It reminds me of that day in 1942. It reminds me of that other time it snowed." We pull into a sleepy, small midwestern town. Around two corners, we're by a one-story building, the front of which is a many-paned display window.
"That's the old dentist's office that was my office," Doctor remarks. By now, the snow is swirling around us. At the corner stands the Marathon Gas Station. Doctor shakes his head from side to side. His face breaks into a ready smile. His eyes are blue, laughing or crying. "It reminds me of the day..." he trails off. "That's where I was sitting when I prayed to God to teach me the Word and show me how. And when I opened my eyes, it was snowing so hard I couldn't see those gas pumps right there." He points to the pumps a dozen yards or more from the window. A car has just pulled in. The dentist's office is deserted now, empty through the window.
I try to get out , but they keep pulling me back in!
I don't have time to read everything written here but, Mike, I did read what you wrote to Oaks.
VP said:
quote: Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed.
You said:
quote: This means OF NECESSITY, some of what Wierwille writes will be God-breathed.
Now I am sure this has been hashed and rehashed but...
what NECESSITY would that be?
Well for one if non of VP's words were "God-breathed" he would be just another Joe Shmo. There would be no reason to follow him, he would just be another guy with an opinion. To believe his statement completely I would have to believe that this same statement was also God-breathed. We would if we were going to scrutinize that statement in the same way he taught us to scrutinize the details of the scripture. IMO That means I would believe this just because he said it. Plus VP obviously thought or proprted that God had spoken to him and therefore could not exclude everything that he said as non-God-breath.
Lets suppose that VP lied a couple of times in his life. We would have to, him being a man and all. right? Lets suppose VP fabricated the snow and the gas pumps and such. Then we might be more likely to not believe that God breathed on him, or something.
All this is a lot of believing in a man, IMO. What about the rest of what VP sakd on that page.
(B) Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures ? they are God-breathed.
should we look at the rest of these men's writting as you would have us look at VPW's? Do you do so?
BUT, lets not forget about the but.
"but the Scriptures ? they are God-breathed."
but, incontrast to,"Not all that Wierwille
writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what
Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor
Roberts;"
context?
?"Search the scriptures ....? It does not say search
Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P.
Wierwille?s writings or the writings of a denomination.
No, it says, ?Search the scriptures ....? "
GOLD!
Is there something that we haven't mastered about this part of the class?
Now that I have read your responce to socks, I guess I can look at what I jsut wrote and say
Who gives a rat's a$$?
Mike good luck (language of possesion,Oh NO!) with this whole thing. You have spent wuite a bit of time here seemingly to no avail. I hope (again using a word incorrectly ;)-->) that you have time to really "win" some people.
Actaully, I take that back. I truly don't hope that. No offence just being honest.
It don't mean a thing if it ain't PFAL. Doo-wat doo-wah doo-wat doo-wah la-shanta la-shanta
Yet our lives are just that - experience - and for the part of me that types this and reads that it's all there is.
I'm reminded of how illogical Christianity is at it's core, for some reason. A dead man rises up to life 3 days after being killed...doesn't make sense does it? And for all that that is, it wouldn't mean a lot even 50 years after to people who hadn't seen it for themselves - if that's all there was to it.
My usual mantra - knowledge is one thing, understanding is another. Experience another still.
The Light shines eternally and if we ever really see it, it will burn everything else away and there's no going back after that because even if we don't walk in that Light all the time we will always remember what the world looked like illuminated, even for a moment. You can doubt it, ignore it, toy with it, but it's left it's mark. When we embrace it it will blind us to the darkness of life, lift us to love and relieve us of the burden of needing to prove day after day to ourselves by words and deeds that we're really here. We can just live.
I can't think of anything that I would wish more for you and for everyone. A life fully illuminated by that Light and the freedom to live in true peace. I don't believe it's in the temporary shelter we can find in the cracks and crevaces of this word or that, where shadows are cast and meanings evade us, it's in Life. Put another way, I hope you have your day at the pumps and the snow is so deep you have to ski out. ;)-->
'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...'
[This message was edited by socks on July 14, 2003 at 4:42.]
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
82
119
656
81
Popular Days
Jun 15
86
Jul 3
73
Jul 12
50
Mar 31
49
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 82 posts
mj412 119 posts
Mike 656 posts
Steve Lortz 81 posts
Popular Days
Jun 15 2003
86 posts
Jul 3 2003
73 posts
Jul 12 2003
50 posts
Mar 31 2003
49 posts
Popular Posts
Yanagisawa
Did you say "get the ball rolling" or get the kaballa rolling...for it sounds like that's your current freak - some sort of hidden, mystical kaballa-esque gnostic esotericism. I'm fascinated with you
Mike
Exy,
I'm having a hard time deciphering that.
