I thought it is pressing on to the call of the most HIGH GOD or something with a little bit of bible verse attached.
I have to press my pants.
I am not impressed with your sweeping o come to think of it I have to sweep my floor..
Mike what bad thing will happen to ya if you read a news paper hmm?
it is the year 2003 we live on a planet called earth and the news flash is all abuzz VPW is dead. AND the sun came out today and the moon may set tonite !
Any other inabilities you NEED to share with the group tonite MIKE?
A few days ago, a few pages ago, there was a discussion I stayed out of here because it seemed to cover a lot of ground. I?m now responding to some that page?s posts.
?...either VPW sinned when he took the words of others to put into his books (without their consent and without acknowledgement), and we should overlook the sin because he was such a great MOG;
?or he refrained from footnoting on purpose, to spare us from looking up the references and getting off track in our thinking, and we should thank him for sparing us such pain.?
I reject your limited menu of choices.
I see many other ?or?s to add to your truncated offering.
I might add that ?without their consent and without acknowledgement? is an unknown quantity to you. You?re not including God?s ownership and His authority to give consent. As to acknowledgement, I?d estimate that 98% of us grads would never have known Bullinger, Kenyon, and the others even existed if it weren?t for Dr?s repeated verbal and written acknowledgement of them.
So you exaggerate when you say ?without acknowledgement? as if there was none whatsoever.
What you should really say, to be accurate, is that Dr didn?t print ENOUGH acknowledgement of Bullinger, Kenyon, and the others to satisfy your highly sciminating and fosisticated tastes.
*****
You wrote: ?OR he wanted to get those books into print, and didn't think a bunch of midwestern hayseeds and babyboomer kids would know that he plagiarized.?
Then why would he document the existence of Bullinger, Kenyon et all to his grads from way back in the early days?
*****
You wrote: ?Later on, when he was more concerned about being recognized in the academic community...?
I think he was more interested in injecting grads into the academic community who wouldn?t get talked out of the Word. I was one of these types of grads. I casually talked to Dr about it a little once, but the College Outreach programs said much more on this.
I don?t think Dr was trying to curry favor of any mainstream academics with his selection of the title ?Jesus Christ Is Not God.? That was an ?in your face? to the academic community.
*****
You wrote: ?(and after he already got into trouble with plagiarizing the lyrics in the song book)?
I?m 90% per cent sure the song book situation came up after his death.
I?m 99% sure it came up after he stepped down as president.
*****
You wrote: ?he footnoted extensively, and somehow we didn't all get "off the Word" by looking up any of the texts he cited (if we looked them up at all).?
By then we were more advanced grads. Plus, the footnotes don?t send people off in directions looking for other teachers. They are different types of books. It?s with these two books JCOP & JCPS that we grads had some interface with non-grad Bible students from the denominations. Traditional readers of the KJV spent much more time in the gospels than we OLGs did in the 70?s, and these two books gave us a rich & balanced view of the godpsel. These two books are not like the Blue Book in any way.
Additionally, ADAN was early in its printing, but it too has a few more footnotes. This book was unique in many ways, one of which was that it was originally published by a secular company, Devon Adair. I?m currently chasing down the references, but Dr used the term ?secular? to describe books that differ in some way from his others. I think ADAN is, or was, one such book.
You wrote: ?I recall that I despised TVT, but dug the books.?
Thank you, sir.
******
You wrote: ?The rules and customs and bumper-sticker mantras of TWI never really jived with what I was getting out of it anyway. And it was like that for a lot of innies I knew.?
I agree. In the earlier days they were less offensive, even fun, but by the mid 80?s the fun was totally gone.
*****
You wrote: ?Why don't ya stop mastering the tools and actually start using them??
I do use them, and am getting good results. Plus, if I continue the mastering process, my use of them in the future can be even better.
Of course there?s a balance between reading and applying to life?s situations. I work that balance. Sometimes it tips away from reading and I have to bring it back. I don?t think it?s ever tipped towards too much reading.
Then there?s another set of balances I must watch, like reading/posting or living/posting ?
