Yes. I do have a single "convert" as you put it. Actually, there's more.
I'm really surprised that this would be such an important question to you to have repeated it so often. Suppose I said there were zero? What would that tell you? What should it tell me? Truth is truth, even if NOBODY believes it.
It makes me wonder at what number of "converts" would you say "Hmmm. Maybe I should listen to Mike a little closer and with a little meekness." But why you would think this number is important in the first place baffles me.
I completely disagree with this statement of yours: "In pfal, the phrases "The Word of God" and "the Bible" were used interchangeably by its teacher."
Many times I've posted this, and just recently too, in a long post to Linda Z if you care to find it. Because you chose to go down the path you do, I don't bother much to try and respond to what you find there.
The simple yes/no answer you refused to answer is: No, Dr never said "It's the Bible, it's the Bible...and nothing BUT the Bible!"
There are many man-made "bibles" and they say different things, so there's nothing definitive in saying "It's the Bible, it's the Bible...and nothing BUT the Bible!"
There's only one Word of God, though.
Dr was very explicit in stating that the Bile was in the flesh realm. He says so TWICE on page 27 of RHST, 7th edition. On pages 23,24 of BTMS he notes the Word of God is in the spiritual realm.
The Word of God is eternal and existed "in the beginnig" with God. It IS Him. The Bible, the original scriptures, had a beginning just like Jesus Christ had a beginning. Both were "i the begining" with God in His foreknowledge.
All this Dr taught. He did NOT use those two terms interchangeably. They are sometimes very close and similar, but not identical.
***
The other question you refused to answer is easy for me to post. In his final instructions Dr told us to master the "collateral readings." In that very last teaching he did NOT tell us to master the Bible. I am unaware of ANY time he told us to master the Bible. Master "the Word," yes, he did talk about that, but never master the "Bible" using these exact words.
I almost always read your posts, but I refuse to allow you to filibuster me from my message with your focus on details I am uninterested in or have not the time for.
You never did answer my challenge last year to put your only rule for faith and practice, your unalterable standard, on my Table of Challenge. It was for you I built that table in the first place, but you cut and ran from the challenge.
What book do you use that's bigger than you?
You wrote: "Mike can not, will not, and does not, want to see the light of the glorious gospel of Christ. He's more interested in the enslaving gospel of pfal."
Could you please tell me one item in your theology concerning "the glorious gospel of Christ" that cannot be seen by someone spending a lot of time reading PFAL. Please document JUST ONE item of doctrine of that gospel which is omitted from PFAL. I'd also be interested in one item that's occluded or confused by PFAL. I think this would be a good exercise for all of us.
If PFAL enslaves as you assert, and you are not just blowing off steam, then surely you already have performed this exercise. You don't need to fully document it, just name it. What am I missing out on that you are so sure PFAL prevents me (and others) from seeing.
If not to answer me, what about all those potential "converts" out there I might sway into this PFAL prison you are so sure of? Please answer my question FOR THEM!
You wrote: "VPW went out of his way to enforce the idea that "The Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God" all over that session."
YES!
I agree with this statement of yours, as long as that word "revealed' is in place. The Bible, as it was originally given, is the REVEALED Word of God. It is the Word of God in written form. It imparts a flesh understanding, a 5-senses understanding, of God's will for those people and in those places where it's accurately known and rightly divided.
To get a spiritual understanding of God's Word and will, it must be revealed directly to a person. We were taught in the Advanced Class' "16 Keys to Walking in the Spirit" in key # 4: "Study the Word much. What you can know by the five senses God expects you to know."
Here "the Word" refers to the flesh realm Bible versions, with their PFAL corrections. As I discussed with Linda Z last week, there were SOME times when Dr co-mingled the terms "Word of God" with the flesh realm "Bible" and dropped the Word "reavealed" or "in written form" if the context allowed it. Here in Key #4 "the Word" obviously is used in conjunction with the phrase "five senses" so it's unnecessary to spell it all out in long form using the words "revealed" or "in written form."
I completely disagree with this statement of yours: "In pfal, the phrases "The Word of God" and "the Bible" were used interchangeably by its teacher."
(snip)
All this Dr taught. He did NOT use those two terms interchangeably. They are sometimes very close and similar, but not identical.
***
The other question you refused to answer is easy for me to post. In his final instructions Dr told us to master the "collateral readings." In that very last teaching he did NOT tell us to master the Bible. I am unaware of ANY time he told us to master the Bible. Master "the Word," yes, he did talk about that, but never master the "Bible" using these exact words.
I almost always read your posts, but I refuse to allow you to filibuster me from my message with your focus on details I am uninterested in or have not the time for.
A) Fine.
As soon as opportunity permits,
I shall be posting quotes from books "written by vpw" where he uses the two terms
interchangeably. With your supposed years "mastering" them, one would think these would
be familiar to you. Well, apparently not.
I also expect you will go out of your way to pretend the direct quotes from them do not
run contrary to your special Mikean doctrine.
(My favourite dodge was "wasn't that list of quotes great?" when I posted over a page
contradicting you.)
Everyone ELSE will be able to see how transparent the dodge will be, however.
B) I was in a hurry when I answered your other question.
So, I forgot there was another question you lobbed.
Re: vpw's "final instructions to us".....
neither you nor I spent time with vpw in the final few weeks of his life.