Want to say it again?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
no i don't want to say it again, mr. ubiquitous
:)-->
---
just a few thoughts from "Brainwaves through Time" by Robert DeMoss
[This message was edited by excathedra on July 13, 2003 at 15:05.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
grace
mercy
peace
i'm done for now
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluzeman
Hey, I STILL like Blind Faith! Eric Clapton, Steve Winwood, Ric Grech, Ginger Baker...Great band!
Oh wait...this isn't the music thread. Sorry, I'll leave now!
:D-->
Rick
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ginger,
You wrote: "The fear you are referring to, as negative fear ~ very possibly has it's root in a brain chemistry misfire or disorder."
Yes, some extreme runaway fears that happen are due to "brain chemistry misfire or disorder" causes.
BUT, there are also some fears that CAUSE "brain chemistry misfire or disorder" symptoms to occur.
Sometimes BOTH kinds are happening at the same time feeding each other. It can get quite complicated, so complicated that there's NO way to sort through any events or anecdotal information without revelation.
The only things we can efficiently sort through are our own thoughts and bringing them into obedience to Christ, who IS the Word.
*****
You wrote: "Are there still bible-thumpers out there who believe everyone must have perfect health, and if they don't, they have brought ALL circumstances of this on themselves by their own thoughts and actions? YES!"
Yes, but not me, and not Dr.
*****
You wrote: "Explain the challenges of aging than...cellular death...etc."
Life sometimes seems like a series of battles. Even the ones we win take their tolls. The BIG win here though is the new body we receive in a moment of time. That seems to be LAST on the list. Right now it's the perfectly renewed mind that's been made available.
*****
You wrote: "If people are so impressionable in their youth, w/o life experience and mature sensibilities...when they take a class like PFAL...concepts that are completely new to them, some which are mis-taught by the instructor who does not have a WORKING understanding of the material anyway, who is only attempting to assign a moral connection to things he does not/can not legitimately do service to...we have something like an 'experiment' that doesn't pan out...or goes bad...you know?"
Playing the "What IF" game is pretty shakey, but it looks to me that there is one implied here. Let's see if I can draw it out.
The "What IF" game was exploited by SNL for several skits worth of comedy because it can get really ridiculous, really fast if we're not careful. I only want to illustrate ONE point by this, so stretching it out will naturally bring out unwanted points.
What if ... we in our impressionable youth had NOT been sold PFAL?
How bad would THAT experiment go is the question that your posted challenge implies.
.
.
Let's see... my impressionable youth...............
.
.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm................................................
.
.
I can remember it as if it were happening NOW!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! .........................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
.....Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ............................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
.......Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ............................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
.....Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ...........................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
...Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ...........................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
..Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! .........................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
.Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ...........................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
..Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ..............................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
...Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ..............................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
.....Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ..............................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
.......Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ..............................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
.....Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ..............................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
...Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ..............................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
..Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ..............................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
.Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ..............................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
...Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! .........................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
.....Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ..........................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
.......Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ..........................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
.....Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ...........................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
...Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ...........................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
..Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! .........................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
.Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ...........................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
..Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ..............................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
...Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ..............................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
.....Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ..............................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
.......Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ..............................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
.....Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ..............................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
...Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ..............................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
..Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ..............................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
.Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ..............................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
...Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ...........................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
.....Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ............................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
.......Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ...........................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
.....Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ...........................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
...Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT! ...........................Diddle ittle ittle ittle IT!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Is that the Moody Blues I?m hearing? I wonder where I can find some pure mescaline to go with this music? I?ve been reading the Tibetan Book of the Dead lately and this death thing is looking more and more fascinating. Maybe I could go down in a blaze of glory resisting the Vietnam war. Or an overdose of acid. That would be great! Maybe I?ll just veg out with all my friends.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
MIKE! ...DIDDLE ITTLE ITTLE ITTLE IT!..............SNAP OUT OF IT!!!!
.
.
.
Oh! What a bad ?what if? I just had! Oh thank God I got sold PFAL!!!.
.
.
.
[This message was edited by Mike on July 13, 2003 at 17:01.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ginger,
I don't see the ultimate goal of God working His Word with DR in the PFAL writings as a reaching out to the masses, like a revival.
I see God's purpose here as MUCH bigger than mere revival.
I also see God's purpose as much more focused on just one small group of people, PFAL grads, because He has a job for us. It's not yet a reach out to the masses thing. That can come only after we fully master this Word, so we can fully answer the call, and fully carry out the job.
Dr's Last/Lost Teaching says just this: first master, THEN serve.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
You wrote: ?God calls Job BLAMELESS. Those who place
the blame on JOB, therefore, contradict God.
"Why did Job's kids die? Oh, Job was afraid."
For those of you who somehow missed it,
that's BLAMING JOB.?