*****
You wrote: ?Seems to me that if PFAL is the most powerful and relevant God-breathed Bible-aid, then you should be able to USE it to understand any part of the bible. Those hard-to-understand parts.?
That ?seems? may be illusory. Even if you?re correct, and PFAL should be applicable to any part, that doesn?t say anything to the ORDER of what we are to apply PFAL to first, second, third...
I believe that in the mastering of PFAL, we will find our instructions for dealing with that part of the Bible. If we partially master PFAL, we can only partially apply it to this part.
******
You wrote: ?Show us how to use it to unlock the secrets of those most puzzling sections of scripture that VPW never refers to. Are they still valid for godly wisdom??
As this thread finishes, I next want to look at PFAL and the Return of Christ. There will be plenty of new data there for how John?s Revelation fits in.
*****
You wrote: ?And if not in the book of Revelation. How bout the book of Job? The flood? Daniel's visions? The wierd stuff in Isaiah and Jeremiah and Ezekial? All those poetic little books before the Gospels.?
There were years and years where we could look into those things. I did. We were often encouraged to read these things, and there were extra classes to feed our hungers in those directions. Those things all took place in their time. I just think there?s something much more important now, and that?s coming back to PFAL.
*****
You wrote: ?There are a lot of blanket accusations behind his sermons, and they're levelled at everyone here, more or less. For me, it's hard not to get grumpy.?
Please remember, you?re not an OLG, and I?m not aiming even my ?soft? blame at you. You?re not guilty of any of my ?charges.?
I see this ?blame? towards OLGs as greater for those who were in higher leadership categories back in 1985. BUT, I also keep the ?Saving Private Ryan? model of forgiveness close by to remind me of their great service in the previous years.
Plus, I temper my ?blame? by often reminding myself that if I had been in one of those higher leadership positions in 1985, then I would have probably earned much more of this soft blame than they did.
Plus, I temper this ?blame? with the notion that this whole thing is EASILY CORRECTABLE! All we OLGs need to do is come back to PFAL and master it like we were supposed to. Voila! No soft blame anymore.
Plus, I temper this ?blame? by remembering that it seems God let us all out on enough rope to hang ourselves. We OLGs back then all were like rebellious teenagers who thought they didn?t need any more teaching. God allowed us all to dig our cisterns and try filling them with water. We all dug different sizes and styles, but we all were like sheep who went astray. We lost The Way, because we went our OWN way. Dr writes this on page 98 of TNDC ?We lost THE way because we have turned to OUR own way.?
You wrote: ?I think for the most part this thread gives men a place to rip into something without making it personal or physical.?
You may be right.
I?ve thought that sometimes here I am taking hits that people wanted to retro-hit Dr with, or can?t find Craig to hit with now. I can relate to this, since I sometimes went through a lot of the same feelings about Dr that are expressed her.
If it helps people get it out of their system, or helps them see if more clearly, I?ll take it. It does get personal at times, but since it?s not physical, I can?t complain. I?m valuing my religious freedom to speak.
This post is intended as humor :D--> and is a work of fiction; any resemblence to real Mikes, living or dead, or any MOGs, living, dead, or in-between is purely your own imagination
Poster: New evidense has come to light that VP Wierwille literally ate puppies during the last year of his life. He thought that ingesting puppy flesh would invigorate him and cause his eye to grow back.
Mike:Since I was not there to see these puppies eaten, it didn't happen
Poster:But one of the puppies that he ate was my little beagle named Bic. I was in the room when it happened and head the cries of puppy terror when he did it.
Mike:Oh, so you heard the cries did you? That implies that you didn't see it, making it a non-event.
Poster:Let me clarify Mike; I both saw and heard the puppicide.
Mike:Get over it, Doctor was such a great teacher of the Word that we should overlook something minor like torturing animals
Poster:I can't believe that you would support such cruelty
Mike:Read and master PFAL, you will find nothing in it to indicate that Doctor ate puppies
Poster:You are sick Mike, how can you deny that this happened.