You're making the following assumptions:
1) the instructions you have are the very last instructions
2) "mastering" a book that claims to be a book of KEYS means treating it not as the
KEYS to UNDERSTANDING the Bible, but as a REPLACEMENT for the Bible
3) vpw's "final instruction" to "master" was directly from God
I understand you are unwilling, at this time, to see that you've piled assumption on
top of assumption, and ANY of them being proven wrong (which has been done here
before) means the whole contents are error. Everyone else, however, IS able to see
the contrast when our posts can be seen side-by-side.
'When he told us to master The Word, he didn't mean to master the Bible.'
Oh, that's rich. That's as good as something I heard someone say about
the day of Pentecost,
'They weren't speaking in tongues-they were speaking in LANGUAGES.'
===
C) "Filibuster".
Seems you lack an understanding of what a 'filibuster' is as well.
Per Dictionary.com,
"the use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking, for the
purpose of delaying legislative action".
Per C-Span Congressional glossary,
"the term used for an extended debate in the Senate which has the effect of preventing
a vote."
I suppose that you're misusing the term "filibuster" to refer to my extensive comments.
Since you're known for lengthier posts than me (not counting the part of my posts
that quote yours to provide the context more easily), that would be "the pot calling
the kettle black." However, everyone ELSE notices that my posts remain mostly devoid
of jargon and fast-talk, clear to the reader and easy to understand. Yours have been
noted to contain more words, and often they contain obfuscations that inspire replies
that ask you for a plainer version, or a direct refutation.
So, I post shorter than you, with more content and in clearer English.
If one of us "filibusters", it's not me.
For someone who supposedly believes precise use of language is important,
you demonstrate a distinct lack of concern for being precise yourself.
Are you willing to entertain, even just temporarily, that your (plural) perspective is wrong? Haven't you seen from history and from the Word that it is OFTEN the case that whole populations drift unawares from the perspective God would have them embrace to a wrong one? Do you ever consider the possibility that you all are wrong? Thinking that there is strength and surety in numbers is also a logical fallacy.
[it's also a fallacy that just BECAUSE the majority thinks a certain way, that it is WRONG. Most people believe in GRAVITY-that does not make gravity an error. That's why all positions must be examined logically, not by name-calling. I gave you a good-faith effort several times, once going out of my way to try to log your positions without judging them. Your response then was to refuse to answer questions directly. ]
It's a very strong illusion to think that because everyone else thinks a certain way, then it's got to be true.
[it';s also a "very strong illusion" that because everyone thinks a certain way, then it's got to be false. That's why all positions must be examined logically.]
If going alone against the mainstream would mean castigation (like I get) then that's all the more reason to never consider leaving the herd. But if the whole herd is wrong, as often DOES happen in life, then that safety in numbers is a total illusion.
It is a fact that I most certainly DID embraced for 27 years your (plural) total view of things and over-all perspective.
[No, we were far more "centrist" than you. We don't entertain the comparison of transcribing vpw tapes with the work of transcribing Paul's epistles while he was in jail. You did, when you were supposedly thinking the same as we do. We also have seen standard Christians who are not idiots. You claim to have been unable to find them, and said they don't exist. Your "experience" and "perspective" have always been miles from where we are now. Pretending otherwise does not change that.]
When I finally decided to obey Dr's final instructions I found that my perspective was lacking. It was an abbreviation of Dr's teachings I had held in my mind for many years, and I saw that I had drifted away from Dr's teachings. I had forgotten many things and many things had slipped by me unnoticed. I noticed the same in every other grad I talked to.
[The quick summary of that "last message" is as follows: (WordWolf's summary): We're better than other Christians-we have the truth, they don't. My classes are the greatest thing since sliced bread. Try to memorize the contents inside and out." That's a commercial, and a group accusation at all other Christians. That's hardly a "special message" that needs treatment as an esoteric "secret".]
I understand that you (plural) here are in great disagreement with me on the overall perspective of the PFAL writings. I know the feeling well of trusting my memory and trusting my ability to have gotten the message right way back when.
[ You seem to lack understanding of the 'I reread it, and the contents conflict with Mike's account of same' events, despite how often they occur.]
I understand this disagreement.
[No you don't.]
I am saddened to see that some loathe me for it, and even more saddened that almost no one here, even the calmer ones, wants to take me up on my challenge and come back to PFAL to see what got forgotten and what slipped by us.
[We have copies. We've looked inside them. Your doctrine does not match the contents of the books, therefore your doctrine CAN'T be embraced by the logical among us.]
But I think this rejection is temporary. All it will take is a few who dare to think that maybe we didn't get EXACTLY what Dr was talking about. Maybe we did forget some. Maybe we could use some experimentation with our grand perspective of things.
[We looked. We discovered, on reexamination, that the books were a LOT less impressive than we were indoctrinated to believe, and contain significant errors. This is not a crippling loss for the work of men. For a supposed Holy Text, it means the thing is weighed in the balances, and found wanting.]
Maybe God did actually do a drastically good change in the format of His Word, switching from working with people repairing the problems that crept into the traditional canon and it's reconstructions and translations to the simple modern English of PFAL. He did it before, switching from supporting His Word written in the stars to stone and parchment. Maybe we ought to allow God to reissue his Word like He did in Jeremiah 36, and with many words added to the scroll.