I?ve mentioned before here that when I use the word ?blame? it?s not in the usual hard, harsh sense. I see a soft blame that can be useful for limited conversation. It?s an abbreviation for the much more complex topic of locating what went wrong, what HAD been going right, and how do we FIX it to get it right again.
There?s no condemnation, so there?s no blame in that sense. It?s just useful to get to ultimate causes of things to effectively eliminate symptoms. Like I?ve mentioned just a few posts above, getting into specifics about actual situations can be hopelessly complicated without revelation.
When God places some situations in His Word about people screwing up, HERE we do have revelation, and this affixing of soft blame on Job by God in His Word is not an unloving thing at all. God shows how He FIXES the situation, as I mentioned above.
God does some much heavier, overt affixing of this ?soft? blame in the accounts on David. Once again, we have revelation here on David, not a rumor mill, or a set of first-hand eye witness human 5-senses affidavits, it?s the written revelation. But, again God shows us the FIX where David comes back. God knew this in His foreknowledge, and knew that hard blame wasn?t called for. God already knew that adversary was going to kill David?s son, and that David?s believing to build the temple was totally shot.
************
The 9/11 and SARS ?fear? you pointed out I see as worry and concern. For SOME people these worries and concerns can grow to fear, but it takes time and repetition, just like full blown believing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ginger,
I can only see the 'listener' at a disadvantage if they are sold bad items?
I often marvel at how Joseph in Egypt was given the revelation how to trick his brothers into doing the right thing, even to the point of the entire family moving to Egypt.
PFAL was not a harmful thing that people were tricked into. I do see bad items that came later, in the TVT, but not in PFAL.
I don?t see an overall flaw in Dr?s approach. It worked. We got the Word.
Dr did what I see Paul doing in Acts 17 where he made his sales pitch that worked for some. When you look at the details of his sales pitch there he goes to their PAGAN alter to the unknown god, and he quotes to them their own PAGAN poet. Looking at Paul?s approach, not knowing he was working with God?s revelation, you might think Paul was a bit of an aggressive huckster. Looks can be deceiving. Dr got revelation how to sell a bunch of us boomers on a good thing.
******
I know that there were things that DID go wrong. Same with Paul?s ministry. When he went to Thessalonica there was a riot. Similar things happened a lot around Paul?s ministry. Paul had an exclusive revelation and the adversary hounded the perimeters of Paul?s ministry looking for whatever he could exploit to make it look bad. Ditto with the construction of the TVTs to make Dr?s exclusive (1942 promise) revelation look bad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ginger,
You wrote: ?I think PFAL had the potential, and did, in places, apply unrealistic, and unproven absolutes (fear is negative believing, unbelief, etc.), fool-heartedly I must add, that could not and would not hold-up under scruitiny...I'm not talking about the Word of God as someone understands it...I'm referring to the application of it with unsound and unproven absolutes that were not biblically based whatsoever, in concept or design.?
I don?t think you yet know what is REALLY in PFAL, but you do know some of it mixed with a lot of experiences, most of which are with people (TVT) and not with sentences in the books.
THERE, in that TVT counterfeit of PFAL, your analysis of some flaws seems to fit.
Many aspects of the TVT would not stand up to scrutiny.
But PFAL, free of TVT, stands up to scrutiny marvelously.
The scrutiny of the world?s philosophy, psychology, world history, archeology, english literature, world literature, science, physics, calculus is uninteresting to me. Those diciplines are fine in their own field, but that?s a 5-senses field only. They are incapable of competent scrutiny of PFAL. Just the opposite: PFAL scrutinizes them and they come up wanting. God?s Word is the critic of the thoughts and intents of the heart, and PFAL is revelation form God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
If you were any more predictable, I could use you to set my alarm.
There is no documentation of Job's fear in chapter one. There is evidence of his faithfulness and devotion to God, which Wierwille interpreted as evidence of fear. Wierwille was wrong, of course. But you are so busy worshipping every word he wrote, and a few words he stole, that you will never see that.
There is no "law of believing." Job bore NONE of the blame for what happened. No hard blame. No soft blame. When Job repeatedly asked God why, why, why, God NEVER mentioned Job's fear. The worst fear of any parent is that something will happen to their children. Wierwille took that perfectly natural fear and turned it into an indictment. You come along with this happy horse manure and call it "soft blame."
HMMADD, Mike. There is no law of believing that God was compelled to honor, thus allowing Job's children to DIE! Job's calamity was unjust, unfair, and NOT in accordance with some fictional law of believing. MC, BTB, HMMADD.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Rafael,
Do you think God handed Job over to the adversary?
I don't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mike said
(7/13/03 5:31pm)
"The 9/11 and SARS "fear" you pointed out I see
as worry and concern. For SOME people, these
worries and concerns can grow to fear, but it
takes time and repetition, just like full-blown
believing."