Mike:Doctor was the man of God and was following God's Plan set forth in the 1942 promise and was always right, therfore if he ate puppies, it was godly.
Poster:I can't believe you. You said earlier that he didn't do it, now you're saying that he did. Which is it.
Mike:I have much more to say about puppy eating, but it's been a long day and I have to rest up for a long day of scientific window washing. More tomorrow
Poster:Dodging the issue, are you?
Mike:Crybaby!
Oakspear
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is
I'm deleting this post in response to Ginger's deletions in her post.
I apologize for not answering anything you've ever written to me on the board, and ask that you point to any instance of anything you've said to me on any greasespot thread that I've ignored.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on July 20, 2003 at 22:20.]
Have I told you how I admire your willingness and tenacity to defend your position?
Well?I do.
The uncommon nature of your declarations has stirred an equally uncommon tempest at the GSC, both of which have helped me to further understand my PFAL/TWI experience. I love this place, and I?m truly glad you came. I have healed greatly.
Thanks, GSC.
Of course, I can only speak for myself. (I know, it?s a nasty habit I picked up somewhere).
And I am not claiming that my PFAL experience was greater or lesser than anyone else?s. I honestly can?t do that. And I honestly wish you would apply the wisdom of this approach, Mike.
But I will compare my PFAL experience to yours, regardless of whether or not you will honor my contribution.
And I?ve told you this before: I would concede more points for some of your PFAL arguments, but I trust you less and less, the more you respond. Not that I think your heart is dark, but that your judgement is at least dark gray regarding things that I know that I know that I know, and things that I know that you do NOT know about me, but continue to dismiss as somehow inferior (and this bone-to-pick with you seems a common theme here).
But I am also a moody creature, and I am in a new mood today.
So I will begin to concede some points to your arguments, even at the risk of your manipulations, as well as a heap of tomatoes from friends.
Like you, I do believe VPW learned things from God and that PFAL is God-breathed.
But unlike you, I believe that God breathes more frequently than this, especially AFTER Pentecost.
And that VPW?s style of contribution is but a drop in the ocean.
And that his errors did affect his ability to give.
But God does make lemonade out of lemons.
Thus, we can learn from PFAL.
Why would God ?breathe? any less, when it is clear that MORE revelation than in the OT or Gospels is NOW available to ALL who come, and has been for 2k years?
quote:?but by the mid 80?s the fun was totally gone.
If you mean that the TVT had lost most of its fun by then, I would agree.
But if you mean that no one could learn as much from PFAL after the 80?s (except what you have learned, of course), you contradict yourself greatly, and I think YOU actually cut yourself off from a heap of understanding that is available from PFAL.
How can corrupt traditions keep God from teaching genuinely meek people things from PFAL if God inspired it? Especially if the corrupt traditions are being ignored by the student, therefore allowing years of fruitful study and application in relative isolation from TVT.
sound familiar?
This was me just a few years ago.
I've come a long way since.
Difference is, YOU suffered from many more years of TVT than I did, and have had a lot more to get over. When TVT really hit me in the corps training and chased me off, it was AFTER those years I was allowed to consistently receive, retain and release, according to what I was learning. And ?always find the application? was my self-set guideline for ALL of my reading and writing.
Just because you haven't found an application for a section of scripture using the "PFAL method," does not mean no one else has. That seems an arrogant and/or naive assumption.
Besides, if corrupt TVT can really stop God from teaching the meek, what does that say about God?s ability and willingness? Not much, I?d say, which is again, one of my major beefs with you.
It bothers me how you presume to know what everyone experienced in TWI better than they themselves.
And I?m sure this cuts many to the bone.
And there is no fellowship in it.
Remember why the dead sea is dead, Mike?
I've asked you this before.
Well, I gotta go for now, but I?ll be back tonight to pick up where I left off. Maybe I'll tell ya about all the OLGs I knew, who came back to TWI after leaving for over a decade. They become my dearest friends while in TWI. I was their teacher, and they were mine, in all those manifold expressions of grace and believing and love.