[Thus said Mohammed, thus said Joseph Smith, thus said Herbert Armstrong, thus said David Koresh, thus said Mary Baker Eddy..... Maybe they're all wrong. ]
Once a few grads start to consider this GREAT blessing of God in giving us His pure simple Word in PFAL, and they act on it by coming back to master the collaterals like Dr urged us all to do in his final instructions, and they start seeing great things they never saw before, and start getting blessed like never before.... THEN it will be easier for others to come back to PFAL and get blessed again.
[Or, they will keep spotting the errors all over your doctrine, and the non-divine nature of the books, and go back to what they were doing.]
***
You wrote: "In all honesty -- talking to you about pfal is pretty much the same as talking to an LDS person about the book of Mormon. They hold their book in very high regard too, and when stacked up against the bible -- guess which one is on top?"
Yes, I can totally appreciate that. But this is yet another logical fallacy. Just because it LOOKS like I'm committing the same error they commit because I have some things in common with them, that doesn't mean I have ALL things in common with them.
[Doesn't mean you DON'T, either. That's why doctrine must be examined rather than just blindly embraced...]
I often witness to customers of mine who are Mormons. Although they give lip service to the Bible, they contradict it all the time, and are woefully ignorant of it, compared to PFAL grads, especially regarding the epistles of Paul. A huge difference between me and Mormons is that I do know the KJV pretty well, spent 27 years attempting to master it, and nothing in PFAL contradicts it. That's a HUGE difference between me and them.
I understand your impressions of some similarity between me and LDS. Can you see that many first century Christians must have had very similar impressions when hearing of a maverick like Paul writing letters, and some (I Thess 2:13) possibly regarding his words as not the word of a man but as the Word of God? They must have though that those Paul idolators were horribly violating the well established canon of the Old Testament and disappointingly departing from the majority's prevailing overall perspective.
Have you ever carefully thought through how God's Word was received in the adversary's kingdom whenever portions of it were freshly written? I have. I spent 11 years (during that 27 year period when I thought more like you) thinking through and researching how the New Testament Canon was developed. It's worth spending some time on.
[Doesn't mean that YOU hold the Holy Canon just because you're not Queen of the Winter Carnival, either. Therefore, your doctrine must be examined, which we have, and it's been found wanting....]
On a similar note: I've noticed that many people are well aware of the prevailing majority perspective 2000 years ago and their expectations of Christ's first coming. Most people nowadays know very well that back then the popular theological expectations of what it would be like when Christ would come were very far off what God had in mind. Did the most learned religious leaders of that time ask themselves questions and challenge themselves to see if maybe they were off? Did they notice when Christ came? Did they recognize him as he was fulfilling prophecy after prophecy?
[Nice try to make us equivalent to the Pharisees, and you as Christ. ]
In recent years I've asked many people if they ever considered that for the SECOND coming THEY TOO may be off the mark in their expectations and mental images of those events. So far no one has answered in the affirmative. Everyone likes their established mind picture, and won't consider the possibility that THEY TOO are far off the mark.
[You should get around more. You never asked ME that question-and there are posters here well aware I've put more work into the subject than most GSC'ers, including you. Further, I've encountered plenty of Christians who were interested in learning what I had to say on the subject, then searching the Scriptures to see whether those things were so. But, YOU haven't seen Christians with skills, so they must not exist. Same message you always carry.]
I think it's good to be challenged in fundamental expectations and perspectives. I think you should be thankful that I have come here with a vastly differing point of view. If I'm wrong, then people have strengthened their belief system in resisting me.
[up to a point, that's true. Once the diminishing returns have set in, however, everything after that is WASTED TIME. ]
If I'm right then we have been blessed abundantly with a vastly more simple Word to master. Of course, the theologians will suffer vast shame first, but they'll get over it.
[if you were right it would have been evident a few years ago. Some of us are more interested in TRUTH than with a perfect score. Instead of seriously looking at the world after Mike has gone to the grave, life without Mikean pfal, you're busy perfecting your touchdown dance. "The theologians will suffer vast shame." *rolls eyes* ]
***
I think ex10 has a much healthier point of view than my strident attackers. She thinks I'm crazy so she stays away from me. Those theologians who strongly attack, ad hominem or not, are not so well off. If they really thought I was as crazy as they say, they'd ignore me. Like I said the other day, they'd wait for me to run out of gas, paint myself into a corner, or die from defying God. Why do they instead attack me with so much energy, and put so much time into it?
[i've stated my reasons in plain English, many times. Doctrinal error must be confronted and exposed so that vulnerable, injured Christians do not suffer further, avoidable injuries. HCW posted something similar in the past day or so. Might it be possible we know why we post? ]
I think it's a little like the situation with the Pharisees and Jesus. If he was communicating to them that he was God, they'd have recognized that his message was hopelessly impossible according to the scriptures, and that he had to be either crazy or trying to pick a fight with God or both. They would not have felt threatened by him, felt that the miracles were mere mass hysteria, and that he and his following would soon die off all by themselves.
{Mike and the GSC'ers equal Jesus and the Pharisees again.]
But Jesus was NOT saying that he was God, only the SON of God, and that scared the leaders deep down inside, because that WAS possible. He threatened their entire world, so he HAD to be lying.
[Mike and the GSC'ers are still Jesus and the Pharisees....]
The possibility that Jesus was telling the truth was so scary they couldn't even consider it one iota's worth. What he was saying made just enough sense to threaten them, and not just mildly. Without putting any energy into considering the possibility that he was right they put all their energy into attacking him.
[Mike and the GSC'ers STILL equal Jesus and the Pharisees.]