===============================================
Let's take this chronologically. I mentioned
the 50's, and FEARS of "the bomb. There were
water rations in the 50's, in preparation for
a possible a-bomb. Everybody knew where their
local "fallout shelters" were-"there were signs
all over the place". I bet you remember
growing up with those signs, still up many years
later. I did. They were up into the 70's and
80's. People-LOTS of people-build PERSONAL
fall-out shelters, for a LOT of money. The
doctrine of "mutually-assured destruction"
("MAD") started back then-people thought that
it would be the end of the world, since the
planet could be bombed into oblivion in a few
hours.
You said "it takes time and repetition".
Well, a 10-year period isn't "time"?
=============================================
The Y2K crisis was recent. Didn't people make
preparaions in your area? In mine, in the last
week of December 1999, you could NOT find a
flashlight or a battery ANYWHERE. Ditto bottled
water. Everybody HERE knows twi went batty
for that time-period also. People were told to
pull their money out of banks. I know people who
made sure they were in the countryside,
expecting rioting. They spent lots of money and
MONTHS preparing. (I went out and had a good
time.)
Ask people who work in the airline industry
about SARS FEAR. You call it worry and concern.
Their industry lost millions of dollars due to
FEAR. These were all FEAR exhibited over
extended periods, by many, many people. IF
fear was a LAW, then there would have been
mass suffering due to mass results of each
FEAR incident.
============================================
Rafael already addressed the "soft blame"HMMADD.
(Job was BLAMELESS, not free of "hard blame".)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Mike:
In the early days of your posting career, I had some respect for your position. You stood pat in the face of almost unanimous (or should I say ubiquitous?) opposition. Your position seemed to flow logically from your premise: that the 1942 "promise" was true, even though I strongly disagreed with it.
In the last few pages I have changed my mind. Several posters, Wordwolf prominent among them, have answered you using, not the words of the "tattered remnants" or common sense, but the words of your dead master himself.
Those posters, joined now by Rafael, address your points using your own source, quoting the context as well as the "verse" so that there is no mistake.
While you are still welcome to your opinion, and I would never suggest that you should be prevented from posting it, your opinion, supposedly based on the writings of "Doctor", is not borne out by those very writings.
Your conclusions are not supported by Wierwille's writings, let alone the bible. Your logic is labarynthine and your application of the rules of grammar defies even the most liberal interpretation.
I'm aware that what I say will not change your mind...you've stated that in this area it's closed. I'm just making a statement based on my observation of how this thread has proceeded.
(I'll still buy you a Leinenkugel
;)-->)
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
socks
The 1942 promise...of gas and snow pumps.
I've never addressed it much over the years Mike and I was a little surprised when it got so much discussion here. Just goes to show me. I never gave it much credence. I didn't jump whole hog in to PFAL or the Way because of it.
It was something VP said in PFAL, but right from the get go it seemed like a moot point. I can see now more of why it wasn't, especially because of the way it affected some people that have posted here about it.
It's unprovable and has nothing to do with anything. If it happened, fine. If it didn't, fine. But either way - if VP had a vision, an ecstatic experience of some kind, real snow fell, one hell of a case of dandruff, whatever. It doesn't matter. Nothing is proven because of it. VP said the promise was "teach it and I'll teach it to you like it hasn't been known since..."
So there was never any standard to match that promise up to. Nobody has originals, no one has complete copies of any of the epistles or gospels to refer to. No one knows, that's what the promise WAS he said, "like it hasn't been known since WAY back when". For all practical purposes, VP was out past the edge and entirely on his own.
It's silly to say "if PFAL 'works' then it validates the 'promise'....it doesn't. VP could have taught that pigs fly and if a pig flew, it wouldn't mean the promise was true or that it even happened, it would just mean a pig flew. Are the two related? Oink. Not necessarily.
I was always surprised right from the first time I heard it that he told it. Who cares? What does it mean to me? Why is he telling me that?
I believed and pursued PFAL because I wanted to, and I wanted it to work. Much the same way you're approaching all of this stuff you're doing. You see it the way you want to, and you ignore the things you don't want to consider. And so it goes.
'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
Oakspear
Other than the above comments, I take your statements under consideration...thanks!
:D-->
Oakspear
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ginger,
You wrote: ?I did 'get' PFAL.?
For a few hours I was wondering if I should have put in more detail when I implied you did NOT get it. What I meant is that there is a world of fine detail in PFAL that I don?t think ANYONE got. This is the reason Dr kept on saying to master the books. THAT?S where the real action of PFAL is at.
