Any readers out there contemplating signing up and posting, please do so. However, if you are a rude, passive-aggressive control-freak who is hell-bent on canonizing PFAL and its human author as direct manifestations of God's will, then you deserve whatever you get.
Well, whadda ya know, Mikey may actually be seeing the faintest glimmer of a hint that his ideas are about as well respected around here as dog doo on the bottom of your shoes.
quote:Rafael, if you or Shaz or any other Judges of hearts have any other GS members in you sights after me, I think it?s only fair to warn them.
Mike, go to blazes. I mean, really, what kind of nonsensical accusation is this? Your whole post is nothing but an attempt to tear down King David's reputation in order to exalt VPW's. And you're tearing down Shaz and me in the process. How GODLY!
All I was doing was responding to your claim that the examples of David, et al vindicate God's working through Wierwille. My, I seem to have touched a nerve in you, eh? What, afraid I'm going to call you names? I don't need to, Mike. I am not your judge, although you act as though you are mine (and certainly others').
By the way: David was a man after God's own heart. I presume that behavior to the contrary is going to be noted in God's Word.
As for the 20-year old stories of VPW's repugnant behavior, I will believe them before I believe your sycophancy.
I'm thinking of the phrase "...holy men of God SPAKE..."
Baalam spoke one of the most beautiful prophesies of the coming Savior, while he was being paid by the enemy to prophesy AGAINST God's people.
Later it was put into written form.
Balaam/Baalam, whatever. I didn't do a spell check.
The verse which says "holy men of God SPAKE" is specifically talking about scripture, not spoken prohecies. Balaam's prophecy in Numbers was not written by him. It was written by Moses, a holy man of God.
quote:As for Saul, he IS relevant in that he was chosen to be a leader by God, and then he did poorly. God still inspired David to respect him, AFTER Saul?s great sins and not kill him when he had the chance.
Fine. By the same token, even if God DID choose Wierwille in 1942, that is NOT evidence that Wierwille was worth following in 1985. I will agree, however, that God did not advise anyone to kill Wierwille when they had the chance. I don't know what that proves, but I guess it makes you happy. Still, I wouldn't be bragging about my obedience to Saul after he flipped his lid. And I wouldn't waste my time mastering the works of a man who twisted scripture to his own lustful ends.
quote:The relevancy is that the esteemed panel of self appointed GS Character Judges here seem to have not educated themselves in the character judgements and precedents that God set in His Word, and then they accuse me of the evil of setting my heart against the same God and His righteous written judgements, which they are willingly ignorant of.
Mike, please come off your high horse: you are just as judgmental as those you criticize. You pass judgment on those who came to TWI too late to meet your Esteemed One face to face; you pass judgment on those who failed to pay heed to their Teacher; you pass judgment on those who refuse to see PFAL as something we need to master; you pass judgment on those "unfit researchers" who question the perfection of PFAL (and whether PFAL meets its own standards for "God-breathed" status).
Wrap yourself in the mantle of the persecuted if you want to. Wrap yourself in the mantle of the righteous. But you are without question the most judgmental person I've ever encountered on these threads.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on April 11, 2003 at 19:43.]
Thank you for saying it better than I could. "Holy men of God Spake" does refer to the written Word. None of the guys Mike cites wrote scripture, save David. And I said that VPW was up to his elbows in evil deeds WHILE HE WAS WRITING his books, disqualifying them from the canon.
Mike,
I don't recall using the word "evil" about you in any of my posts. Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say. I don't know you well enough to make such a judgment, so I didn't make it. I have suggested a few things about you based on your words here, and those comments I have no reason to rescind.
You said,
quote:...who made you the paragon of virtue that you can call me evil? I?d also like to know how you, in this powerfully lofty position, avoid the corruption of power that the people under your scrutiny have succumbed to. Did you get this power while at TWI?
I ain't no paragon of virtue. Never said I was. Didn't call you evil, either. Nor do I think I hold some kind of "position." I'm just calling it as I see it, based on your words. For you to even begin to equate my opinion with the sexual and emotional abuse Wierwille and his leaders foisted on the faithful would be laughable, if the subject wasn't so serious. Instead, it just makes you look pitiful, and all the more unbelieveable.
Thank you for saying it better than I could. "Holy men of God Spake" does refer to the written Word. None of the guys Mike cites wrote scripture, save David. And I said that VPW was up to his elbows in evil deeds WHILE HE WAS WRITING his books, disqualifying them from the canon.
Correction: Solomon wrote scripture too, but not while steeped in idolatry and disobedience to God. I'm not saying that to judge Solomon. Just stating a fact.
Get it? You can recognize that someone was an idolater and disobeyed God without being their "judge." It's called discernment, and it's something God REQUIRES.
It is GOD Who decides if the minimum discernment requirement is met, not you.
***********
Shaz,
You?re right.
I think I confused you with previous posters, and even other threads maybe. All this talk that many of you do about me and Dr here is a huge distraction from the topic, it?s heated, and it?s easy to get things lost in the shuffle. I?d prefer we talk about the thread topic than me or Dr.
***********
Wordwolf,
The reason I don?t answer that is because it looks empty to me. It looks petty, because you?re ignoring the many, many words I?ve posted here on mastery.
Have you searched the sight? It?s everywhere.
I don?t know where you?re going with your question, and I see little I can do with it. I don?t see what you?re saying as substantive.
Let me ask you this about a definitive definition of ?mastery? OK?
What are you going to do with the answer? Start mastering, or look for ways to criticize it?
If it?s the later, would you like me to give you a LOT of details so you can do a LOT of criticizing? Or do you just want to do a little?
**********
Zixar,
You wrote: ?Any readers out there contemplating signing up and posting, please do so. However, if you are a rude, passive-aggressive control-freak who is hell-bent on canonizing PFAL and its human author as direct manifestations of God's will, then you deserve whatever you get.?
As far as the canon, I?ve written before here in greater detail, that since the KJV canon was good enough for Dr, then it?s good enough for me. God had him work within the standard canon.
I don?t want to bring Dr?s books into the Bible versions that get printed and distributed in bookstores.
I want to bring Dr?s books to the hearts of Older Leader Grads, mastered, so that we can resume the work God has for us. What God wants to do after that with Dr?s books I HAVE NO IDEA. However, I do know that OLGs desperately need these books mastered to get a spiritual millstone off their necks. I?m trying to help them.