I see my attackers as falling into a similar fear trap. I see ex10 as not having this fear, so she leaves me alone.
[Apparently, all the GSC'ers are afraid of Mike. Ooooooo. I can feel the tension in the air......]
The possibility that I could be reporting accurately of God blessing us grads with His pure Words is so scary they can't even consider it one iota's worth. What I am saying makes just enough sense to threaten them, and not just mildly. Without putting any energy into considering the possibility that I am right they put all their energy into attacking me.
[Of course, Mike has always remained deliberately BLIND to all the attempts of various posters to examine and consider his position fairly. Old news by now. Mike rewrites history of every kind to his satisfaction. ]
I see you, dmiller, as having far less fear of me, so you are able to politely discuss these things. I'm grateful for that.
[Dmiller STILL has fear of Mike, but it's LESS fear. Dmiller quakes in terror less than the usual GSCer. Way to go, oh less-fearful one!]
[ I ride the subway thru the South Bronx at night. I've hung out in the meatpacking district of Manhattan...all night. I've gone solo into places where demons had free rein. I've been told by loved ones that I'm possessed and going to hell. I've seen Bea Arthur sing. Nothing Mike can offer even makes my list of top stresses. That's one reason I never give him my "best effort", as I've said before. Of course, Mike will still reinterpret my reply, ignoring it, then weeks later deciding I'm "fearful" of him. Old news. ]
If I said anywhere I thought you were fearful OF ME, then I mis-spoke, and should correct it.
The fear I think is most likely here is not a fear of me, but a fear of my message, a fear others will believe it, and most of all a deep fear that it might be true.
Otherwise, why do yo put so much time into refuting me, and poorly I might add.
What drives you to put so much time into this? What are you getting out of it?
My use of the word "filibuster" is figurative, and most closely tied in with, as you put it: "the use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking for the purpose of delaying legislative action."
Obviously you are not engaged in legislative action, but otherwise my figurative use of the word is to protest your purpose delaying my message posting action, fits pretty well.
I've often heard that literal filibustering is sometimes filled with useless details just to fill up the time and bore people. This is all the more reason I used that term figuratively.
Would it be ad hominem for me to call your focus and style on useless details like this "anal retentive"? If it's not filibustering me that you are doing, then the common usage of being "anal retentive" seems to fit you. I don't know how that term was derived, but the way it's used in our culture nowadays fits you well.
The reason I brought up filibustering is to explain why I periodically feel a need to ignore your "prolonged speechmaking" on endless unimportant details... like this one.
If I had the time I'd deal with all your points to help others who might be more sincerely bogged down with them.
I don't have that kind of time or energy, so I choose to ignore you when you get into hounding me with endless loops of "speechmaking," whether it's out of fear of my message, or just plain misplaced attention on useless details and missing the big heart issues.
The fear I think is most likely here is not a fear of me, but a fear of my message, a fear others will believe it, and most of all a deep fear that it might be true.
Otherwise, why do yo put so much time into refuting me, and poorly I might add.
What drives you to put so much time into this? What are you getting out of it?
I don't frequent these threads, because, well frankly I think your insane. I've only read the two posts on this thread, the first and last (before yours, OK Three posts), like I would a bad book. Still even I know the answer to that last question, Mike. Aaaaaaand here it is to read again. "have you not read..."
quote:
I've stated my reasons in plain English, many times. Doctrinal error must be confronted and exposed so that vulnerable, injured Christians do not suffer further, avoidable injuries. HCW posted something similar in the past day or so. Might it be possible we know why we post?
Lindyhopper, I'm quite certain that smikeol will feel the breeze as that goes over his head. Or maybe it will be so far over his head that the breeze will be unnoticeable . . .
I've noted before too, that it's highly unlikely that any injured or immature people are going to pay any attention to my posts.
I am only addressing OLGs, Older Leader Grads, and it's usually only that category of people that respond to me heavily, and thus read, my posts.
What I write is so anti-traditional, very few people give it a second glance.
I have seen that reason for refuting me posted long ago, but not recently. I do not buy it. I think my refuters know that hardly anyone but PFAL grads even come here to GSC in general. Of that tiny few of non grads that do, even fewer would read me, and even still fewer would believe me.
Speaking from within their mindset: With such a tiny, tiny, tiny number of people WW and other major refuters of me are protecting, aren't they missing the opportunity to protect likely much larger populations of injured and immature people out there being hurt by much more successful propounders of error than me?
If I can only "hurt" one or two people, and other errors our there are currently hurting hundreds and thousands, I would expect a much more wise use of WW' time and others' would be to refute the more successful heretics.
They are smart enough to see this and make better use of their time shooting at much higher priorities, but they don't. This is why I don't buy it, the force that drives which you quoted.
I've noted that ex10 sees it. She posted yesterday: "If I may interject.... __ Why give any time or credance to the insane? __ We could better spend our time, no? on stuff that really matters?"
If I am insane like my major refuters also claim, why do they bother wasting their time on me?
I do not try to spread my message to anyone but OLGs. If a non-grad were to believe me I'd have a HUGE responsibility on my hands in under shepherding them that I don't yet feel qualified for. I'd first have to see them get a very healthy exposure to the KJV, like all us OLGs got, and that would take years.
I've noted before too, that it's highly unlikely that any injured or immature people are going to pay any attention to my posts.
I am only addressing OLGs, Older Leader Grads, and it's usually only that category of people that respond to me heavily, and thus read, my posts.