Todd
[This message was edited by sirguessalot on July 20, 2003 at 22:46.]
i believe that vpw learned something from a god. I am not sure it was the true God.
Yes, he taught Bible, but heck, even Satan knows the Bible. He claims to have been the leader only in the Holy Spirit and dead alive now fields.
But he ALLOWED others to fawn over him like he was the Prophet or something more.
But his claims that he would teach the world like it had not been taught since the first century is a claim made by many others (JW's, Mormon's, Worldwide Church of God -before they repented, and other pentecostal groups)
He overstated claims of academic credentials is a minor point to some, a major ones to others.
His plagiarizing is a fact. What everyone wants to do with it is their business.
I no longer follow the PFAL method for interpreting scriptures and have thrown away all my way stuff: Pfal, holy spirit, collaterals, JCING, adan, seed, and aramaic bible.
To me, it is all the work of Satan, because it denies Christ as He is, God the Father who he is and the Holy Spirit as he is and makes him out to be something lest than what God says he is.
We can all banter about the minutiae of vpw's words and what he meant or didn't mean.
Mike is pretty well convinced as I am of the opposite view.
But vpw is dead, lcm is defrocked and the rest are running an incredibly shrinking empire.
Could that say something to the fruit of vpw's ministry?
Everyone has a problem with Mike , Raf seems to be the teaching of vpw that had errors.
mine happen to be the errors Mike puts in vpw teaching. haha hhee oo this is just rich.
Oak doesnt like the manner in which he tries to bring us back to master something Raf thinks is wrong from the get go the same thing I think Mike has changed to suit his own agenda.
Ginger tea is the mother of the earth and word wolf is working hard to share the stuff with the posters not reading this.
def is sounding fed up , and ex is watching and reading along.
such is this thread as we each yell about other priorities in life beyond this thread yet here we are. oo lol this is a stitch in time isnt it?
who are we? oo haha this is so funny! o man I seriously lol .
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
82
119
656
81
Popular Days
Jun 15
86
Jul 3
73
Jul 12
50
Mar 31
49
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 82 posts
mj412 119 posts
Mike 656 posts
Steve Lortz 81 posts
Popular Days
Jun 15 2003
86 posts
Jul 3 2003
73 posts
Jul 12 2003
50 posts
Mar 31 2003
49 posts
Popular Posts
Yanagisawa
Did you say "get the ball rolling" or get the kaballa rolling...for it sounds like that's your current freak - some sort of hidden, mystical kaballa-esque gnostic esotericism. I'm fascinated with you
mj412
pressing on to finish this thread!!!!
lolololololol that was rich!
I thought it is pressing on to the call of the most HIGH GOD or something with a little bit of bible verse attached.
I have to press my pants.
I am not impressed with your sweeping o come to think of it I have to sweep my floor..
Mike what bad thing will happen to ya if you read a news paper hmm?
it is the year 2003 we live on a planet called earth and the news flash is all abuzz VPW is dead. AND the sun came out today and the moon may set tonite !
Any other inabilities you NEED to share with the group tonite MIKE?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I'm pressing on the upward way.
New heights I'm gaining every day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hey! In that song, do you think the word "heights" is referring to 5-senses altitude height, or spiritual height?
(...back on topic...)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm going to dodge and sweep away your inadequately researched antagonistic question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hoisted on my own petard!
Drats!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
so vpw is living inside you spiritualy , it could get darn ugly if it was in the flesh
Mike it was Christ in you the hope of glorify GOD not vpw in you the hope of glorifying your self.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
A few days ago, a few pages ago, there was a discussion I stayed out of here because it seemed to cover a lot of ground. I?m now responding to some that page?s posts.
*************************************************************
shazdancer,
You wrote (with my formatting):
?...either VPW sinned when he took the words of others to put into his books (without their consent and without acknowledgement), and we should overlook the sin because he was such a great MOG;
?or he refrained from footnoting on purpose, to spare us from looking up the references and getting off track in our thinking, and we should thank him for sparing us such pain.?
I reject your limited menu of choices.