*
Zixar, in no way have I promoted the human author. After 25 years of considering, I simply reject the VPW character distractions and focus on the written Word which God wrought in his ministry. All the ?human author? rejection rationalizations you demand me to re-consider, I refuse to re-consider. That matter is closed, and has been for 5 years.
I do not focus on the man, positive or negative.
Like all topics aimed at me, I seek to end all topics that deal with VPW the man. I deal with some items if I think it may help some of you free yourself from the bond of Bitterness.
I want to get back to focusing on the Word God taught the man and he taught us.
***********
Steve!,
You wrote: ?Well, whadda ya know, Mikey may actually be seeing the faintest glimmer of a hint that his ideas are about as well respected around here as dog doo on the bottom of your shoes.?
I read Waydale and GS for years before posting. On average it?s gone just as I predicted; with some individuals there?s been some surprises.
Funny you should use such scatological genius in your description. Coincidently, when I?m feeling non-the-less down about my expected receptions here by some individuals, I think of spiritual babies to raise my mood, and how SOMEONE?s got to change their stinky diapers. I take a lot of stink here because of the agape love that was shown me when I had similar tantrums.
***********
Rafael,
You wrote: ?By the way: David was a man after God's own heart. I presume that behavior to the contrary is going to be noted in God's Word.?
I don?t presume that at all. If I were God, just one big detailed splash in writing, for the teaching benefit to others, would be all I?d be able to stomach in revealing about the foibles of a man who?s heart was often the best I knew of.
God HAD to have cringed at having to put that Bathsheba-Uriah incident in there. Why would He bother putting a detailed list of the build up sins, or the relapse sins? Everybody knows that had to be involved anyway.
If I were his loving adoptive Father, I?d want to protect David?s privacy as much as possible. I love this loving God. I can see how He hates religion and the bickering and the hate and the ego and the fear.
****
I might have noted better that what I was criticizing in your judgements aimed at Dr not me.
Plenty of others jump in here and hit at me and you egg them on, unlike some of the better consciences here.
Yes, we make judgements as to who to associate with, but as for idolatry or evil hearts, I don?t go by info on the grapevine.
NOR do I post my judgements on other people?s hearts. I simply utilize the judgement in future actions that require interaction with those people. Besides, if I spot a dark heart in a PFAL grad, I want to think that can change. I don?t want to document it, I want to help heal it.
You never met Dr, yet you condemn him. I know he was a pain at times. I worked with him at times. I was with him and his family often. The kinds of controls in place in actual courtrooms ban the type proof commonly accepted here.
Surely you?ve perceived by now that my mind is made up on this: Dr?s heart qualifying for bringing forth God?s Word. Why bring it up all the time? I can see it if you find more evidence, but repeating the same points over and over. Why say them to me any more? Say them to others.
I did read your "many many words posted on mastery." I noticed that at no point in ANY of the posts is a definition given that is not reflexive. My junior-high school history teacher refused to let us use a word in its definition. (This came up when we could not use the word "fur" in explaining what a fur trapper was, since we had not explained what a fur WAS.) That was a legitimate lesson,and AFAIK, a proper rule in teaching.
You've posted that we're supposed to master, that we are supposed to master until we reach certain goals, but not once did you explain what it means to master. I can't perform an action I have no idea how to perform. You're saying we failed to master something, but, without any explanation of what "mastering" is, I just have your say-so I didn't do it. Not good enough. Plain English, please. I'm not asking for a perfect definition, or an explanation of cold fusion.
What will I do with this definition?
THINK.
I can then evaluate what I've done to date, what you're saying should have been done, and what you're saying should be done in the present and future. Without a simple (or semi-simple) answer, you provide no tools for doing so. Don't worry your answer can get too technical for me-I can keep up
at any level you take it, when I choose. For someone who wants me to perform an action, you sure are impeding the process for doing it.
Hm. Let's see. You've stated that his writings are of superior canonicity than any Bible extant,including critical Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew texts, including the Masoretic text, which doesn't change. You claim that his connection with God was so surpassing excellence that any sin of character would be unable to alter one word of his writing's canonicity. You claim that, since the "first century Christian church", no one in the intervening 18 centuries and change has had
such a connection to God, and received revelation from God. (I'm stopping there.)
You know, to everyone except you two, that looks like you're promoting that human.
"...nor do I post my judgements on other people's hearts."
In the same post, you used the term "spiritual babies", and implied all your detractors at GSC
(or possibly just the ones on this thread) are the "spiritual babies" you mentioned. You've called those who disagree with you "unfit workmen" based on how you view their hearts.
You've claimed-repeatedly-that those who are not "old-school" are incapable of reading vpw's
writings and REALLY understanding them the same way a semi-literate, mildly-retarded man who took pfal in 1975-76 can.
You know, to everyone except you two, that looks like you're judging people's hearts, and posting on those judgements.
Based on the evidence, including videotapes he made, audiotapes he made, and books he wrote, I'll
say 'yes, I never met him, but I have very definite opinions about him.'
I would say the same of YOU, and I have NOT seen videotapes nor heard audiotapes from you.
Further, I never met Charles Manson, David Berkowitz, John Wayne Gacy, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin,Caligua, Lucrezia Borgia, Ivan the Terrible, nor the guys who ran the ovens at Auschwitz, but,
you know, even WITHOUT having seen video or heard audio, I think I can make a conclusion based on the evidence at hand. I'm silly that way.
BTW, I'm fairly confident, although not certain, that you will NEVER provide an explanation about "mastering". That's because I'm convinced the lack of an explanation will allow you to play the old twi "shell game". That's the game that, no matter what tragedy befalls you, it's always your fault, and it's never twi's fault. Refusing to explain allows you to change the meaning whenever you want, to keep "mastering" forever out of people's grasp, and thus vulnerable to the charge of "well, if you'd REALLY mastered, this would never have happened.
As you can see, I DON'T have some secret agenda-all my cards are on the table. How about putting down a few of yours?
------------------------------
(edited only to fix margin changes-not one
letter of text was added, subtracted or changed-
except for the addition of this explanation.)
[This message was edited by WordWolf on April 13, 2003 at 15:50.]
