will some please pass the cream and sugar.......? Thanks.......... (clink, clink).........oh, sorry I interrupted you Mike, guess I lost my stayed mind for a minute there. You were saying??????
"I like Mike, I like Mike, I like Mike, YAAAAAA MIKE."
I?ll enjoy this more when people get tired of making me the subject of discussion.
Pirate,
The kind of questioning I mean is respectful. It?s possible to ask questions about one small area while properly respecting the bulk of easy to understand truths already taught. This skill is not encouraged here very much.
This is why I don?t engage in the kind of questioning, researching, and tearing down that most of the PFAL AEs have gotten here.
In science, the art of skepticism is highly developed, and does respect the bulk of established data and working theories. A good scientist does not believe anything NEW unless he is forced to by the data and logic.
Both believing and skepticism can be overdone. One degenerates to gullibility, the other to cynicism. It?s the balance that is best.
Of course, a real scientist doesn't hold to a theory once it's been disproven either, but that apparently doesn't bother some people. Honest research doesn't just throw away the data that doesn't fit in with the pet hypothesis.
AD HOMINEM: Attack the messenger rather than the message. Namely, Mike is unable to answer the list of actual errors in PFAL, despite a pretty danged good attempt at addressing ONE of them (our list is at over 30 at last count), so instead of addressing the deficiency in his own position, he attacks the "quality of heart" of his detractors, accusing us of being dishonest researchers promoting "bad data."
This, of course, absolves him of the responsibility of answering honest questions.
quote:... so instead of addressing the deficiency in his own position, he attacks the "quality of heart" of his detractors, accusing us of being dishonest researchers promoting "bad data."
This, of course, absolves him of the responsibility of answering honest questions.
Don't you know Rafael, that this was Mr. Weirwille's godbreathed methods for refuting honest critisism? Avoiding debate and the charges of massive literary theft, pathological lying and sexual perversion were Godbreathed ways of avoiding "having the Ministry being blamed."
quote:Most of what I've been trying to do here at GSC is report new data, things I?ve found in the record that I?ve perceived to be hidden from sight, or not present in our collective memory, or not part of the common discussions between us older grads of PFAL.
New Data? What new Data?
Datum - Something given or admitted; a fact or principle granted; that upon which an inference or an argument is based; -- used chiefly in the plural. -
Data implies facts or principles that are used to base an inference or an argument. This means a process of rational logic of some sort. In other words you use the "data" (facts) and apply logic to come to a conclusion.
Mike, one of the problems here is that your "data" is missing. You have no data. What you are calling data are your concusions and theories. You present your theories as facts or "data." You have put your conclusions up front, making most ( if not all) of your logic circular and your conclusions invalid
Take your word list for example. You postulate that these words empahasize the spiritual in VPW's writings, yet you offer no facts or examples to substiate this hypothesis - you just declare it to be so by fiat. Why? Because it fit's with your preconceived and rather absurd notion that PFAL is God-breathed.
Who made me responsible to answer your questions? In the manner you ask? And in the timing you demand?
I'm gonna have to talk to that guy!
No one. It's called common courtesy.
You can take FOREVER to answer the questions. I have ALWAYS said so, and never chided you for your delays (I have chided you for posting long, extensive, posts while simultaneously claiming to have no time to address the questions, but that's different).
You can decide never to answer them. You can answer them all tomorrow.
But what you can't do, at least not honestly, is challenge my integrity and use that LAME challenge as a substitute for answering the questions. YOU're the one promoting a counterfeit "Word of God." The burden is on you to answer questions about it.
By Mike's logic, if he "sees" something that in his rather isolated and limited experience has not been brought to the front and elevated according to his standards, then is only stands to reason, that everyone else must have missed it. This is pure arrogance IMO.
Goey, pure arrogance may be over-the-top. Particularly the "pure" part. We're all mixed drinks (btw - I know it was IMO. And my name is spelled with a lower case "s"). ;)-->
Rafael, seems to me any number of character traits could motivate delusions of arcane grandeur. I suffer from a few myself, arrogance only being one of them. (yuk yuk)
I am actually surprised no one else wanted to play a dichotomy game.