I see many other ?or?s to add to your truncated offering.
I might add that ?without their consent and without acknowledgement? is an unknown quantity to you. You?re not including God?s ownership and His authority to give consent. As to acknowledgement, I?d estimate that 98% of us grads would never have known Bullinger, Kenyon, and the others even existed if it weren?t for Dr?s repeated verbal and written acknowledgement of them.
So you exaggerate when you say ?without acknowledgement? as if there was none whatsoever.
What you should really say, to be accurate, is that Dr didn?t print ENOUGH acknowledgement of Bullinger, Kenyon, and the others to satisfy your highly sciminating and fosisticated tastes.
*****
You wrote: ?OR he wanted to get those books into print, and didn't think a bunch of midwestern hayseeds and babyboomer kids would know that he plagiarized.?
Then why would he document the existence of Bullinger, Kenyon et all to his grads from way back in the early days?
*****
You wrote: ?Later on, when he was more concerned about being recognized in the academic community...?
I think he was more interested in injecting grads into the academic community who wouldn?t get talked out of the Word. I was one of these types of grads. I casually talked to Dr about it a little once, but the College Outreach programs said much more on this.
I don?t think Dr was trying to curry favor of any mainstream academics with his selection of the title ?Jesus Christ Is Not God.? That was an ?in your face? to the academic community.
*****
You wrote: ?(and after he already got into trouble with plagiarizing the lyrics in the song book)?
I?m 90% per cent sure the song book situation came up after his death.
I?m 99% sure it came up after he stepped down as president.
*****
You wrote: ?he footnoted extensively, and somehow we didn't all get "off the Word" by looking up any of the texts he cited (if we looked them up at all).?
By then we were more advanced grads. Plus, the footnotes don?t send people off in directions looking for other teachers. They are different types of books. It?s with these two books JCOP & JCPS that we grads had some interface with non-grad Bible students from the denominations. Traditional readers of the KJV spent much more time in the gospels than we OLGs did in the 70?s, and these two books gave us a rich & balanced view of the godpsel. These two books are not like the Blue Book in any way.
Additionally, ADAN was early in its printing, but it too has a few more footnotes. This book was unique in many ways, one of which was that it was originally published by a secular company, Devon Adair. I?m currently chasing down the references, but Dr used the term ?secular? to describe books that differ in some way from his others. I think ADAN is, or was, one such book.
*************************************************************
sirguessalot,
You wrote: ?I recall that I despised TVT, but dug the books.?
Thank you, sir.
******
You wrote: ?The rules and customs and bumper-sticker mantras of TWI never really jived with what I was getting out of it anyway. And it was like that for a lot of innies I knew.?
I agree. In the earlier days they were less offensive, even fun, but by the mid 80?s the fun was totally gone.
*****
You wrote: ?Why don't ya stop mastering the tools and actually start using them??
I do use them, and am getting good results. Plus, if I continue the mastering process, my use of them in the future can be even better.
Of course there?s a balance between reading and applying to life?s situations. I work that balance. Sometimes it tips away from reading and I have to bring it back. I don?t think it?s ever tipped towards too much reading.
Then there?s another set of balances I must watch, like reading/posting or living/posting ?
*****
You wrote: ?Seems to me that if PFAL is the most powerful and relevant God-breathed Bible-aid, then you should be able to USE it to understand any part of the bible. Those hard-to-understand parts.?
That ?seems? may be illusory. Even if you?re correct, and PFAL should be applicable to any part, that doesn?t say anything to the ORDER of what we are to apply PFAL to first, second, third...
I believe that in the mastering of PFAL, we will find our instructions for dealing with that part of the Bible. If we partially master PFAL, we can only partially apply it to this part.
******
You wrote: ?Show us how to use it to unlock the secrets of those most puzzling sections of scripture that VPW never refers to. Are they still valid for godly wisdom??
As this thread finishes, I next want to look at PFAL and the Return of Christ. There will be plenty of new data there for how John?s Revelation fits in.