Most of us who dedicated our lives had to have ?got? it to SOME degree, but I now see that there is far more in there to be gotten than any of us saw in the good old days.
Your familiarity with the soundtrack, like most everybody in those days, is probably quite rich. One of the key messages I?ve repeated here over and over is how much more there is to the class that just the soundtrack. The books, and those chapters in the collaterals, have MUCH more detail than the soundtrack. Plus, the written aspects of the class are far more refined and precise.
Lastly, coming back to these books is where the biggest jolt of truth comes. When we were first exposed to them we had different needs, and our maturity allowed only so much absorption. Now that we?ve been through a few of life?s hoops, our RE-exposure to PFAL will be much richer than the first.
The difference between knowing the soundtrack and some chapters years ago, and knowing the entire set of chapters now, is astounding!
Separating out the TVT from the books can ONLY happen as we study the books now. There are lots of surprises in the books that quickly dispel TVT darkness. Separating out these differences can also be a lot of work, as some of the errors are quite complicated.
What you see now to be damaging aspects of the class, you will either find to be not that way at all in the actual texts, or you will find they are not in them at all.
When you say that some of what is in PFAL is irresponsible, what I see you appraising is a conglomeration of notions and experiences, only some of which are accurately from the books.
********
There are many things I like to discuss along with my presentation of data. Hit me with some of the ones you like, and maybe we can work them into this thread or another. Your attitude and approach make it easier to get into things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oakspear,
I pay MUCH more respect and attention to what I read on PFAL pages than I do with PFAL for years, and who have a negative attitude towards Dr.
If you were to read PFAL itself, instead of what posters say is in it, I think you're more likely to agree with how I read it.
One of the big differences in where we read differently is PFAL page 83, where Dr uses different handling of his own name in accordance with the many "thus saith the Lord" statements he's made over the years.
If Dr had meant to include his name in that list with others EQUALLY he could have easily and unambiguously written this:
The Bible was written so that you as a believer
need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine
or theory or ideology. This Word of God does not
change. Men change, ideologies change, opinions
change; but this Word of God lives and abides forever.
It endures, it stands. Let?s see this from John 5:39.
?Search the scriptures ....? It does not say search
Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P.
Wierwille?s writings or the writings of a denomination.
No, it says, ?Search the scriptures ....? because
all Scripture is God-breathed. Not what Wierwille
writes will be God-breathed; not what Calvin said,
nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts;
but the Scriptures ? they are God-breathed.
The above paragraph is what you and others WANT that page 83 of PFAL to say, but it does NOT say the above. Here is what is actually written:
The Bible was written so that you as a believer
need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine
or theory or ideology. This Word of God does not
change. Men change, ideologies change, opinions
change; but this Word of God lives and abides forever.
It endures, it stands. Let?s see this from John 5:39.
?Search the scriptures ....? It does not say search
Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P.
Wierwille?s writings or the writings of a denomination.
No, it says, ?Search the scriptures ....? because
all Scripture is God-breathed. Not all that Wierwille
writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what
Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor
Roberts; but the Scriptures ? they are God-breathed.
It?s the addition of just a few words, ?not all? and ?necessarily? that make the big difference.
Here?s the critical sentence (A) your way, and then (B) Dr?s way:
(A) Not what Wierwille writes will be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures ? they are God-breathed.
(B) Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures ? they are God-breathed.
Now let me ask you. Suppose you were writing this book. Suppose that you wrote sentence (A) and then looked at it. You see that it clearly says that none of your writings are going to be God-breathed like the scriptures from the first century.
But then you remember that in 1942, and in many other situations since then, God has told you that you were given the job to first learn God?s Word from Him directly, and then you were to teach it to others in written form like it had nopt been known since the first century.
How would you then correct sentence (A) to reflect this truth that SOME, not all, but SOME of your writings were going to be God-breathed like in the first century?
How would you correct sentence (A)?
Let?s use the sorter sub-sentence versions for simplicity:
(A) Not what Wierwille writes will be God-breathed;
Ok. For if we first change ?Not? to ?Not all? that might help. This is because only SOME, not all, of what you write is in this exceptional category.
(A.4) Not all what Wierwille writes will be God-breathed;
And a minor change would be to fix ?what? to ?that? for better flowing grammar. So now we have.
(A.6) Not all that Wierwille writes will be God-breathed;
Now that could almost do the job of communicating the truth of some of your writings being in this exceptional category.
But something?s missing in the surety department. The context is all these nice guys who have nice writings, but that are NOT God-breathed. The context kind of squelches this contra-contextual piece of information. You want to make this a more positive statement of this exceptional situation of some, not all, but some of your writings being God-breathed.
Add the word ?necessarily? and see what happens.