(what, everyone here has a social life? Yeah, right.)
Its easy.
Just start with a pair and grow it from there (that sounded vulgar).
The first words determine the character and plane of the polarity.
Is it UP and DOWN, or RIGHT and LEFT?
It is HOT and COLD, or GOOD and EVIL?
It is COKE and PEPSI, or GW BUSH and MICHAEL JACKSON?
SPIRIT/FLESH
HEAVEN/EARTH
LIVING/DYING
GOOD/EVIL
POSITIVE/NEGATIVE
PUSH/PULL
HEAT/COOL
HOT/COLD
STEAM/ICE
GAS/SOLID
FART/POOP
Oops, I went a little Frank Zappa on ya. But it IS a game.
Any takers?
Mike?
I know its not exactly the response yer wanting, so let me know if its too off topic for ya? Its your thread, man. I wish yood play tho.
I was often, in the 70?s, accused of making Paul my Lord instead of Jesus Christ, because I paid more attention to the epistles than the gospels.
If you ever did a lot of witnessing to other Christians, like I did, then surely you have run into this same accusation. How did you handle it? Is Paul your Lord?
Yes I made the mistake that so many have made and still make. We used to place more importance on the words of Paul than the words of our lord, under the false belief that Jesus Christ's words were only addressed to Israel. I have since repented of that foolish practice. Paul's words can only be correctly understood in light of the words of Jesus Christ. And Paul consented to his words according to I Tim. 6:3-5, "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."
Jesus frequently said we must believe his words, one example being John 12:47, 48, "And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."
This is why I say you should be studying the words of Jesus Christ with the same minuteness with which you're studying a man's words.
[This message was edited by Mark Clarke on April 03, 2003 at 22:32.]
Have you ever studied the red letter words of Jesus Christ that are in Acts of the Apostles?
Three times Jesus makes a cameo Post Pentecost appearance in Acts. First time is in the narrative account of the incident on the Road to Damascus. The next two times are in flashbacks to the same incident.
If you put all three accounts of the same incident together, you get Jesus saying something very similar to Colossians Chapter One, the "Christ In You" chapter.
Jesus' earthly ministry words are in the 4 gospels, but his greater ministry is at the right hand of God, and from there he taught Paul what to say on his behalf. This is stated in Galatians, that Paul got his words by ?the revelation of Jesus Christ.?
We were right in respecting the epistles of Paul as greater words. Read Peter?s dying last words concerning these MOST important epistles.
Have you ever been accused of being a Matthew/Mark/Luke/John worshipper? They were mere sinful men.
Look at Mark and Luke. They were traveling companions of Paul, students of Paul's, and probably never even saw Jesus. They got their gospels by revelation, just like Paul. Paul?s was the greatest.
[This message was edited by Mike on April 05, 2003 at 16:36.]
Paul was taught the revelation of the gospel of Jesus Christ via revelation cause Paul wasn't taught by the Master when Jesus walked the earth.
If Paul wasn't an apostle, it would not have happened that way. It doesn't mean it is greater or truer words.
Peter was the first to receive revelation that the gentiles were to be accepted into the church. Not Paul.
Are we sure we are not confusing how the church operated in those days and instead of realizing how Peter worked with the Jews, Paul worked with the Gentiles...and that does not promote one man's ministry over another?
This could almost become like what Paul warned against, saying I am of Paul, I am of whomever as mentioned in Corinthians.
Peter's last dying words concerning the most important epistles?...First of all, they were just letters in those days to people. They were not cannon, were not recognized scripture.
And Peter said Paul's letters were hard to understand.
When Paul wrote these letters, certifying that he was indeed an apostle and where/how he was taught (as they knew Paul did not walk with Jesus when Jesus was on earth) it was to give credibilty to his ministry to oppose those false apostles and prophets. It was NOT to make Paul THE apostle.