*****
You wrote: ?And if not in the book of Revelation. How bout the book of Job? The flood? Daniel's visions? The wierd stuff in Isaiah and Jeremiah and Ezekial? All those poetic little books before the Gospels.?
There were years and years where we could look into those things. I did. We were often encouraged to read these things, and there were extra classes to feed our hungers in those directions. Those things all took place in their time. I just think there?s something much more important now, and that?s coming back to PFAL.
*****
You wrote: ?There are a lot of blanket accusations behind his sermons, and they're levelled at everyone here, more or less. For me, it's hard not to get grumpy.?
Please remember, you?re not an OLG, and I?m not aiming even my ?soft? blame at you. You?re not guilty of any of my ?charges.?
I see this ?blame? towards OLGs as greater for those who were in higher leadership categories back in 1985. BUT, I also keep the ?Saving Private Ryan? model of forgiveness close by to remind me of their great service in the previous years.
Plus, I temper my ?blame? by often reminding myself that if I had been in one of those higher leadership positions in 1985, then I would have probably earned much more of this soft blame than they did.
Plus, I temper this ?blame? with the notion that this whole thing is EASILY CORRECTABLE! All we OLGs need to do is come back to PFAL and master it like we were supposed to. Voila! No soft blame anymore.
Plus, I temper this ?blame? by remembering that it seems God let us all out on enough rope to hang ourselves. We OLGs back then all were like rebellious teenagers who thought they didn?t need any more teaching. God allowed us all to dig our cisterns and try filling them with water. We all dug different sizes and styles, but we all were like sheep who went astray. We lost The Way, because we went our OWN way. Dr writes this on page 98 of TNDC ?We lost THE way because we have turned to OUR own way.?
*************************************************************
def59,
You wrote: ?I think for the most part this thread gives men a place to rip into something without making it personal or physical.?
You may be right.
I?ve thought that sometimes here I am taking hits that people wanted to retro-hit Dr with, or can?t find Craig to hit with now. I can relate to this, since I sometimes went through a lot of the same feelings about Dr that are expressed her.
If it helps people get it out of their system, or helps them see if more clearly, I?ll take it. It does get personal at times, but since it?s not physical, I can?t complain. I?m valuing my religious freedom to speak.
************************************************************
dizzydog,
You wrote: ?I think we are all bozo's on this bus.?
I can relate.
[This message was edited by Mike on July 20, 2003 at 15:08.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Goey,
I?ve been working the title of Part II in PFAL that you brought up, and someone else did also weeks ago (shaz?).
***
Here is the literal:
The Bible is the revealed Word of God.
The Bible is a physical item and in the physical world.
God?s Word is spiritual, but is revealed to a man who puts it into physical form.
***
Here is a simile:
The Bible is like God?s Word.
The validity of this is questionable, but I?ve not spent much time with it.
***
Here is another figure of speech, stronger, called a metaphor:
The Bible is God?s Word.
There?s more punch here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
This post is intended as humor
:D--> and is a work of fiction; any resemblence to real Mikes, living or dead, or any MOGs, living, dead, or in-between is purely your own imagination
Poster: New evidense has come to light that VP Wierwille literally ate puppies during the last year of his life. He thought that ingesting puppy flesh would invigorate him and cause his eye to grow back.
Mike:Since I was not there to see these puppies eaten, it didn't happen
Poster:But one of the puppies that he ate was my little beagle named Bic. I was in the room when it happened and head the cries of puppy terror when he did it.
Mike:Oh, so you heard the cries did you? That implies that you didn't see it, making it a non-event.
Poster:Let me clarify Mike; I both saw and heard the puppicide.
Mike:Get over it, Doctor was such a great teacher of the Word that we should overlook something minor like torturing animals
Poster:I can't believe that you would support such cruelty
Mike:Read and master PFAL, you will find nothing in it to indicate that Doctor ate puppies
Poster:You are sick Mike, how can you deny that this happened.
Mike:Doctor was the man of God and was following God's Plan set forth in the 1942 promise and was always right, therfore if he ate puppies, it was godly.