What I write is so anti-traditional, very few people give it a second glance.
You wrote: "I seem to remember a poster using his first post to list two hundred different words and phrases for "fear". Now that is just plain crazy."
It was lying, not fear.
I compiled and reported those many words for "lying" or confabulating first for a group of brain scientists. I explained this, but you may have forgotten. They thought the list was very interesting. They study confabulation in brain damage victims, and often wondered about confabulation in normal people. I accommodated them first, and duplicated the list here secondly.
I'd give the link, but it's been pruned, I think.
I used to be involved in making lie detectors back in the 60's, then also had that involvement with the brain scientists in the 90's, PLUS I noticed a lot different types of lying done by leadership in the ministry meltdown period.
Some of this coincided with Bill Clinton's well publicized lying and before that a man named Larry Lawrence was on the national front pages for a well told lie.
It was pretty easy for me to draw on all these sources to collect my list. I don't think it was crazy at all.
I now use that list often at poetry readings and it is found to be highly entertaining and informative to people who spend a lot of time with words.
Please answer these two questions with a simple "yes" or "no."
Did he ever say the following EXACT WORDS?
"It's the Bible, it's the Bible.... and nothing BUT the Bible!"
Were the EXACT words in his final instructions to us to master the "Bible" or the "collateral readings?"
"Exact words"? ... We can all play that game you know....
Mike, where in any tape, teaching transcript, or book, did Wierwille ever say or write the exact words that, "PFAL is God breathed" or "PFAL is the Word Of God" ??. -- Where?
Your request for "exact words" to refute WW's good inductive logic is a very feeble ploy.
For what it's worth to you, it was NOT a great fear of me that I was suspecting in others, and then a smaller fear of me in you. A fear of ME was WW's idea in misreading my posts, not mine.
It's a great fear of losing their status as ones who "in the know" that I suspect in them, and less in you, maybe even none in you. It's possible I wrote this poorly somewhere, but I think not, so far.
There's a similar situation with two others here. I've often marveled here at how much better Oakspear and Abigail have been able to understand some of the more subtle concepts I bring up. Both of them have backed off from traditional Christianity and the Bible, and with that move they have less (or no) fear that God will strike them dead if they actually listen and contemplate my posts.
I accept your criticism that the usage of exact words versus non-usage of exact words doesn't prove much. The reason I went down that path is because WW was dodging the issue. I wanted to make it harder for him to do that. I don't usually talk that way at all.
I find it interesting that Dr avoided specifying "Bible" in certain situations. It shows me that the interchangeability of the two phrases "Bible" and "Word of God" should be suspect.
I find it VERY interesting that I can't find a single place where Dr says things LIKE "It's the Bible, and nothing but the Bible" but there were LOTS of places where he said things LIKE "It's the Word, and nothing but the Word." There, now we're off the exact wording kick.
I find it interesting that in Dr's last months he often told us master, NOT the Bible, but the collaterals. This becomes especially interesting with his LAST KNOWN public teaching, his last teaching for which a tape has surfaced in 20 years, he repeatedly urges us to master not the Bible but the collaterals.
In the 1979 Way Magazine article "Masters of the Word" he never says we should master the Bible, the KJV, wide margin corrected Bibles, Greek texts, or anything like that. The only "how" that's offered in that issue is in the Our Times Editorial titled "How the Word Works" in which he brings up the importance of how the Word is presented in "book and magazine form" by his ministry,and in which the word "master' occurs twice.
If he had said "master the Bible" anywhere it would have been an impossible task, let alone ambiguous. Even if our culture only had the KJV to offer us, no one can master that one man-produced document. The fact that there's a multiplicity of Bibles out there makes it even more impossible to master "the Bible." God made it much easier and actually possible for us to master His Word when he made His move in 1942 and the PFAL writings were eventually produced.
Mike... what about HCW's post telling you that the books came from the tapes, didn't you hear?
...what about HCW's post telling you that the books were 'written' by folks at TWI working from the tapes and that vpw had little to do with the process, didn't you hear?
...here's someone who was there telling you that your entire thesis is built on an incorrect assumption... so... you ignore it.
Could this possibly be the reason that you are the only one on God's green earth who believes your theory?
...but then how would you explain that you've actually seen Jesus teaching from a PFAL book?
I've not only known about the tape-to-print processes you just mentioned, but I've posted on them too.
I posted last month here how I lived with one of Dr's editors for two years, and how I discussed these processes many times with him over a span of almost 30 years. AND I've discussed similar things (in less volume) with several other editors who worked with Dr's writings.
I've included all of that in my messsage from the start. Getting back to that is in my backlog of items, and I will get to that in detail someday soon.
The same holds with private conversations with Dr and my posting on that in past. All of that is in my backlog of things I truly WANT to post on. Just be patient.
All these things were in my mind both before and after I came back to PFAL in 1998.
I thought them through in great detail long before I started posting here.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
42
42
104
94
Popular Days
Feb 22
44
Feb 28
40
Mar 11
40
Mar 1
34
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 42 posts
HCW 42 posts
Mike 104 posts
Ham 94 posts
Popular Days
Feb 22 2005
44 posts
Feb 28 2005
40 posts
Mar 11 2005
40 posts
Mar 1 2005
34 posts
Popular Posts
Bolshevik
Remember the ROA everyone smiling stupid all day? Zombies. Just zombies. With snack tents.
