But the fruit of the PFAL class should be separated out from TWI in general.
Impossible.
Unless maybe you use a spiritual sword to do the separating out of PFAL from TWI. Are you meaning to separate out the fruit of PFAL from the fruit of TWI in general, is that what you were saying? But TWI is PFAL in action. No-one else has PFAL. Therefore, no-one else can be modelling PFAL to the world. Therefore, whatever fruit there may be is fruit of PFAL as manifest as fruit of TWI.
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, [and of PFAL from TWI], and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
So let's throw context out the window. If you bothered to look the verse up ...
So_crates, he can't look any verses up.
Even if they're copied into PFAL or the collaterals, they're certainly not interpreted "right where they're written" in PFAL materials. Remember, all the Bible is suspect, probably corrupt. Therefore, direct Bible quotes are all suspect and corrupt. And in any event, they're only "background."
(note: So_crates' words are in black...Mike's words are in red)
he first error you made was God forgives when we admit our transgressions. Saint Vic never admitted he transgressed.
You are guessing and hoping he never admitted this. I heard and read different. Someday I'll bring the evidence to this, again.
During the early days when Saint Vic claimed it was okay to be in a orgy because God would have wrote "It was best not to touch a woman" rather than the "It is good" He wrote.
I'm unaware of him putting this doctrine into writing or on tape. I expect that he was dead wrong on things, from time to time that he said and even taught. Aren't we ALL dead wrong from time to time?
He threatened his victims with saying they were possessed by devil spirits.
That sound repentant to you?
Assuming that happened: No.
Not at all. Not THAT time.
But what happened the next day?
All the way through the latter days, one person in this forum describes how he approached Saint Vic with his indiscretions. Saint Vic's answer, "We don't discuss that." And the individual sat in the room for several minute threatened by a growling dog.
This sound repentant to you?
Not at all. Not THAT time. I'm sure David and Solomon had their unrepentant days. I do too.
Did God forgive David? Yes he did after he admitted his sins.
I'm willing to bet the same is true with anyone in the bible.
Confession leads to redemption. Not continuing in lust leads to great revelation.
Continuing is a strong word to use. I know in my life I'd "continue" for a while at being screwed up on something... and then time passes, I hear more of the Word, someone may bless me in a certain way... and then I pull out of my nosedive. Can't you see this is more likely way to look at this?
What does PLAF teach? When we sin we're out of fellowship--we're out of alignment and harmony. Until we ask for forgivenss, God is unable to bless us. This includes his spirit moving in us to reveal great revelations.
I'd not say "unable" but would say much less efficient.
I serious doubt Saint Vic ever asked for forgiveness, because, as the "best man not touc a woman," line proves he never thought he was wrong.
Your hunches are not supported by what he wrote and spoke on tape. And why did he ask Ralph and Vince to research "adultery" in 1982, years before the John S. Paper was written.
How did Saint Vic put it?
"God would have to rewrite all the laws in the universe to accomodate him."
5 hours ago, Mike said:
(note: Chockfull's words are in black...Mike's words are in red)
Are we referring to your longer posts as our standard for discussion now?
No. I just thought I'd keep that more recent post short.
I guess with people who think VP breathed out God's Word that could be confusing.
I can see ENOUGH of the fruit of the Way to make an intelligent decision.
The fruit of TWI after 1985 really stinks. Before that it was a mixed bag. Seeing the fruit of an organization is easier than looking into someone's private life for it.
But the fruit of the PFAL class should be separated out from TWI in general. Grads who were not in the Corps, who didn't go out WOW too fast, and who were sheltered from the abuses, have a very different assessment of the fruit.
i can see ENOUGH of the fruit of VPW in driving people away from Christ in the long run and in evidence of the legacy he left to also make an intelligent decision.
You know there is a God. And He can ensure that I learn enough about fruit that i desire to.
Again, I urge you to separate PFAL out fro TWI in your learning.
2 hours ago, Mike said:
NO!
I am saying that you have to look properly at the fruit, as Jesus said.
I think (not totally sure) that means that we look for the fruit WHERE we are able to see it efficiently: within ourselves.
It's hard to see ALL the fruit ACCURATELY in someone else's life.
It's much easier and more accurate to look at the ALL the fruit in your own life.
I look at the fruit post-1985 TWI produced in my life and I don't like it. I know TWI's fruit in my life is not good. I quit allowing them to teach me, gradually by 1987.
I look at the fruit of PFAL in my life, especially the more refined written focus since 1998, and Iam happy with what I see. The fruit I see is good, and tht's PART of my proof that PFAL is God-breathed. It's a proof you have to perform to see its merits. I did.
I am trying to ACCURATELY follow what Jesus Christ told us in that passage.