It is GOD Who decides if the minimum discernment requirement is met, not you.
The issue of discernment and judging is far more complex than the simple black and white ban imposed by Wierwille and company. It sounds SO PIOUS to say, "I'm not going to judge anyone." But refusing to judge anyone puts you in the position of being powerless to ascertain whether someone's behavior belies his pretty words.
Jesus called people HYPOCRITES. We are to be imitators of Christ. We have Christ in us. When we see hypocrisy, therefore, we can call people on it without crossing any Biblical lines or mandates.
Mike, Wierwille was a serial adulterer and abuser of women. I'm not judging him. It's a fact. Whether someone wants to consider that fact in determining whether to accept Wierwille's works as God-breathed is between them and God, and YOU, sir, have NO RIGHT to criticize them for exercising their Biblical responsibility to see to it that no one takes us captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy. Jesus said "by their fruits, ye shall know them." That means he expects us to recognize good fruit from bad, and he expects us to exercise a little (shudder) judgment in this area.
Look, there are Christian ministers who are out to deceive us. The Bible warns us about them. Without "judgment" or discernment, we WILL be tossed about with every wind of doctrine, because we will be unwilling to "criticize" to the extent of cowardice. That's another reason TWI fell.
So go ahead and tell me again that God is the one who judges, not me. But tell me, how do you know that God isn't the one allowing Wierwille's true legacy to be known?
I?m done using my brain to decide this matter. I believe God was able to work with Dr in spite of Dr?s sin. I came to bet my life on this after 27 years of hard brain work. This story of Dr?s qualifications is done. I?m applying my brain to other things. Sooner or later I hope you do too.
Us OLGs had plenty of time to discern if Dr was deceptive. I?ve tested out the Word that God taught Dr and Dr taught us in written form, and my mind is made up on this matter.
Word Wolf,
And who ever told you that recursive definitions are illegal in English? I can see a High School teacher encouraging students to avoid that if possible, but later we learn there can be exceptions. English teachers don?t make up the rules of a language, they OBSERVE them, or the average of them. The rules (and definitions) change slightly from person to person, and from time to time.
A recursive definition can work for me if there?s a kernel of understanding already there. AN author may want to use a word in a specialized way, so he starts with the normal definition, and then adds on, or subtracts, or modifies it to suit his needs. What?s your problem with that?
Have you ever seen a recursive function definition in mathematics? I don?t know what your problem is with the definition of mastery. I?ll try to help, so that you can get busy and start mastering PFAL.
Here?s a sequential algorithm for mastering PFAL:
Read.
Read a lot. and apply it a lot.
Read with meekness, inspite of the pressures to argue and fight.
Keep reading and applying until it becomes YOUR master.
Keep reading and applying until you become it.
Read with the attitude that the real author is God.
Read with the conviction that your own old man mind needs to die.
Read with the expectation that you are building the Master Mind of Christ within.
WordWolf, I?ve answered more of your letter on the next page where I had pasted a re-formatting of your letter. I'm sure any readers encountering your edit paste above appreciates it, but doesn't know it.
[This message was edited by Mike on April 14, 2003 at 23:49.]
quote:I believe God was able to work with Dr in spite of Dr?s sin. I came to bet my life on this after 27 years of hard brain work. This story of Dr?s qualifications is done. I?m applying my brain to other things. Sooner or later I hope you do too.
With all due respect, Mike, you don't get the privilege of just declaring the matter settled. Each of us has as much right to weigh these matters as you do. And each of us has the right to come to a different conclusion. So, again, with all due respect to the 27 years you took to come to your erroneous conclusion, it did not take me NEARLY as long to come to a conclusion that is respectful of the Bible, respectful of Wierwille's presentation of the significance of the Bible, and the polar opposite of your sycophantic foolishness.
So, I guess I'm done too: except I will continue using my brain, whereas you seem to have stopped using yours a few years ago.
Mike: Good topic. I am at my computer. I am also in Romans 1. All the epistles begin with who it's from (Paul) and immediately into who it's to EXCEPT Romans. Who it's from is in verse one. Who it's to is in verse 7. There is a disclaimer in verses 2-6 which applies to ALL the epistles; said disclaimer is SO on topic.
It says Jesus Christ was...
a) made of the seed of David according to the FLESH.
b) declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the SPIRIT of holiness
...two completely different standards. It doesn't say declared to be the son of God according to the flesh. Add to that list religion/true Christianity. VPW said "spiritually I've seen 4 things in life: religion, no religion, corrupt religion, and true Christianity." Religious people judge themselves, other people, and God after the flesh and then they turn around and call it spiritual. Those folks will NEVER understand.
You've repeated that the bible is flesh and the Word of God is spirit, yet they keep assuming that if it isn't scripture it isn't the Word of God.
There is no physical description of any kind given about Jesus Christ. We don't know how tall he was, what color his hair and eyes were, what his voice sounded like, what his mannerisms were, nothing! We don't know him after the flesh. Must be OK, huh?
quote:Religious people judge themselves, other people, and God after the flesh and then they turn around and call it spiritual. Those folks will NEVER understand.
Jesus said you'll know them by their fruit. Can you tell me how to know them by their fruit without exercising what you so derisively call "judgment"?
Wierwille's standing/state before God is between him and God. What God thinks of him and what God plans to do with him, I am in no condition to judge.
But Wierwille's behavior left a lot to be desired, and it's an object lesson for us to look at his life and know how depraved people can be. The same goes for Solomon. The same goes for David. The same goes for countless other people.
Mike has decided that Wierwille's behavior, the accusations against him, are not enough to dissuade him from his thesis. Mike is entitled to that point of view, but in exercising his right, he is just as guilty of JUDGING as the people he crticizes. He judges Wierwille's accusers. He judges those that disagree with him. He condemns the people he criticizes as... JUDGES! That's judging.
Along comes Johniam, and accuses us of judging according to the flesh. He goes on to deride us by saying "Those folks (you know them) will NEVER understand."
My, what an interesting JUDGMENT.
He even writes of an assumption that we make (unless it's the Bible, it isn't the Word of God). I must congratulate Johniam on exercising his JUDGMENT.