Paul never claimed to have gotten revelation at a greater extent then those men who served the church as apostles. That is a TWI claim but not what the Bible says.
Ephesians 3:5....NIV as it has now been revelaed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets...
plural....not one, not Paul..but plural...and proof of that is Peter going to Cornelius, bringing bretheren with him to witness why he was going to gentiles...and preached the gospel realizing that God was NOT a respector of persons. And unlike what VP said in PFAL...Peter was not called on the carpet for water baptism BUT for preaching to the Gentiles and for entering a gentile home.
When Paul speaks in his letters about receiving revelation and grace..and 'this is given unto me,' Paul was not telling people he was the super apostle, the most important apostle, but was trying to get them to turn from false apostles/prophets AND Paul was amazed and extolling the glories of God that after all Paul did in persecuting the church, God had such mercy and grace on him by allowing Paul to become what he did become in caring for the church of God.
Don't confuse Paul's humility and thankfulness towards God as confirmation of him being the person who received 'the most important revelation.' Sorry, but that is so TWI in thinking...who got the most important revelation, or who wrote the most important letters....all works..glorifying flesh....
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
Stayed Too Long
will some please pass the cream and sugar.......? Thanks.......... (clink, clink).........oh, sorry I interrupted you Mike, guess I lost my stayed mind for a minute there. You were saying??????
"I like Mike, I like Mike, I like Mike, YAAAAAA MIKE."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Stayed Too Long,
I?ll enjoy this more when people get tired of making me the subject of discussion.
Pirate,
The kind of questioning I mean is respectful. It?s possible to ask questions about one small area while properly respecting the bulk of easy to understand truths already taught. This skill is not encouraged here very much.
This is why I don?t engage in the kind of questioning, researching, and tearing down that most of the PFAL AEs have gotten here.
In science, the art of skepticism is highly developed, and does respect the bulk of established data and working theories. A good scientist does not believe anything NEW unless he is forced to by the data and logic.
Both believing and skepticism can be overdone. One degenerates to gullibility, the other to cynicism. It?s the balance that is best.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Of course, a real scientist doesn't hold to a theory once it's been disproven either, but that apparently doesn't bother some people. Honest research doesn't just throw away the data that doesn't fit in with the pet hypothesis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Zixar,
It's good to consider the quality and heart that went into such "disprovings" as you allude to. Bad data needs to be discarded.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Mike: Oh, please! By that "logic", I can deduce that you are a homosexual pedophile, because
a) I've never seen you have sex with an adult, and
b) I've never seen you in the company of any females.
Any protestations you might make to the contrary can be safely discarded as "bad data" because of your obvious "heart" bias.
Therefore, in the absence of any "good data" that denies the allegation, you molest little boys. QED.
You're one sick piece of work, Mike.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Logical Fallacy:
AD HOMINEM: Attack the messenger rather than the message. Namely, Mike is unable to answer the list of actual errors in PFAL, despite a pretty danged good attempt at addressing ONE of them (our list is at over 30 at last count), so instead of addressing the deficiency in his own position, he attacks the "quality of heart" of his detractors, accusing us of being dishonest researchers promoting "bad data."
This, of course, absolves him of the responsibility of answering honest questions.
Nice. Very nice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry P2
Don't you know Rafael, that this was Mr. Weirwille's godbreathed methods for refuting honest critisism? Avoiding debate and the charges of massive literary theft, pathological lying and sexual perversion were Godbreathed ways of avoiding "having the Ministry being blamed."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
New Data? What new Data?
Datum - Something given or admitted; a fact or principle granted; that upon which an inference or an argument is based; -- used chiefly in the plural. -
(Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)
Data implies facts or principles that are used to base an inference or an argument. This means a process of rational logic of some sort. In other words you use the "data" (facts) and apply logic to come to a conclusion.