(A.8) Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed;
Hey! We?re there! This is the same as the book. The word ?necessarily? adds in the idea that OF NECESSITY there is an exception to the rule of this context. Not ALL, but some, of Dr?s writings NECESSARILY are going to be God-breathed.
If you wanted to convey that some of Dr?s writings of necessity were a fulfillment of the 1942 promise, and you wanted to say this on page 83, in that context, then this is how you would have to say it:
Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed.
This means OF NECESSITY, some of what Wierwille writes will be God-breathed.
************************************************************
The other page reading we disagreed on were whether or not Dr says that he originated all the material when he says he researched or wrote something. Dr was totally up front with us, on so many occasions, on NOT being the originator of the material. He told us of his 5-senses exploits in collecting information, and he told us of his special connection with God to sort it all out and put it together. How many times did you hear Dr say that phrase ?put it together? ?? Lots!
When I read pages where Dr talks a little about his research, I bring in all the other things Dr said about it. I don?t put on blinders and look for ways to ?prove? him wrong. I read what?s written.
ps - Will you STILL buy me a Leinenkugel?
[This message was edited by Mike on July 14, 2003 at 1:32.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
socks,
I?ve posted here before that I admired the times that Dr eliminated all gray areas concerning his authority to teach us. Either he lied of told the truth are the only two alternatives, when it comes to supernatural claims.
I now see the 1942 promise like I first saw the account on the train in India with the man?s healed arm. When I first heard that story I knew that if Dr was lying here I couldn?t rust him anywhere. He cut out all possibilities of hearing part of what he said and rejecting others. I knew that if he told the truth I should listen very carefully; if he lied I should leave. I had to decide. I stayed.
When I heard the 1942 promise I first blew it off as unimportant. In these later years I?ve seen that it?s like the train story. I?m staying.
What you say about the story being no proof in itself is accurate. It?s the truths, the many truths, in the class that inspires me to believe the promise.
Just so that this promise is not a mere memory remnant, here it is:
*************************************************************
The Way ... Living In Love
Elena Whiteside
pp. 178-181
"Then Rosalind left. It was the fall of the year. Kids were back in school already. It must have been September. I was sitting in my office, an old dentist's office just around the corner from the church where I served - I'll show you that too when we get there. I bet you it's still there, though I haven't been back here since I left.
"I was praying. And I told Father that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on.
"And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others.
"Well, I nearly flew off my chair. I couldn't believe that God would talk to me." He shakes his head slowly smiling. "It's just too fantastic. People won't believe it. But He spoke to me just as plainly as I'm talking now to you.
"But really, why is it so strange? When you think about it, you see in the Bible that all through the ages God talked to people. God talked to Moses, to all the prophets. God talked to Paul. All through the centuries, God has talked to people in times of great need. And that's what we have today - a terrific need. People are just so far from hearing and believing the Word of God.
"You don't get it in the theological schools. The Word is buried, just like it was in the time of Jeremiah. Oh, they had their priests, their higher echelons, their temples, their rituals. It all looked so religious, you know. But the Word of God was buried. Oh, they were teaching the people something -- they called it the Word of God maybe, but the Word was buried. God spoke directly to Jeremiah.
"The Word is buried today. If there's no one around to teach it, God has to teach it Himself. You see, I am a product of my times. God knew me before the foundations of the world, just like He knew you and everyone else. We were all in God's foreknowledge from the beginnings.
"God knew I would believe His Word. And every day I am more and more deeply convinced of this ministry which teaches people the accuracy and integrity of God's Word. Without this ministry the world would be in far greater spiritual darkness about His Word. There would be less light in the world. Where else but in this ministry do you find the Word of God so living and real? This is truly a time of terrific need." Doctor nods his head abruptly, as if to punctuate his urgency.
"Well, I couldn't believe that God talked to me right then. You see, God's right here. He always has been here. He is still here. And God is willing and able to reveal everything to anyone or everyone. But we are just unable to receive it. We don't believe it. It's like, you can't pour a gallon of water in a teacup. It's just not big enough to receive it, take it all in. You have to make the cup bigger first. You build up the container, and then you fill it little by little. He fills us a little bit at a time as we can take it. He knows how much we can take because God knows everything. God doesn't waste His revelation on people who cannot believe it.
"Paul had to be tremendously built up to believe -receive - the mystery that had been hidden since before the foundations of the world. John, too, had to be built up to receive the revelation set forth in the book of Revelation. It's taken many years and a lot of trips and searching to build my believing to this point also. But God knows our hearts.
"Well, on the day God spoke to me, I couldn't believe it. But then I came to the point by the next day where I said to myself - maybe it's true. So the next day I talked to God again. I said, 'Lord, if it's really true what you said to me yesterday, if that was really you talking to me, you've got to give me a sign so that I really know, so that I can believe.'