So, I'll say again, come off of your high horses, people. Mike's thesis rises and falls on its merits. The namecalling should end. Judging people does nothing but degenerate into endless finger-pointing that does NOTHING to answer the questions being raised.
You wrote: "Jesus said you'll know them by their fruit. Can you tell me how to know them by their fruit without exercising what you so derisively call "judgment"? "
By looking at the fruit that they helped you, yourself, grow. It's your internal fruit you judge.
I know VPW by his fruits in me, VERY WELL.
I know his fruit in others with less certitude, but I saw a lot of blessing there too. I also saw some hurt, but comparatively less for me than others. I mentioned long ago that I was very good at dodging, and that included the spiritually dark areas of the marble cake that the TVT was. It got much darker, and very quickly, after 1985.
[This message was edited by Mike on April 12, 2003 at 18:19.]
I have better access to the knowledge of my own benefits. I can see MY whole picture in great detail.
I have very limited access to critics. I can't see much of anybody else's detailed big picture, nor am I expected to. I do my best to include them in the mix.
I also have to add the appreciators' testimonies to the mix along with the critics testimonies. The former are very few here at GS, but out there is a whole bunch of people in that category, in varying degrees. I happen to be at one extreme end of that spectrum, but there are many more with milder degrees of appreciation for Dr's writings, and I have to give them equal voice with the critics.
I cast the tie breaking vote, and it's not a close call at all, for me. I can see how others see the mix differently.
[This message was edited by Mike on April 12, 2003 at 19:08.]
Goodness, won't admit an error is an error. Won't admit that judging is judging. And hasn't used his brain in five years. Why am I arguing with this guy? :)-->
I think you got me wrong somewhere several posts ago, or something.
I do judge in certain ways. We all do.
I never did get a handle on the different Greek words of judge and all the verses and things like that.
Because of that I've never thrown around a blanket "No Judgement" commandment. Maybe you assumed I did, because so many other people do. I?ve always admitted to these constricted judgements that are a part of life.
I do see a problem, from many scriptures, with one person thinking they can peer into another person?s heart, without revelation that is. My best understanding on judging is that when it comes to people?s hearts, and things like that, it?s very dicey to make any PUBLIC announcements, even if there is Word of Knowledge. Usually the Word of Wisdom is to keep quite. Usually.
When it comes to judging an other person?s eternal rewards, that seems totally off limits, not even any revelation should be expected.
For deciding who to spend a lot of time with and trust, then I think judgement of their external actions and words is unavoidable, as has been said earlier by someone else.
Rafael, if you can show me an ambiguous statement of mine that seems to say I never judge, I?ll edit it to be more clear.
I'll agree with you on certain points and disagree on others.
1. It does not take "revelation" to judge someone. Sometimes all it takes is evidence. That is, the testimony of more than one credible witness. I believe there is more than enough evidence to conclude Wierwille's attitude toward sex and sexuality tainted his presentation of God's Word on the subject. His written works are all but silent on the matter. He has his most devout followers thinking that "Victorian" (ie, BIBLICAL) attitudes about sex are somehow LESS damaging to individuals and society than rampant promiscuity. Laughable.
2. You claim to be unwilling to peer into other people's hearts, yet you judge our motives in coming to you with "actual errors." You mock our integrity and call us "unfit" researchers. Yeah, whatever. Some display of reluctance on your part.
3. Jesus NEVER tells us to wait for revelation in determining "judgments." He tells us very simply that we will know them by their fruits. He doesn't say "ye shall know them by what God tells you about their fruits." Revelation sometimes comes into play, but there are times you don't need revelation to tell you that someone is motivated by money and lust. All you have to do is look at the fruit of the person's life.
4. I totally agree that judging another person's eternal rewards is not my call. Or anyone else's on these boards. Any statement made to the contrary is speculation.
5. In criticizing the "Esteemed Panel of GS Cafe Character Judges," you sure leave the impression that you're above such behavior. As I've repeatedly shown, you're not.
And by the way, in reference to your earlier post, I KNOW I'm not going to change your mind about Wierwille's character. I'm not out to change your mind on the subject. All I'm saying is YOU HAVE NO RIGHT, Biblically or otherwise, to criticize or condemn someone else's decision to dismiss your thesis based on their assessment of VPW's character.
You wrote: ?All I'm saying is YOU HAVE NO RIGHT, Biblically or otherwise, to criticize or condemn someone else's decision to dismiss your thesis based on their assessment of VPW's character.?
I?ll buy that.
I was complaining about another matter, those criticizing MY heart, and my right to dismiss. I do often recognize the rights of others, especially non-OLGs, to not accept my thesis. It?s their attacks that I protest, and sometimes show to be wrong. It?s not that I feel the need to defend myself, but I know a lot of other readers face the same thoughts, so I am showing them how to handle them, based on book mastery.
I don't recall using the word "evil" about you in any of my posts. Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say. I don't know you well enough to make such a judgment, so I didn't make it. I have suggested a few things about you based on your words here, and those comments I have no reason to rescind.
Yes, but I HAVE used the word "evil" in regards to Mike. On March 12th I posted:
quote:"Jesus did not mince his words with the Pharisees - he called them whited sepulecres and hipocrtites. Paul calls folks idoloters and fornicators. Lest I be charged by someone as equating myself Jesus or Paul, my point is that by example - all "name calling" is not necessarily unwarranted. Evil is evil, even if it "acts nice" and seems to have good manners.
Maybe some folks longer believe that there are deceivers, or enemies of the cross of Christ. But I am not one of them. I happen to believe that Mike's doctrine is evil and that Mike is spiritually deceived. As he attempts to spread this false doctrine and recruit others into it, he becomes a deceiver himself. I reserve the right to call a spade a spade. I think others might as well. What do you think Linda? That we ought to be nice to Mike? God forbid that someone might call evil evil or an idoloter an idoloter. Poor Mike.
I'll make no bones about it. I think that Mikes doctrine is evil and that Mike is either knowingly or unknowingly ( I cannot tell) promoting a lie. I suspect the former because of his willingness to abandon any form of an intellectually honest approach.
Mike posted ( to Shaz):
quote:...who made you the paragon of virtue that you can call me evil? I?d also like to know how you, in this powerfully lofty position, avoid the corruption of power that the people under your scrutiny have succumbed to. Did you get this power while at TWI?