Poster:I can't believe you. You said earlier that he didn't do it, now you're saying that he did. Which is it.
Mike:I have much more to say about puppy eating, but it's been a long day and I have to rest up for a long day of scientific window washing. More tomorrow
Poster:Dodging the issue, are you?
Mike:Crybaby!
Oakspear
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Oak
did ya have to use litle puppies?
a roach or something little less warm and fuzzy may be more appealing to the masses .
geez oak.
I see little pictures when I read stuff.
doesnt everyone?
well Im glad it isnt kittens.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm deleting this post in response to Ginger's deletions in her post.
I apologize for not answering anything you've ever written to me on the board, and ask that you point to any instance of anything you've said to me on any greasespot thread that I've ignored.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on July 20, 2003 at 22:20.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
don't take this personally, but the key here is that you are irrelevant.
Def
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Mike,
Have I told you how I admire your willingness and tenacity to defend your position?
Well?I do.
The uncommon nature of your declarations has stirred an equally uncommon tempest at the GSC, both of which have helped me to further understand my PFAL/TWI experience. I love this place, and I?m truly glad you came. I have healed greatly.
Thanks, GSC.
Of course, I can only speak for myself. (I know, it?s a nasty habit I picked up somewhere).
And I am not claiming that my PFAL experience was greater or lesser than anyone else?s. I honestly can?t do that. And I honestly wish you would apply the wisdom of this approach, Mike.
But I will compare my PFAL experience to yours, regardless of whether or not you will honor my contribution.
And I?ve told you this before: I would concede more points for some of your PFAL arguments, but I trust you less and less, the more you respond. Not that I think your heart is dark, but that your judgement is at least dark gray regarding things that I know that I know that I know, and things that I know that you do NOT know about me, but continue to dismiss as somehow inferior (and this bone-to-pick with you seems a common theme here).
But I am also a moody creature, and I am in a new mood today.
So I will begin to concede some points to your arguments, even at the risk of your manipulations, as well as a heap of tomatoes from friends.
Like you, I do believe VPW learned things from God and that PFAL is God-breathed.
But unlike you, I believe that God breathes more frequently than this, especially AFTER Pentecost.
And that VPW?s style of contribution is but a drop in the ocean.
And that his errors did affect his ability to give.
But God does make lemonade out of lemons.
Thus, we can learn from PFAL.
Why would God ?breathe? any less, when it is clear that MORE revelation than in the OT or Gospels is NOW available to ALL who come, and has been for 2k years?
If you mean that the TVT had lost most of its fun by then, I would agree.
But if you mean that no one could learn as much from PFAL after the 80?s (except what you have learned, of course), you contradict yourself greatly, and I think YOU actually cut yourself off from a heap of understanding that is available from PFAL.
How can corrupt traditions keep God from teaching genuinely meek people things from PFAL if God inspired it? Especially if the corrupt traditions are being ignored by the student, therefore allowing years of fruitful study and application in relative isolation from TVT.
sound familiar?
This was me just a few years ago.
I've come a long way since.
Difference is, YOU suffered from many more years of TVT than I did, and have had a lot more to get over. When TVT really hit me in the corps training and chased me off, it was AFTER those years I was allowed to consistently receive, retain and release, according to what I was learning. And ?always find the application? was my self-set guideline for ALL of my reading and writing.
Just because you haven't found an application for a section of scripture using the "PFAL method," does not mean no one else has. That seems an arrogant and/or naive assumption.
Besides, if corrupt TVT can really stop God from teaching the meek, what does that say about God?s ability and willingness? Not much, I?d say, which is again, one of my major beefs with you.
It bothers me how you presume to know what everyone experienced in TWI better than they themselves.
And I?m sure this cuts many to the bone.
And there is no fellowship in it.
Remember why the dead sea is dead, Mike?
I've asked you this before.
Well, I gotta go for now, but I?ll be back tonight to pick up where I left off. Maybe I'll tell ya about all the OLGs I knew, who came back to TWI after leaving for over a decade. They become my dearest friends while in TWI. I was their teacher, and they were mine, in all those manifold expressions of grace and believing and love.