Mike are you really sure you want to be identified with an unrepentant and devious sinner like wierwille? It seems like you expend more energy to defend his licentious lifestyle here and on other threads than you do in logical arguments over a doctrinal issue. And that makes it look like you have no other basis for your viewpoint other than “doctor taught this and that settles it”.
wierwille never gave any indication of repentance to all those he victimized. Did he ever apologize and offer to set things right to those he sexually molested, to those who he used every form of coercion and manipulation to silence them from speaking out about what he did to them, to those he stole from by his plagiarism?
you talk of separating the fruit. what Jesus said in Matthew 7:15-20 was that we will know what type of tree it is by its fruit; that’s how we’re to be on the lookout for false prophets…Jesus never advised us to look for any fruit that is redeemable from a bad tree:
15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them….Matthew 7:15-20
I’m sorry to sound like a broken record but whenever you get into your defensive mode for wierwille I cannot in good conscience stand by while another coat of paint is applied to that whitewashed sepulcher. And as a Christian I feel duty-bound to warn others of this treacherous deception. I really try to give you the benefit of a doubt that this is not your intention (to be deceptive) , that you are merely deceived yourself. But you seem so sincere and persistent in your defense of wierwille that I sometimes wonder if that sincerity is just an act – I mean, to me it seems so mind-boggling that anyone in their right mind would defend such a consummate hypocrite, liar, thief, plagiarist, and sexual predator. The Bible does not mince words about false prophets and false teachers; we are never instructed to look for the good in their teachings:
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment. 10 This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh and despise authority.
Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings; 11 yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not heap abuse on such beings when bringing judgment on them from the Lord. 12 But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish.
13 They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. 14 With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! 15 They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Bezer, who loved the wages of wickedness. 16 But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—an animal without speech—who spoke with a human voice and restrained the prophet’s madness.
17 These people are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. 18 For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. 19 They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for “people are slaves to whatever has mastered them.” 20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22 Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.”…II Peter 2: 1-22 NIV
So let's throw context out the window. If you bothered to look the verse up (Matthew 7:15-20), you'd see the context is false prophets.
I did look it up. I did know the context was prophets.
The point you're not seeing yet is that I'm humbly asking "Which fruit? Where?"
You seem to be answering this question of mine with the fruit the prophets produce in their own lives.
I ask you how do I get a full and accurate view of that fruit in his private, personal life? I can see some, with some accuracy, not not nearly all. And how do I go back in time and ACCURATELY look at ALL the fruit the prophet produced then in his own life?
Now, when it comes to me judging a prophet by the fruit he produces (or helps produce) in MY life, that's much easier. If I want to obey Jesus' command, here is where I will put most of my effort.
And I'm the exact opposite. After 42 years of working PLAF in my life the only thing I gained was 42 more years. So save all the talk about benefit, I'm proof its a scam.
I am sorry to hear this. I believe it. I know you are not lying to me.
I think you are lumping together PFAL with TWI-1,2,3.
I think it would be a very difficult thing for you to separate them out.
I was lucky here. My devotion to video PFAL went from 1971-87, and I had little interference from TWI. I was VERY lucky in that I hovered very close to top leadership wherever I lived, yet was never snagged by the Corps hassles.
Then I took a relative break from my respect for video 1987-1998. Not a total break, but lowered focus and respect. I was not connected to TWI nor to any splinter groups, though I sampled from all.
In 1998 I started focusing on written PFAL.
So it's EASY for me to separate PFAL, see it's good fruit in my life for 20 years and far from TWI, and not confuse it with all the stench that the ministry became.
I did look it up. I did know the context was prophets.
The point you're not seeing yet is that I'm humbly asking "Which fruit? Where?"
You forgot the word "false." Freudian slip?
You don't comprehend, your still going against what Jesus Christ said: You will know them by their fruit. Asking how much fruit does nothing but cloud the issue.
How many women have to be raped? How many people have to be abused? Does it really make a difference?
2 minutes ago, Mike said:
You seem to be answering this question of mine with the fruit the prophets produce in their own lives.
I ask you how do I get a full and accurate view of that fruit in his private, personal life? I can see some, with some accuracy, not not nearly all. And how do I go back in time and ACCURATELY look at ALL the fruit the prophet produced then in his own life?
(points over Mikes head) Look Mike there goes the point. You seem to want to cloud the issue. Christ said you will see the fruit (how else would you know the tree by its fruit}.
2 minutes ago, Mike said:
Now, when it comes to me judging a prophet by the fruit he produces (or helps produce) in MY life, that's much easier. If I want to obey Jesus' command, here is where I will put most of my effort.
So, tell me, how would I see the fruit in your life? How would I know whether or not your lying to me?
Impossible for some, difficult for some, possible for others. I was lucky and it just happened for me.
Twinky, I just answered this for So_crates in the post above.
Unless maybe you use a spiritual sword to do the separating out of PFAL from TWI. Are you meaning to separate out the fruit of PFAL from the fruit of TWI in general, is that what you were saying? But TWI is PFAL in action.
No! TWI often drifted from written PFAL in its verbal and practical doctrines, just like the first century church. Ten years ago I called these TVTs for search engine enthusiasts. It stands for Twi Verbal Doctrines.
No-one else has PFAL. Therefore, no-one else can be modelling PFAL to the world. Therefore, whatever fruit there may be is fruit of PFAL as manifest as fruit of TWI.
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, [and of PFAL from TWI], and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Even if they're copied into PFAL or the collaterals, they're certainly not interpreted "right where they're written" in PFAL materials. Remember, all the Bible is suspect, probably corrupt. Therefore, direct Bible quotes are all suspect and corrupt. And in any event, they're only "background."