Mike, one does not have to or need to be a "parqagon of virtue" to call something or someone evil. Evil can be discerned in several ways. One is by the standard set in the true Word of God contained in what you call "unreliable remnants". Yet your doctrine convienently casts aside the true Word in favor of another - which is not another ( Gal 1:7). You eliminate the standard itself, by casting it aside. You honor the works of a man above the true Word of God and attempt to deceive others with this false doctrine of yours. It is evil because it attempts to deprive folks of the goodness of the true Word of God which is contained in the scriptures. It exalts a man.
Mike, maybe no one else has called you evil outright, but I certainly have no problem with it. By actively promoting and recruiting folks into your false doctrine, you become a messenger of evil - a deceiver.
But the good news is that what you are promoting amounts to little more than "Evil Lite", but evil nonetheless. It will come to nothing. There is a little chance that anyone will truly buy into your deception because of the many, many, obvious flaws in your logic and methodology and becasue of the abject abusurdity of it all. Anyone with a lick of sense can see right through your deception.
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
Zixar
Any readers out there contemplating signing up and posting, please do so. However, if you are a rude, passive-aggressive control-freak who is hell-bent on canonizing PFAL and its human author as direct manifestations of God's will, then you deserve whatever you get.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Well, whadda ya know, Mikey may actually be seeing the faintest glimmer of a hint that his ideas are about as well respected around here as dog doo on the bottom of your shoes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mike, go to blazes. I mean, really, what kind of nonsensical accusation is this? Your whole post is nothing but an attempt to tear down King David's reputation in order to exalt VPW's. And you're tearing down Shaz and me in the process. How GODLY!
All I was doing was responding to your claim that the examples of David, et al vindicate God's working through Wierwille. My, I seem to have touched a nerve in you, eh? What, afraid I'm going to call you names? I don't need to, Mike. I am not your judge, although you act as though you are mine (and certainly others').
By the way: David was a man after God's own heart. I presume that behavior to the contrary is going to be noted in God's Word.
As for the 20-year old stories of VPW's repugnant behavior, I will believe them before I believe your sycophancy.
Grow up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Balaam/Baalam, whatever. I didn't do a spell check.
The verse which says "holy men of God SPAKE" is specifically talking about scripture, not spoken prohecies. Balaam's prophecy in Numbers was not written by him. It was written by Moses, a holy man of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Fine. By the same token, even if God DID choose Wierwille in 1942, that is NOT evidence that Wierwille was worth following in 1985. I will agree, however, that God did not advise anyone to kill Wierwille when they had the chance. I don't know what that proves, but I guess it makes you happy. Still, I wouldn't be bragging about my obedience to Saul after he flipped his lid. And I wouldn't waste my time mastering the works of a man who twisted scripture to his own lustful ends.
Mike, please come off your high horse: you are just as judgmental as those you criticize. You pass judgment on those who came to TWI too late to meet your Esteemed One face to face; you pass judgment on those who failed to pay heed to their Teacher; you pass judgment on those who refuse to see PFAL as something we need to master; you pass judgment on those "unfit researchers" who question the perfection of PFAL (and whether PFAL meets its own standards for "God-breathed" status).
Wrap yourself in the mantle of the persecuted if you want to. Wrap yourself in the mantle of the righteous. But you are without question the most judgmental person I've ever encountered on these threads.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on April 11, 2003 at 19:43.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Dear Raphael,
Thank you for saying it better than I could. "Holy men of God Spake" does refer to the written Word. None of the guys Mike cites wrote scripture, save David. And I said that VPW was up to his elbows in evil deeds WHILE HE WAS WRITING his books, disqualifying them from the canon.
Mike,
I don't recall using the word "evil" about you in any of my posts. Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say. I don't know you well enough to make such a judgment, so I didn't make it. I have suggested a few things about you based on your words here, and those comments I have no reason to rescind.
You said,
I ain't no paragon of virtue. Never said I was. Didn't call you evil, either. Nor do I think I hold some kind of "position." I'm just calling it as I see it, based on your words. For you to even begin to equate my opinion with the sexual and emotional abuse Wierwille and his leaders foisted on the faithful would be laughable, if the subject wasn't so serious. Instead, it just makes you look pitiful, and all the more unbelieveable.
shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
The reason VPW's teachings were ubiquous was because VPW found them everywhere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Correction: Solomon wrote scripture too, but not while steeped in idolatry and disobedience to God. I'm not saying that to judge Solomon. Just stating a fact.
Get it? You can recognize that someone was an idolater and disobeyed God without being their "judge." It's called discernment, and it's something God REQUIRES.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Rafael,
It is GOD Who decides if the minimum discernment requirement is met, not you.
***********
Shaz,
You?re right.
I think I confused you with previous posters, and even other threads maybe. All this talk that many of you do about me and Dr here is a huge distraction from the topic, it?s heated, and it?s easy to get things lost in the shuffle. I?d prefer we talk about the thread topic than me or Dr.
***********
Wordwolf,
The reason I don?t answer that is because it looks empty to me. It looks petty, because you?re ignoring the many, many words I?ve posted here on mastery.
Have you searched the sight? It?s everywhere.
I don?t know where you?re going with your question, and I see little I can do with it. I don?t see what you?re saying as substantive.
Let me ask you this about a definitive definition of ?mastery? OK?
What are you going to do with the answer? Start mastering, or look for ways to criticize it?
If it?s the later, would you like me to give you a LOT of details so you can do a LOT of criticizing? Or do you just want to do a little?
**********
Zixar,
You wrote: ?Any readers out there contemplating signing up and posting, please do so. However, if you are a rude, passive-aggressive control-freak who is hell-bent on canonizing PFAL and its human author as direct manifestations of God's will, then you deserve whatever you get.?
As far as the canon, I?ve written before here in greater detail, that since the KJV canon was good enough for Dr, then it?s good enough for me. God had him work within the standard canon.
I don?t want to bring Dr?s books into the Bible versions that get printed and distributed in bookstores.
I want to bring Dr?s books to the hearts of Older Leader Grads, mastered, so that we can resume the work God has for us. What God wants to do after that with Dr?s books I HAVE NO IDEA. However, I do know that OLGs desperately need these books mastered to get a spiritual millstone off their necks. I?m trying to help them.