Mike, one of the problems here is that your "data" is missing. You have no data. What you are calling data are your concusions and theories. You present your theories as facts or "data." You have put your conclusions up front, making most ( if not all) of your logic circular and your conclusions invalid
Take your word list for example. You postulate that these words empahasize the spiritual in VPW's writings, yet you offer no facts or examples to substiate this hypothesis - you just declare it to be so by fiat. Why? Because it fit's with your preconceived and rather absurd notion that PFAL is God-breathed.
What data Mike? --- You have none.
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
That brings up another point -
How could anything about docvic(praise be his name) possibly be new? He's been dead for 25 years, fercryinoutloud!
Yeah, I know, officially it's been 17, but he was actually dead for 8 years before his family got the nerve to tell him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The data is in the tape/book/magazine record. It stuff that either sliped by us unnoticed, or things that got forgotten.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Rafael,
Who made me responsible to answer your questions? In the manner you ask? And in the timing you demand?
I'm gonna have to talk to that guy!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Zixar,
You must be getting desparate. Your debating style reminds me of the Iraq Army.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No one. It's called common courtesy.
You can take FOREVER to answer the questions. I have ALWAYS said so, and never chided you for your delays (I have chided you for posting long, extensive, posts while simultaneously claiming to have no time to address the questions, but that's different).
You can decide never to answer them. You can answer them all tomorrow.
But what you can't do, at least not honestly, is challenge my integrity and use that LAME challenge as a substitute for answering the questions. YOU're the one promoting a counterfeit "Word of God." The burden is on you to answer questions about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
oh MIke
how do you know what went by unnoticed and by whom?
You tend to speak for others ...
How is that???
I hear you saying you know it all for and about everyone in those type of comments...
Do you wonder why people dismiss you??
How can you speak to what everyone thinks??? or did or dint do?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Mike,
Honestly, I'd like to ask the same thing as mj412:
How do you presume to know what was missed by whom?
And:
Did you (and/or the one who taught you your doctrine) actually track down that many older-leader-grads and quiz them?
What part, if any, of your data is ascertained?
Either way, are these results part of the volumes of data you keep referring as your evidence/witness?
tng
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
So Wierwille had a recurring theme that there was a difference and opposition between the "spiritual" and the "five-senses".
You think that this was hidden? I always thought this was pretty obvious after about a five minute exposure to anything he said or wrote.
You don't need to examine lists of "code words" to figure this out, it's pretty plain.
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
Goey
Sirguessalot,
By Mike's logic, if he "sees" something that in his rather isolated and limited experience has not been brought to the front and elevated according to his standards, then is only stands to reason, that everyone else must have missed it. This is pure arrogance IMO.
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Agreed. What else would lead someone to refer to a teaching that was published and disseminated TWICE as being "Lost?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Oakspear...never mind.
--> Right on, bro'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Goey, pure arrogance may be over-the-top. Particularly the "pure" part. We're all mixed drinks (btw - I know it was IMO. And my name is spelled with a lower case "s").
;)-->
Rafael, seems to me any number of character traits could motivate delusions of arcane grandeur. I suffer from a few myself, arrogance only being one of them. (yuk yuk)
I am actually surprised no one else wanted to play a dichotomy game.
(what, everyone here has a social life? Yeah, right.)
Its easy.
Just start with a pair and grow it from there (that sounded vulgar).
The first words determine the character and plane of the polarity.
Is it UP and DOWN, or RIGHT and LEFT?
It is HOT and COLD, or GOOD and EVIL?
It is COKE and PEPSI, or GW BUSH and MICHAEL JACKSON?
SPIRIT/FLESH
HEAVEN/EARTH
LIVING/DYING
GOOD/EVIL
POSITIVE/NEGATIVE
PUSH/PULL
HEAT/COOL
HOT/COLD
STEAM/ICE
GAS/SOLID
FART/POOP
Oops, I went a little Frank Zappa on ya. But it IS a game.
Any takers?
Mike?