Rocky
Not that I necessarily disagree with you two, but returning to the topic of the PFLAP class... it's all about removing uncertainty from us and replacing it with Victor Wierwille. He had ONE freak
Bolshevik
I can't say what Christian practices are. Any quote by LCM should be read as if he is yelling or at a low rumble leading up to the yelling . . . Certainly sounds like an inner conflict
Mike
HCW,
Yes. I do have a single "convert" as you put it. Actually, there's more.
I'm really surprised that this would be such an important question to you to have repeated it so often. Suppose I said there were zero? What would that tell you? What should it tell me? Truth is truth, even if NOBODY believes it.
It makes me wonder at what number of "converts" would you say "Hmmm. Maybe I should listen to Mike a little closer and with a little meekness." But why you would think this number is important in the first place baffles me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
I completely disagree with this statement of yours: "In pfal, the phrases "The Word of God" and "the Bible" were used interchangeably by its teacher."
Many times I've posted this, and just recently too, in a long post to Linda Z if you care to find it. Because you chose to go down the path you do, I don't bother much to try and respond to what you find there.
The simple yes/no answer you refused to answer is: No, Dr never said "It's the Bible, it's the Bible...and nothing BUT the Bible!"
There are many man-made "bibles" and they say different things, so there's nothing definitive in saying "It's the Bible, it's the Bible...and nothing BUT the Bible!"
There's only one Word of God, though.
Dr was very explicit in stating that the Bile was in the flesh realm. He says so TWICE on page 27 of RHST, 7th edition. On pages 23,24 of BTMS he notes the Word of God is in the spiritual realm.
The Word of God is eternal and existed "in the beginnig" with God. It IS Him. The Bible, the original scriptures, had a beginning just like Jesus Christ had a beginning. Both were "i the begining" with God in His foreknowledge.
All this Dr taught. He did NOT use those two terms interchangeably. They are sometimes very close and similar, but not identical.
***
The other question you refused to answer is easy for me to post. In his final instructions Dr told us to master the "collateral readings." In that very last teaching he did NOT tell us to master the Bible. I am unaware of ANY time he told us to master the Bible. Master "the Word," yes, he did talk about that, but never master the "Bible" using these exact words.
I almost always read your posts, but I refuse to allow you to filibuster me from my message with your focus on details I am uninterested in or have not the time for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Greek2me,
You never did answer my challenge last year to put your only rule for faith and practice, your unalterable standard, on my Table of Challenge. It was for you I built that table in the first place, but you cut and ran from the challenge.
What book do you use that's bigger than you?
You wrote: "Mike can not, will not, and does not, want to see the light of the glorious gospel of Christ. He's more interested in the enslaving gospel of pfal."
Could you please tell me one item in your theology concerning "the glorious gospel of Christ" that cannot be seen by someone spending a lot of time reading PFAL. Please document JUST ONE item of doctrine of that gospel which is omitted from PFAL. I'd also be interested in one item that's occluded or confused by PFAL. I think this would be a good exercise for all of us.
If PFAL enslaves as you assert, and you are not just blowing off steam, then surely you already have performed this exercise. You don't need to fully document it, just name it. What am I missing out on that you are so sure PFAL prevents me (and others) from seeing.
If not to answer me, what about all those potential "converts" out there I might sway into this PFAL prison you are so sure of? Please answer my question FOR THEM!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
You wrote: "VPW went out of his way to enforce the idea that "The Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God" all over that session."
YES!
I agree with this statement of yours, as long as that word "revealed' is in place. The Bible, as it was originally given, is the REVEALED Word of God. It is the Word of God in written form. It imparts a flesh understanding, a 5-senses understanding, of God's will for those people and in those places where it's accurately known and rightly divided.
To get a spiritual understanding of God's Word and will, it must be revealed directly to a person. We were taught in the Advanced Class' "16 Keys to Walking in the Spirit" in key # 4: "Study the Word much. What you can know by the five senses God expects you to know."
Here "the Word" refers to the flesh realm Bible versions, with their PFAL corrections. As I discussed with Linda Z last week, there were SOME times when Dr co-mingled the terms "Word of God" with the flesh realm "Bible" and dropped the Word "reavealed" or "in written form" if the context allowed it. Here in Key #4 "the Word" obviously is used in conjunction with the phrase "five senses" so it's unnecessary to spell it all out in long form using the words "revealed" or "in written form."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
A) Fine.
As soon as opportunity permits,
I shall be posting quotes from books "written by vpw" where he uses the two terms
interchangeably. With your supposed years "mastering" them, one would think these would
be familiar to you. Well, apparently not.
I also expect you will go out of your way to pretend the direct quotes from them do not
run contrary to your special Mikean doctrine.
(My favourite dodge was "wasn't that list of quotes great?" when I posted over a page
contradicting you.)
Everyone ELSE will be able to see how transparent the dodge will be, however.
B) I was in a hurry when I answered your other question.
So, I forgot there was another question you lobbed.
Re: vpw's "final instructions to us".....
neither you nor I spent time with vpw in the final few weeks of his life.
You're making the following assumptions:
1) the instructions you have are the very last instructions
2) "mastering" a book that claims to be a book of KEYS means treating it not as the
KEYS to UNDERSTANDING the Bible, but as a REPLACEMENT for the Bible
3) vpw's "final instruction" to "master" was directly from God
I understand you are unwilling, at this time, to see that you've piled assumption on
top of assumption, and ANY of them being proven wrong (which has been done here
before) means the whole contents are error. Everyone else, however, IS able to see
the contrast when our posts can be seen side-by-side.