*
Zixar, in no way have I promoted the human author. After 25 years of considering, I simply reject the VPW character distractions and focus on the written Word which God wrought in his ministry. All the ?human author? rejection rationalizations you demand me to re-consider, I refuse to re-consider. That matter is closed, and has been for 5 years.
I do not focus on the man, positive or negative.
Like all topics aimed at me, I seek to end all topics that deal with VPW the man. I deal with some items if I think it may help some of you free yourself from the bond of Bitterness.
I want to get back to focusing on the Word God taught the man and he taught us.
***********
Steve!,
You wrote: ?Well, whadda ya know, Mikey may actually be seeing the faintest glimmer of a hint that his ideas are about as well respected around here as dog doo on the bottom of your shoes.?
I read Waydale and GS for years before posting. On average it?s gone just as I predicted; with some individuals there?s been some surprises.
Funny you should use such scatological genius in your description. Coincidently, when I?m feeling non-the-less down about my expected receptions here by some individuals, I think of spiritual babies to raise my mood, and how SOMEONE?s got to change their stinky diapers. I take a lot of stink here because of the agape love that was shown me when I had similar tantrums.
***********
Rafael,
You wrote: ?By the way: David was a man after God's own heart. I presume that behavior to the contrary is going to be noted in God's Word.?
I don?t presume that at all. If I were God, just one big detailed splash in writing, for the teaching benefit to others, would be all I?d be able to stomach in revealing about the foibles of a man who?s heart was often the best I knew of.
God HAD to have cringed at having to put that Bathsheba-Uriah incident in there. Why would He bother putting a detailed list of the build up sins, or the relapse sins? Everybody knows that had to be involved anyway.
If I were his loving adoptive Father, I?d want to protect David?s privacy as much as possible. I love this loving God. I can see how He hates religion and the bickering and the hate and the ego and the fear.
****
I might have noted better that what I was criticizing in your judgements aimed at Dr not me.
Plenty of others jump in here and hit at me and you egg them on, unlike some of the better consciences here.
Yes, we make judgements as to who to associate with, but as for idolatry or evil hearts, I don?t go by info on the grapevine.
NOR do I post my judgements on other people?s hearts. I simply utilize the judgement in future actions that require interaction with those people. Besides, if I spot a dark heart in a PFAL grad, I want to think that can change. I don?t want to document it, I want to help heal it.
You never met Dr, yet you condemn him. I know he was a pain at times. I worked with him at times. I was with him and his family often. The kinds of controls in place in actual courtrooms ban the type proof commonly accepted here.
Surely you?ve perceived by now that my mind is made up on this: Dr?s heart qualifying for bringing forth God?s Word. Why bring it up all the time? I can see it if you find more evidence, but repeating the same points over and over. Why say them to me any more? Say them to others.
I just want to get on with the topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ok, addressing points in the order I saw them...
A) Mike,
I did read your "many many words posted on mastery." I noticed that at no point in ANY of the posts is a definition given that is not reflexive. My junior-high school history teacher refused to let us use a word in its definition. (This came up when we could not use the word "fur" in explaining what a fur trapper was, since we had not explained what a fur WAS.) That was a legitimate lesson,and AFAIK, a proper rule in teaching.
You've posted that we're supposed to master, that we are supposed to master until we reach certain goals, but not once did you explain what it means to master. I can't perform an action I have no idea how to perform. You're saying we failed to master something, but, without any explanation of what "mastering" is, I just have your say-so I didn't do it. Not good enough. Plain English, please. I'm not asking for a perfect definition, or an explanation of cold fusion.
What will I do with this definition?
THINK.
I can then evaluate what I've done to date, what you're saying should have been done, and what you're saying should be done in the present and future. Without a simple (or semi-simple) answer, you provide no tools for doing so. Don't worry your answer can get too technical for me-I can keep up
at any level you take it, when I choose. For someone who wants me to perform an action, you sure are impeding the process for doing it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
B) Mike,
You said
"In no way have I promoted the human author."
Hm. Let's see. You've stated that his writings are of superior canonicity than any Bible extant,including critical Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew texts, including the Masoretic text, which doesn't change. You claim that his connection with God was so surpassing excellence that any sin of character would be unable to alter one word of his writing's canonicity. You claim that, since the "first century Christian church", no one in the intervening 18 centuries and change has had
such a connection to God, and received revelation from God. (I'm stopping there.)
You know, to everyone except you two, that looks like you're promoting that human.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C) Mike,
You also said
"...nor do I post my judgements on other people's hearts."
In the same post, you used the term "spiritual babies", and implied all your detractors at GSC
(or possibly just the ones on this thread) are the "spiritual babies" you mentioned. You've called those who disagree with you "unfit workmen" based on how you view their hearts.
You've claimed-repeatedly-that those who are not "old-school" are incapable of reading vpw's
writings and REALLY understanding them the same way a semi-literate, mildly-retarded man who took pfal in 1975-76 can.
You know, to everyone except you two, that looks like you're judging people's hearts, and posting on those judgements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D) Mike,
You also said
"You never met Dr, yet you condemn him."
Based on the evidence, including videotapes he made, audiotapes he made, and books he wrote, I'll
say 'yes, I never met him, but I have very definite opinions about him.'
I would say the same of YOU, and I have NOT seen videotapes nor heard audiotapes from you.
Further, I never met Charles Manson, David Berkowitz, John Wayne Gacy, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin,Caligua, Lucrezia Borgia, Ivan the Terrible, nor the guys who ran the ovens at Auschwitz, but,
you know, even WITHOUT having seen video or heard audio, I think I can make a conclusion based on the evidence at hand. I'm silly that way.
----------------------------------------------------------
E) Mike,
a footnote.
BTW, I'm fairly confident, although not certain, that you will NEVER provide an explanation about "mastering". That's because I'm convinced the lack of an explanation will allow you to play the old twi "shell game". That's the game that, no matter what tragedy befalls you, it's always your fault, and it's never twi's fault. Refusing to explain allows you to change the meaning whenever you want, to keep "mastering" forever out of people's grasp, and thus vulnerable to the charge of "well, if you'd REALLY mastered, this would never have happened.
As you can see, I DON'T have some secret agenda-all my cards are on the table. How about putting down a few of yours?