Todd
[This message was edited by sirguessalot on July 20, 2003 at 22:46.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
i believe that vpw learned something from a god. I am not sure it was the true God.
Yes, he taught Bible, but heck, even Satan knows the Bible. He claims to have been the leader only in the Holy Spirit and dead alive now fields.
But he ALLOWED others to fawn over him like he was the Prophet or something more.
But his claims that he would teach the world like it had not been taught since the first century is a claim made by many others (JW's, Mormon's, Worldwide Church of God -before they repented, and other pentecostal groups)
He overstated claims of academic credentials is a minor point to some, a major ones to others.
His plagiarizing is a fact. What everyone wants to do with it is their business.
I no longer follow the PFAL method for interpreting scriptures and have thrown away all my way stuff: Pfal, holy spirit, collaterals, JCING, adan, seed, and aramaic bible.
To me, it is all the work of Satan, because it denies Christ as He is, God the Father who he is and the Holy Spirit as he is and makes him out to be something lest than what God says he is.
We can all banter about the minutiae of vpw's words and what he meant or didn't mean.
Mike is pretty well convinced as I am of the opposite view.
But vpw is dead, lcm is defrocked and the rest are running an incredibly shrinking empire.
Could that say something to the fruit of vpw's ministry?
To Mike, probably not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
I hear ya, def59.
I would venture to say that good seed was sown, but it fell on stony ground.
It took root, but got baked by the sun in the same generation it came.
Sad, but I bet it happens all the time.
[This message was edited by sirguessalot on July 20, 2003 at 22:48.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
But this seems a tad harsh, def:
Maybe its just the way you put it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Everyone has a problem with Mike , Raf seems to be the teaching of vpw that had errors.
mine happen to be the errors Mike puts in vpw teaching. haha hhee oo this is just rich.
Oak doesnt like the manner in which he tries to bring us back to master something Raf thinks is wrong from the get go the same thing I think Mike has changed to suit his own agenda.
Ginger tea is the mother of the earth and word wolf is working hard to share the stuff with the posters not reading this.
def is sounding fed up , and ex is watching and reading along.
such is this thread as we each yell about other priorities in life beyond this thread yet here we are. oo lol this is a stitch in time isnt it?
who are we? oo haha this is so funny! o man I seriously lol .
mike has alot more problems with us tho .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
oh, oh...
what am I?
what am I?
Yes, tiz nuthin but a stitch in time.
And the world keepsa turnin on its own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
what the h@ll is a petard ? a cross between a pee and a terd? i cant do that it is absolutly one or the other for me!!
did you try to call me a retard and get it wrong agin MIke??/ huh did ya did ya?
ya never know I have wondered myself while posting in this thread.
I know I know your doing what gramma asked and learning one new word a day for the rest of your life aint ya???
then you have to use it in a sentence right? to make it your own .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
MJ, it's a firecracker or small bomb...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Well thank you thank you very much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
MJ:
It was going to be "babies" instead of puppies.
Wasn't the Captain of the Enterprise Jean-Luc Petard?
Oakspear
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Your definition was pretty close, mj.
Petard
1) A small bell-shaped bomb used to breach a gate or wall.
2) A loud firecracker.
[French pétard, from Old French, from peter, to break wind, from pet, a breaking of wind, from Latin p?ditum, from neuter past participle of p?dere, to break wind.]
WORD HISTORY The French used pétard, ?a loud discharge of intestinal gas,? for a kind of infernal engine for blasting through the gates of a city. ?To be hoist by one's own petard,? a now proverbial phrase apparently originating with Shakespeare's Hamlet (around 1604) not long after the word entered English (around 1598), means ?to blow oneself up with one's own bomb, be undone by one's own devices.? The French noun pet, ?fart,? developed regularly from the Latin noun p?ditum, from the Indo-European root *pezd?, ?fart.?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
mj, i come to this thread, close my eyes, and point to a sentence in a post, and THAT is my inspiration for the day
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.