"The sky was crystal blue and clear. Not a cloud in sight. It was a beautiful early autumn day. I said, 'If that was really you, and you meant what you said, give me a sign. Let me see it snow.' My eyes were tightly shut as I prayed. And then I opened them.
"The sky was so white and thick with snow, I couldn't see the tanks at the filling station on the corner not 75 feet away." Doctor relates this phenomenon in a joyous voice. The car swerves off the highway, onto a narrow black-top road, and the sign with the arrow reads: "Payne, 2 miles." The overcast sky turns restlessly over our heads, and the sparse sprinkling of snowflakes thickens on the windshield. Doctor laughs aloud.
"It reminds me of that day in 1942. It reminds me of that other time it snowed." We pull into a sleepy, small midwestern town. Around two corners, we're by a one-story building, the front of which is a many-paned display window.
"That's the old dentist's office that was my office," Doctor remarks. By now, the snow is swirling around us. At the corner stands the Marathon Gas Station. Doctor shakes his head from side to side. His face breaks into a ready smile. His eyes are blue, laughing or crying. "It reminds me of the day..." he trails off. "That's where I was sitting when I prayed to God to teach me the Word and show me how. And when I opened my eyes, it was snowing so hard I couldn't see those gas pumps right there." He points to the pumps a dozen yards or more from the window. A car has just pulled in. The dentist's office is deserted now, empty through the window.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I try to get out , but they keep pulling me back in!
I don't have time to read everything written here but, Mike, I did read what you wrote to Oaks.
VP said:
You said:
Now I am sure this has been hashed and rehashed but...
what NECESSITY would that be?
Well for one if non of VP's words were "God-breathed" he would be just another Joe Shmo. There would be no reason to follow him, he would just be another guy with an opinion. To believe his statement completely I would have to believe that this same statement was also God-breathed. We would if we were going to scrutinize that statement in the same way he taught us to scrutinize the details of the scripture. IMO That means I would believe this just because he said it. Plus VP obviously thought or proprted that God had spoken to him and therefore could not exclude everything that he said as non-God-breath.
Lets suppose that VP lied a couple of times in his life. We would have to, him being a man and all. right? Lets suppose VP fabricated the snow and the gas pumps and such. Then we might be more likely to not believe that God breathed on him, or something.
All this is a lot of believing in a man, IMO. What about the rest of what VP sakd on that page.
(B) Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures ? they are God-breathed.
should we look at the rest of these men's writting as you would have us look at VPW's? Do you do so?
BUT, lets not forget about the but.
"but the Scriptures ? they are God-breathed."
but, incontrast to,"Not all that Wierwille
writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what
Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor
Roberts;"
context?
?"Search the scriptures ....? It does not say search
Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P.
Wierwille?s writings or the writings of a denomination.
No, it says, ?Search the scriptures ....? "
GOLD!
Is there something that we haven't mastered about this part of the class?
Now that I have read your responce to socks, I guess I can look at what I jsut wrote and say
Who gives a rat's a$$?
Mike good luck (language of possesion,Oh NO!) with this whole thing. You have spent wuite a bit of time here seemingly to no avail. I hope (again using a word incorrectly
;)-->) that you have time to really "win" some people.
Actaully, I take that back. I truly don't hope that. No offence just being honest.
It don't mean a thing if it ain't PFAL. Doo-wat doo-wah doo-wat doo-wah la-shanta la-shanta
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
page 39 here we come
It don't mean a thing if it ain't PFAL. Doo-wat doo-wah doo-wat doo-wah la-shanta la-shanta
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Back to that sentence again.....
If pfal is The Word of God-and Mike says it is-
then it MUST follow the rules set out in pfal
for understanding God's Word.
According to pfal, this means it will work with
a "mathematical exactness and a scientific
precision". This also means that "at least
85-90%" of the weitten content can be
understood in a straightforward manner as what
is written as is-the most direct meaning.
So, when examining an exclusion, we must look
at what it DOES say as well as what it does
NOT say.
If, for example, it says that
"not all that Wierwill writes will necessarily
be God-breathed", we must look at that
statement directly, and using a mathematical
exactness and scientific precision.
What is excluded in this statement, and what is
NOT excluded in this statement?
What is excluded is the "ALL" category.
"All" is not an option.
Has "SOME" been excluded? No.
Has "NONE" been excluded? No.
We might perhaps suppose one or the other is
excluded-if we were NOT using a mathematical
exactness OR a scientific precision.
If one were proceeding with a "logic proof" of
same in mathematics, it would begin with the
single "given" statement:
"Not all Wierwille writes will necessarily be
God-breathed."