------------------------------
(edited only to fix margin changes-not one
letter of text was added, subtracted or changed-
except for the addition of this explanation.)
[This message was edited by WordWolf on April 13, 2003 at 15:50.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The issue of discernment and judging is far more complex than the simple black and white ban imposed by Wierwille and company. It sounds SO PIOUS to say, "I'm not going to judge anyone." But refusing to judge anyone puts you in the position of being powerless to ascertain whether someone's behavior belies his pretty words.
Jesus called people HYPOCRITES. We are to be imitators of Christ. We have Christ in us. When we see hypocrisy, therefore, we can call people on it without crossing any Biblical lines or mandates.
Mike, Wierwille was a serial adulterer and abuser of women. I'm not judging him. It's a fact. Whether someone wants to consider that fact in determining whether to accept Wierwille's works as God-breathed is between them and God, and YOU, sir, have NO RIGHT to criticize them for exercising their Biblical responsibility to see to it that no one takes us captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy. Jesus said "by their fruits, ye shall know them." That means he expects us to recognize good fruit from bad, and he expects us to exercise a little (shudder) judgment in this area.
Look, there are Christian ministers who are out to deceive us. The Bible warns us about them. Without "judgment" or discernment, we WILL be tossed about with every wind of doctrine, because we will be unwilling to "criticize" to the extent of cowardice. That's another reason TWI fell.
So go ahead and tell me again that God is the one who judges, not me. But tell me, how do you know that God isn't the one allowing Wierwille's true legacy to be known?
Use your brains, Mike. For once.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Rafael,
I?m done using my brain to decide this matter. I believe God was able to work with Dr in spite of Dr?s sin. I came to bet my life on this after 27 years of hard brain work. This story of Dr?s qualifications is done. I?m applying my brain to other things. Sooner or later I hope you do too.
Us OLGs had plenty of time to discern if Dr was deceptive. I?ve tested out the Word that God taught Dr and Dr taught us in written form, and my mind is made up on this matter.
Word Wolf,
And who ever told you that recursive definitions are illegal in English? I can see a High School teacher encouraging students to avoid that if possible, but later we learn there can be exceptions. English teachers don?t make up the rules of a language, they OBSERVE them, or the average of them. The rules (and definitions) change slightly from person to person, and from time to time.
A recursive definition can work for me if there?s a kernel of understanding already there. AN author may want to use a word in a specialized way, so he starts with the normal definition, and then adds on, or subtracts, or modifies it to suit his needs. What?s your problem with that?
Have you ever seen a recursive function definition in mathematics? I don?t know what your problem is with the definition of mastery. I?ll try to help, so that you can get busy and start mastering PFAL.
Here?s a sequential algorithm for mastering PFAL:
Read.
Read a lot. and apply it a lot.
Read with meekness, inspite of the pressures to argue and fight.
Keep reading and applying until it becomes YOUR master.
Keep reading and applying until you become it.
Read with the attitude that the real author is God.
Read with the conviction that your own old man mind needs to die.
Read with the expectation that you are building the Master Mind of Christ within.
WordWolf, I?ve answered more of your letter on the next page where I had pasted a re-formatting of your letter. I'm sure any readers encountering your edit paste above appreciates it, but doesn't know it.
[This message was edited by Mike on April 14, 2003 at 23:49.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Any number of us could have told you that.
With all due respect, Mike, you don't get the privilege of just declaring the matter settled. Each of us has as much right to weigh these matters as you do. And each of us has the right to come to a different conclusion. So, again, with all due respect to the 27 years you took to come to your erroneous conclusion, it did not take me NEARLY as long to come to a conclusion that is respectful of the Bible, respectful of Wierwille's presentation of the significance of the Bible, and the polar opposite of your sycophantic foolishness.
So, I guess I'm done too: except I will continue using my brain, whereas you seem to have stopped using yours a few years ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Mike: Good topic. I am at my computer. I am also in Romans 1. All the epistles begin with who it's from (Paul) and immediately into who it's to EXCEPT Romans. Who it's from is in verse one. Who it's to is in verse 7. There is a disclaimer in verses 2-6 which applies to ALL the epistles; said disclaimer is SO on topic.
It says Jesus Christ was...
a) made of the seed of David according to the FLESH.
b) declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the SPIRIT of holiness
...two completely different standards. It doesn't say declared to be the son of God according to the flesh. Add to that list religion/true Christianity. VPW said "spiritually I've seen 4 things in life: religion, no religion, corrupt religion, and true Christianity." Religious people judge themselves, other people, and God after the flesh and then they turn around and call it spiritual. Those folks will NEVER understand.
You've repeated that the bible is flesh and the Word of God is spirit, yet they keep assuming that if it isn't scripture it isn't the Word of God.
There is no physical description of any kind given about Jesus Christ. We don't know how tall he was, what color his hair and eyes were, what his voice sounded like, what his mannerisms were, nothing! We don't know him after the flesh. Must be OK, huh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Jesus said you'll know them by their fruit. Can you tell me how to know them by their fruit without exercising what you so derisively call "judgment"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Look, let's get this real clear...
Wierwille's standing/state before God is between him and God. What God thinks of him and what God plans to do with him, I am in no condition to judge.
But Wierwille's behavior left a lot to be desired, and it's an object lesson for us to look at his life and know how depraved people can be. The same goes for Solomon. The same goes for David. The same goes for countless other people.
Mike has decided that Wierwille's behavior, the accusations against him, are not enough to dissuade him from his thesis. Mike is entitled to that point of view, but in exercising his right, he is just as guilty of JUDGING as the people he crticizes. He judges Wierwille's accusers. He judges those that disagree with him. He condemns the people he criticizes as... JUDGES! That's judging.
Along comes Johniam, and accuses us of judging according to the flesh. He goes on to deride us by saying "Those folks (you know them) will NEVER understand."
My, what an interesting JUDGMENT.
He even writes of an assumption that we make (unless it's the Bible, it isn't the Word of God). I must congratulate Johniam on exercising his JUDGMENT.