'When he told us to master The Word, he didn't mean to master the Bible.'
Oh, that's rich. That's as good as something I heard someone say about
the day of Pentecost,
'They weren't speaking in tongues-they were speaking in LANGUAGES.'
===
C) "Filibuster".
Seems you lack an understanding of what a 'filibuster' is as well.
Per Dictionary.com,
"the use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking, for the
purpose of delaying legislative action".
Per C-Span Congressional glossary,
"the term used for an extended debate in the Senate which has the effect of preventing
a vote."
I suppose that you're misusing the term "filibuster" to refer to my extensive comments.
Since you're known for lengthier posts than me (not counting the part of my posts
that quote yours to provide the context more easily), that would be "the pot calling
the kettle black." However, everyone ELSE notices that my posts remain mostly devoid
of jargon and fast-talk, clear to the reader and easy to understand. Yours have been
noted to contain more words, and often they contain obfuscations that inspire replies
that ask you for a plainer version, or a direct refutation.
So, I post shorter than you, with more content and in clearer English.
If one of us "filibusters", it's not me.
For someone who supposedly believes precise use of language is important,
you demonstrate a distinct lack of concern for being precise yourself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[WordWolf in boldface again...]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
If I said anywhere I thought you were fearful OF ME, then I mis-spoke, and should correct it.
The fear I think is most likely here is not a fear of me, but a fear of my message, a fear others will believe it, and most of all a deep fear that it might be true.
Otherwise, why do yo put so much time into refuting me, and poorly I might add.
What drives you to put so much time into this? What are you getting out of it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
My use of the word "filibuster" is figurative, and most closely tied in with, as you put it: "the use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking for the purpose of delaying legislative action."
Obviously you are not engaged in legislative action, but otherwise my figurative use of the word is to protest your purpose delaying my message posting action, fits pretty well.
I've often heard that literal filibustering is sometimes filled with useless details just to fill up the time and bore people. This is all the more reason I used that term figuratively.
Would it be ad hominem for me to call your focus and style on useless details like this "anal retentive"? If it's not filibustering me that you are doing, then the common usage of being "anal retentive" seems to fit you. I don't know how that term was derived, but the way it's used in our culture nowadays fits you well.
The reason I brought up filibustering is to explain why I periodically feel a need to ignore your "prolonged speechmaking" on endless unimportant details... like this one.
If I had the time I'd deal with all your points to help others who might be more sincerely bogged down with them.
I don't have that kind of time or energy, so I choose to ignore you when you get into hounding me with endless loops of "speechmaking," whether it's out of fear of my message, or just plain misplaced attention on useless details and missing the big heart issues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I don't frequent these threads, because, well frankly I think your insane. I've only read the two posts on this thread, the first and last (before yours, OK Three posts), like I would a bad book. Still even I know the answer to that last question, Mike. Aaaaaaand here it is to read again. "have you not read..."
Seems reasonable to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Lindyhopper, I'm quite certain that smikeol will feel the breeze as that goes over his head. Or maybe it will be so far over his head that the breeze will be unnoticeable . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Anal retentive? (sorry for answering for Word to the Wolf. I don't usually do so.)
I seem to remember a poster using his first post to list two hundred different words and phrases for "fear". Now that is just plain crazy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thank you lindyhopper.
I've noted before too, that it's highly unlikely that any injured or immature people are going to pay any attention to my posts.
I am only addressing OLGs, Older Leader Grads, and it's usually only that category of people that respond to me heavily, and thus read, my posts.
What I write is so anti-traditional, very few people give it a second glance.
I have seen that reason for refuting me posted long ago, but not recently. I do not buy it. I think my refuters know that hardly anyone but PFAL grads even come here to GSC in general. Of that tiny few of non grads that do, even fewer would read me, and even still fewer would believe me.
Speaking from within their mindset: With such a tiny, tiny, tiny number of people WW and other major refuters of me are protecting, aren't they missing the opportunity to protect likely much larger populations of injured and immature people out there being hurt by much more successful propounders of error than me?
If I can only "hurt" one or two people, and other errors our there are currently hurting hundreds and thousands, I would expect a much more wise use of WW' time and others' would be to refute the more successful heretics.
They are smart enough to see this and make better use of their time shooting at much higher priorities, but they don't. This is why I don't buy it, the force that drives which you quoted.
I've noted that ex10 sees it. She posted yesterday: "If I may interject.... __ Why give any time or credance to the insane? __ We could better spend our time, no? on stuff that really matters?"
If I am insane like my major refuters also claim, why do they bother wasting their time on me?
I do not try to spread my message to anyone but OLGs. If a non-grad were to believe me I'd have a HUGE responsibility on my hands in under shepherding them that I don't yet feel qualified for. I'd first have to see them get a very healthy exposure to the KJV, like all us OLGs got, and that would take years.
I've noted before too, that it's highly unlikely that any injured or immature people are going to pay any attention to my posts.
I am only addressing OLGs, Older Leader Grads, and it's usually only that category of people that respond to me heavily, and thus read, my posts.
What I write is so anti-traditional, very few people give it a second glance.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Lindy,
You wrote: "I seem to remember a poster using his first post to list two hundred different words and phrases for "fear". Now that is just plain crazy."
It was lying, not fear.