I know its not exactly the response yer wanting, so let me know if its too off topic for ya? Its your thread, man. I wish yood play tho.
tng
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Later. I have an early appointment today.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Yes I made the mistake that so many have made and still make. We used to place more importance on the words of Paul than the words of our lord, under the false belief that Jesus Christ's words were only addressed to Israel. I have since repented of that foolish practice. Paul's words can only be correctly understood in light of the words of Jesus Christ. And Paul consented to his words according to I Tim. 6:3-5, "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."
Jesus frequently said we must believe his words, one example being John 12:47, 48, "And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."
This is why I say you should be studying the words of Jesus Christ with the same minuteness with which you're studying a man's words.
[This message was edited by Mark Clarke on April 03, 2003 at 22:32.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Mark,
Have you ever studied the red letter words of Jesus Christ that are in Acts of the Apostles?
Three times Jesus makes a cameo Post Pentecost appearance in Acts. First time is in the narrative account of the incident on the Road to Damascus. The next two times are in flashbacks to the same incident.
If you put all three accounts of the same incident together, you get Jesus saying something very similar to Colossians Chapter One, the "Christ In You" chapter.
Jesus' earthly ministry words are in the 4 gospels, but his greater ministry is at the right hand of God, and from there he taught Paul what to say on his behalf. This is stated in Galatians, that Paul got his words by ?the revelation of Jesus Christ.?
We were right in respecting the epistles of Paul as greater words. Read Peter?s dying last words concerning these MOST important epistles.
Have you ever been accused of being a Matthew/Mark/Luke/John worshipper? They were mere sinful men.
Look at Mark and Luke. They were traveling companions of Paul, students of Paul's, and probably never even saw Jesus. They got their gospels by revelation, just like Paul. Paul?s was the greatest.
[This message was edited by Mike on April 05, 2003 at 16:36.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mandii
Paul was taught the revelation of the gospel of Jesus Christ via revelation cause Paul wasn't taught by the Master when Jesus walked the earth.
If Paul wasn't an apostle, it would not have happened that way. It doesn't mean it is greater or truer words.
Peter was the first to receive revelation that the gentiles were to be accepted into the church. Not Paul.
Are we sure we are not confusing how the church operated in those days and instead of realizing how Peter worked with the Jews, Paul worked with the Gentiles...and that does not promote one man's ministry over another?
This could almost become like what Paul warned against, saying I am of Paul, I am of whomever as mentioned in Corinthians.
Peter's last dying words concerning the most important epistles?...First of all, they were just letters in those days to people. They were not cannon, were not recognized scripture.
And Peter said Paul's letters were hard to understand.
When Paul wrote these letters, certifying that he was indeed an apostle and where/how he was taught (as they knew Paul did not walk with Jesus when Jesus was on earth) it was to give credibilty to his ministry to oppose those false apostles and prophets. It was NOT to make Paul THE apostle.
Paul never claimed to have gotten revelation at a greater extent then those men who served the church as apostles. That is a TWI claim but not what the Bible says.
Ephesians 3:5....NIV as it has now been revelaed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets...
plural....not one, not Paul..but plural...and proof of that is Peter going to Cornelius, bringing bretheren with him to witness why he was going to gentiles...and preached the gospel realizing that God was NOT a respector of persons. And unlike what VP said in PFAL...Peter was not called on the carpet for water baptism BUT for preaching to the Gentiles and for entering a gentile home.
When Paul speaks in his letters about receiving revelation and grace..and 'this is given unto me,' Paul was not telling people he was the super apostle, the most important apostle, but was trying to get them to turn from false apostles/prophets AND Paul was amazed and extolling the glories of God that after all Paul did in persecuting the church, God had such mercy and grace on him by allowing Paul to become what he did become in caring for the church of God.
Don't confuse Paul's humility and thankfulness towards God as confirmation of him being the person who received 'the most important revelation.' Sorry, but that is so TWI in thinking...who got the most important revelation, or who wrote the most important letters....all works..glorifying flesh....
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.