So, I'll say again, come off of your high horses, people. Mike's thesis rises and falls on its merits. The namecalling should end. Judging people does nothing but degenerate into endless finger-pointing that does NOTHING to answer the questions being raised.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Rafael,
You wrote: "Jesus said you'll know them by their fruit. Can you tell me how to know them by their fruit without exercising what you so derisively call "judgment"? "
By looking at the fruit that they helped you, yourself, grow. It's your internal fruit you judge.
I know VPW by his fruits in me, VERY WELL.
I know his fruit in others with less certitude, but I saw a lot of blessing there too. I also saw some hurt, but comparatively less for me than others. I mentioned long ago that I was very good at dodging, and that included the spiritually dark areas of the marble cake that the TVT was. It got much darker, and very quickly, after 1985.
[This message was edited by Mike on April 12, 2003 at 18:19.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Sounds like judging to me. Sounds like judging Wierwille's critics as being less trustworthy than your own experience.
Hey, you've got the right to do that. But you're still judging. So cut the hypocrisy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I have better access to the knowledge of my own benefits. I can see MY whole picture in great detail.
I have very limited access to critics. I can't see much of anybody else's detailed big picture, nor am I expected to. I do my best to include them in the mix.
I also have to add the appreciators' testimonies to the mix along with the critics testimonies. The former are very few here at GS, but out there is a whole bunch of people in that category, in varying degrees. I happen to be at one extreme end of that spectrum, but there are many more with milder degrees of appreciation for Dr's writings, and I have to give them equal voice with the critics.
I cast the tie breaking vote, and it's not a close call at all, for me. I can see how others see the mix differently.
[This message was edited by Mike on April 12, 2003 at 19:08.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
FINE!
You're still JUDGING.
Period.
Goodness, won't admit an error is an error. Won't admit that judging is judging. And hasn't used his brain in five years. Why am I arguing with this guy?
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Rafael,
I think you got me wrong somewhere several posts ago, or something.
I do judge in certain ways. We all do.
I never did get a handle on the different Greek words of judge and all the verses and things like that.
Because of that I've never thrown around a blanket "No Judgement" commandment. Maybe you assumed I did, because so many other people do. I?ve always admitted to these constricted judgements that are a part of life.
I do see a problem, from many scriptures, with one person thinking they can peer into another person?s heart, without revelation that is. My best understanding on judging is that when it comes to people?s hearts, and things like that, it?s very dicey to make any PUBLIC announcements, even if there is Word of Knowledge. Usually the Word of Wisdom is to keep quite. Usually.
When it comes to judging an other person?s eternal rewards, that seems totally off limits, not even any revelation should be expected.
For deciding who to spend a lot of time with and trust, then I think judgement of their external actions and words is unavoidable, as has been said earlier by someone else.
Rafael, if you can show me an ambiguous statement of mine that seems to say I never judge, I?ll edit it to be more clear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'll agree with you on certain points and disagree on others.
1. It does not take "revelation" to judge someone. Sometimes all it takes is evidence. That is, the testimony of more than one credible witness. I believe there is more than enough evidence to conclude Wierwille's attitude toward sex and sexuality tainted his presentation of God's Word on the subject. His written works are all but silent on the matter. He has his most devout followers thinking that "Victorian" (ie, BIBLICAL) attitudes about sex are somehow LESS damaging to individuals and society than rampant promiscuity. Laughable.
2. You claim to be unwilling to peer into other people's hearts, yet you judge our motives in coming to you with "actual errors." You mock our integrity and call us "unfit" researchers. Yeah, whatever. Some display of reluctance on your part.
3. Jesus NEVER tells us to wait for revelation in determining "judgments." He tells us very simply that we will know them by their fruits. He doesn't say "ye shall know them by what God tells you about their fruits." Revelation sometimes comes into play, but there are times you don't need revelation to tell you that someone is motivated by money and lust. All you have to do is look at the fruit of the person's life.
4. I totally agree that judging another person's eternal rewards is not my call. Or anyone else's on these boards. Any statement made to the contrary is speculation.
5. In criticizing the "Esteemed Panel of GS Cafe Character Judges," you sure leave the impression that you're above such behavior. As I've repeatedly shown, you're not.
And by the way, in reference to your earlier post, I KNOW I'm not going to change your mind about Wierwille's character. I'm not out to change your mind on the subject. All I'm saying is YOU HAVE NO RIGHT, Biblically or otherwise, to criticize or condemn someone else's decision to dismiss your thesis based on their assessment of VPW's character.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Rafael,
You wrote: ?All I'm saying is YOU HAVE NO RIGHT, Biblically or otherwise, to criticize or condemn someone else's decision to dismiss your thesis based on their assessment of VPW's character.?
I?ll buy that.
I was complaining about another matter, those criticizing MY heart, and my right to dismiss. I do often recognize the rights of others, especially non-OLGs, to not accept my thesis. It?s their attacks that I protest, and sometimes show to be wrong. It?s not that I feel the need to defend myself, but I know a lot of other readers face the same thoughts, so I am showing them how to handle them, based on book mastery.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Shaz Posted:
Yes, but I HAVE used the word "evil" in regards to Mike. On March 12th I posted:
I'll make no bones about it. I think that Mikes doctrine is evil and that Mike is either knowingly or unknowingly ( I cannot tell) promoting a lie. I suspect the former because of his willingness to abandon any form of an intellectually honest approach.
Mike posted ( to Shaz):
Mike, one does not have to or need to be a "parqagon of virtue" to call something or someone evil. Evil can be discerned in several ways. One is by the standard set in the true Word of God contained in what you call "unreliable remnants". Yet your doctrine convienently casts aside the true Word in favor of another - which is not another ( Gal 1:7). You eliminate the standard itself, by casting it aside. You honor the works of a man above the true Word of God and attempt to deceive others with this false doctrine of yours. It is evil because it attempts to deprive folks of the goodness of the true Word of God which is contained in the scriptures. It exalts a man.
Mike, maybe no one else has called you evil outright, but I certainly have no problem with it. By actively promoting and recruiting folks into your false doctrine, you become a messenger of evil - a deceiver.
But the good news is that what you are promoting amounts to little more than "Evil Lite", but evil nonetheless. It will come to nothing. There is a little chance that anyone will truly buy into your deception because of the many, many, obvious flaws in your logic and methodology and becasue of the abject abusurdity of it all. Anyone with a lick of sense can see right through your deception.
Goey
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.