The excluded outcomes number ONE:
"All Wierwille writes will necessarily be
God-breathed" is automatically excluded, since
a statement and its converse cannot both be
true. ("A and not-A" is always false.)
The possible outcomes are two.
1) "Some of what Wierwille writes will
necessarily be God-breathed."
2) "None of what Wierwille writes will
necessarily be God-breathed."
Either possible outcome is equally likely,
under the rules of mathematical logic.
Unless one wants to abandon the approach
stated in pfal-abandoning "mathematical
exactness and scientific precision", one cannot
select one outcome over the other, from a
plain reading of that statement.
----------------------------------------------
BTW, if "at least 85-90%" of pfal is meant to
be read directly, then statements meant to
convey information will be direct and
straightforward at least 85-90% of the time.
(Simple implication-more mathematical logic.)
If pfal was MEANT to say
"some of what Wierwille writes will be
God-breathed", what would be the profit in
couching it in a circumlocuitous statement?
It's like tossing into a press conference the
question
"do you admit confirming not denying you said
that?"
(Yes. No. I mean- what??)
-----------------------------------------------
BTW, quoting directly from Mike's citation of
vpw, we have the following:
"Let's see this from John 5:39.
'Search the scriptures...'
It does not say
search Shakespeare
or Kant
or Plato
or Aristotle
or VP Wierwille's writings
or the writings of a denomination.
No, it says 'search the scriptures...'
because all Scripture is God-breathed."
(This is immediately followed by the sentence
we've run into the ground, already quoted in
part.)
Who out there can tell me what, in this quote
is equated with Scripture,
and what's contrasted with Scripture?
Right!
NOTHING is equated with Scripture!
Everything else mentioned is contrasted with it.
"Shakespeare, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, VP
Wierwille's writings, the writings of a
denomination" are all set directly in contrast
to Scripture.
(Go ahead and read the statement again.
Is that or is that NOT the plain meaning of
the text?)
This is then followed by the "unclear" quote.
Since there seems to be much discussion of it,
with much difference of opinion what its most
direct meaning is, it is, by definition,
"unclear".
According to pfal,
UNCLEAR VERSES MUST BE UNDERSTOOD IN LIGHT OF
THE CLEAR VERSES.
Further, since this one seems like it may not
explain itself fully "in the verse", we must
proceed to the SECOND rule of understanding
God's Word: All Scripture explains itself
IN THE CONTEXT.
The context is the clear sentences preceding it,
which include VP Wierwille's writings in the
category of "not-Scripture".
So, based on either or both rules, the "unclear
verse" must be understood in light of the
preceeding sentence.
If pfal is truly God's Word, we MUST use its own
rules to understand it. Using those rules, we
see here that its internal testimony of itself-
just from what MIKE quoted-is that it is
not "Scripture".
Go back and repeat the steps if you don't see
it.
----------------------------------------------
Of course, Mike disagrees that's what it means.
Somehow, I didn't apply the rules of pfal
properly to the pfal quotes. Well, I just did
it under everyone's noses, so all the readers
can form their OWN opinion on the subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Very true, Mike.
Experience is no guarantee for truth.
Yet our lives are just that - experience - and for the part of me that types this and reads that it's all there is.
I'm reminded of how illogical Christianity is at it's core, for some reason. A dead man rises up to life 3 days after being killed...doesn't make sense does it? And for all that that is, it wouldn't mean a lot even 50 years after to people who hadn't seen it for themselves - if that's all there was to it.
My usual mantra - knowledge is one thing, understanding is another. Experience another still.
The Light shines eternally and if we ever really see it, it will burn everything else away and there's no going back after that because even if we don't walk in that Light all the time we will always remember what the world looked like illuminated, even for a moment. You can doubt it, ignore it, toy with it, but it's left it's mark. When we embrace it it will blind us to the darkness of life, lift us to love and relieve us of the burden of needing to prove day after day to ourselves by words and deeds that we're really here. We can just live.
I can't think of anything that I would wish more for you and for everyone. A life fully illuminated by that Light and the freedom to live in true peace. I don't believe it's in the temporary shelter we can find in the cracks and crevaces of this word or that, where shadows are cast and meanings evade us, it's in Life. Put another way, I hope you have your day at the pumps and the snow is so deep you have to ski out.
;)-->
'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...'
[This message was edited by socks on July 14, 2003 at 4:42.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I think Wordlupus said what I was trying to say...just much better than I did.
I mean damn,"circumlocuitous "
very nice.
:D-->
It don't mean a thing if it ain't PFAL. Doo-wat doo-wah doo-wat doo-wah la-shanta la-shanta
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
dear johnnysocks, i think i would be willing to read all the posts here (ouch my head) just to get to your last one
thanks
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.