I compiled and reported those many words for "lying" or confabulating first for a group of brain scientists. I explained this, but you may have forgotten. They thought the list was very interesting. They study confabulation in brain damage victims, and often wondered about confabulation in normal people. I accommodated them first, and duplicated the list here secondly.
I'd give the link, but it's been pruned, I think.
I used to be involved in making lie detectors back in the 60's, then also had that involvement with the brain scientists in the 90's, PLUS I noticed a lot different types of lying done by leadership in the ministry meltdown period.
Some of this coincided with Bill Clinton's well publicized lying and before that a man named Larry Lawrence was on the national front pages for a well told lie.
It was pretty easy for me to draw on all these sources to collect my list. I don't think it was crazy at all.
I now use that list often at poetry readings and it is found to be highly entertaining and informative to people who spend a lot of time with words.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Mike
What you write is so delusional most people don't give it a second glance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
def59,
I agree with you you except for the word "delusional." You must concur, then, that WW is wasting his time. Right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Of course if you didn't disagree with the use of "delusional" then you wouldn't really be delusional would you?
;)-->
Its one of those catch-22s
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Does "Water off a duck's back" say anything about Mike's posts, and my take on them?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
The question about converts is not important to me, Mike, I just wanted to see IF you would answer it.
Where are they? Why are you always the lone ranger in this endless debate?
You're an amoeba Mike.
It is obvious that you live for the debate. Wiggle, squirm, twist. Your shape changes to fit the environment.
You're manipulating.
What you do & don't address shows me a pattern that does more to keep the debate going than anything else.
Hmmm... Jesus says, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
Mike says, "master PFAL" so we can understand all this hidden stuff.
Hmmm... MAYBE I'll go with, um, eternal life...???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
MIke Posted:
"Exact words"? ... We can all play that game you know....
Mike, where in any tape, teaching transcript, or book, did Wierwille ever say or write the exact words that, "PFAL is God breathed" or "PFAL is the Word Of God" ??. -- Where?
Your request for "exact words" to refute WW's good inductive logic is a very feeble ploy.
It won't work here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
For what it's worth to you, it was NOT a great fear of me that I was suspecting in others, and then a smaller fear of me in you. A fear of ME was WW's idea in misreading my posts, not mine.
It's a great fear of losing their status as ones who "in the know" that I suspect in them, and less in you, maybe even none in you. It's possible I wrote this poorly somewhere, but I think not, so far.
There's a similar situation with two others here. I've often marveled here at how much better Oakspear and Abigail have been able to understand some of the more subtle concepts I bring up. Both of them have backed off from traditional Christianity and the Bible, and with that move they have less (or no) fear that God will strike them dead if they actually listen and contemplate my posts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Goey,
I accept your criticism that the usage of exact words versus non-usage of exact words doesn't prove much. The reason I went down that path is because WW was dodging the issue. I wanted to make it harder for him to do that. I don't usually talk that way at all.
I find it interesting that Dr avoided specifying "Bible" in certain situations. It shows me that the interchangeability of the two phrases "Bible" and "Word of God" should be suspect.
I find it VERY interesting that I can't find a single place where Dr says things LIKE "It's the Bible, and nothing but the Bible" but there were LOTS of places where he said things LIKE "It's the Word, and nothing but the Word." There, now we're off the exact wording kick.
I find it interesting that in Dr's last months he often told us master, NOT the Bible, but the collaterals. This becomes especially interesting with his LAST KNOWN public teaching, his last teaching for which a tape has surfaced in 20 years, he repeatedly urges us to master not the Bible but the collaterals.
In the 1979 Way Magazine article "Masters of the Word" he never says we should master the Bible, the KJV, wide margin corrected Bibles, Greek texts, or anything like that. The only "how" that's offered in that issue is in the Our Times Editorial titled "How the Word Works" in which he brings up the importance of how the Word is presented in "book and magazine form" by his ministry,and in which the word "master' occurs twice.
If he had said "master the Bible" anywhere it would have been an impossible task, let alone ambiguous. Even if our culture only had the KJV to offer us, no one can master that one man-produced document. The fact that there's a multiplicity of Bibles out there makes it even more impossible to master "the Bible." God made it much easier and actually possible for us to master His Word when he made His move in 1942 and the PFAL writings were eventually produced.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
Did you hear what HCW said? I'm manipulating.
Is that why you spend so much time on me? ...because I'm dragging you into the fray?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Mike... what about HCW's post telling you that the books came from the tapes, didn't you hear?
...what about HCW's post telling you that the books were 'written' by folks at TWI working from the tapes and that vpw had little to do with the process, didn't you hear?
...here's someone who was there telling you that your entire thesis is built on an incorrect assumption... so... you ignore it.
Could this possibly be the reason that you are the only one on God's green earth who believes your theory?
...but then how would you explain that you've actually seen Jesus teaching from a PFAL book?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom,
I've not only known about the tape-to-print processes you just mentioned, but I've posted on them too.
I posted last month here how I lived with one of Dr's editors for two years, and how I discussed these processes many times with him over a span of almost 30 years. AND I've discussed similar things (in less volume) with several other editors who worked with Dr's writings.
I've included all of that in my messsage from the start. Getting back to that is in my backlog of items, and I will get to that in detail someday soon.
The same holds with private conversations with Dr and my posting on that in past. All of that is in my backlog of things I truly WANT to post on. Just be patient.
All these things were in my mind both before and after I came back to PFAL in 1998.
I thought them through in great detail long before I started posting here.
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.