Please agree with me that this is all hyperbole or sarcasm or venting, and that you know none of is actually factual. Right?
I am sorry to hear this. I believe it. I know you are not lying to me.
I think you are lumping together PFAL with TWI-1,2,3.
Yah, well, where did I get the principle of believing from? Need I enumerate all the times I walked out on believing and fell flat on my face?
Quote
I think it would be a very difficult thing for you to separate them out.
Not as difficult as you think. See above.
Quote
I was lucky here. My devotion to video PFAL went from 1971-87, and I had little interference from TWI. I was VERY lucky in that I hovered very close to top leadership wherever I lived, yet was never snagged by the Corps hassles.
Then I took a relative break from my respect for video 1987-1998. Not a total break, but lowered focus and respect. I was not connected to TWI nor to any splinter groups, though I sampled from all.
In 1998 I started focusing on written PFAL.
So it's EASY for me to separate PFAL, see it's good fruit in my life for 20 years and far from TWI, and not confuse it with all the stench that the ministry became.
All any of the PLAF principles did for me was make me 42 years older
It's obvious you've never had a com class in your life. If you did, you'd know that the responsibility of the communication lies with the communicator. If I'm not getting it, it's your fault, not mine.
Considering you've been singing the same tired tune sincw 2002, I'd think you'd be an old pro at it by now, But, oddly, things are no different then they were in 2002, still making claims without evidence to support them, still claiming you haven't time to explain yourself, still accusing people who question you pouncing.
So tell me, 16 years later, how's this method of communication working out for you?
Concerning vpw and whether or not he repented, I think it's good to go over what he said and did, and not what we THINK.
In his final hours of life, one of our posters actually had interacted with vpw. vpw was dying of cancer. His "Law of Believing" had completely failed him, as he was unable to just believe away the cancer in a manner consistent with decades of his teaching. At moments like that, anyone would be thinking a lot about their mortality, about what they'd done so far, what would happen after they were gone, what they were to do now, in the little time they had left. vpw had plenty of time to think over the rapes, druggings, molestations, plagiarisms, abuses of alcohol and tobacco that led him to that moment. What was his overwhelming thought in what he was sure were the final hours of his life?
He was reviewing it in his memory, and reviewing it more. According to him, he was trying to figure out when he'd displeased God Almighty that he was unable to believe himself healthy. He was unable to come up with ANYTHING, which is why he kept searching and searching.
For those of you who skipped over that, let's look at it from another angle.
Does God Almighty like rapes, ,molestations, druggings, etc? No, he does not. Do they displease Him? Yes, they do. Did vpw know this? vpw supposedly spent his life teaching the Bible and about what God Almighty wants. If vpw, after all that time, still didn't know those were wrong, then he had to have been quite remarkable as a figure of immense ineptitude among Christians. one who could preach that God Almighty was pleased by sinning and displeased by temperance. If vpw really DID know, then he was completely fooling himself as to whether or not his rapes, molestations, etc counted among the rapes and molestations to which God Almighty disapproved.
Did vpw repent? vpw didn't even repent ON HIS DEATHBED.
You stated he was "born with an overabundance of brains and brawn." You stated that he was "OVERgifted."
Mike:
"I also stated, and several times (and several times ignored by you) that a lot of people in the top 1% genetically are in that category. I identify him as being in the smart tail of the bell curve. Thereare many millions of such people. I was just saying, in a poetic way, that he was not averageC."
The thing is, Mike, you're putting him in "the top 1% genetically." The man's demonstrated accomplishments are- STATISTICALLY- strictly average. That's not opinion- when charted, he fell in the middle of the bell curve, where most people fall. Statistically, that's not below average, but that's not above it, either. For that matter, saying that performance is "genetic" is not measurable without reams of data which neither you nor I, or the Census Bureau have. Performance can be measured, but not its reason. Is that why you keep invoking "genetics", because it's not disproven that he had good genes, so you're going to claim he did? They're a complete non-issue sinc they can neither be measured nor matter in any material discussion.
WW:
The man's brains and brawn were strictly average- as has been shown beyond any REASONABLE doubt. "
Mike:
"Oh MY! We have a difference of opinion. Know what I want to do about it? Debate it? I don't care about this issue at all. I said what I said 10 years ago, forget the context, and moved on. When are you going to be honest about this? HMMMMM?"
You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. (DP Moynihan) When his performance was charted, it fell into "average", as it should have. I opened this up for discussion and possible debate if someone felt it wasn't definitive. I noticed a silence of disputing the facts. Oh, and let's be honest about things: You just said right now that you think vpw was in "the top 1%" when discussing "brains and brawn." There's no evidence to support this, and the evidence at hand is pretty consistent that he was pretty average. You're pretty emotional about how this plays out-vpw shown to be an AVERAGE athlete and AVERAGE student. Yet you insist you've "MOVED ON."
WW:
"You don't have "a healthy distance" from him."
Mike:
"He died 32 years ago! I have distanced myself from several aspects of his life and personality. What God worked out with him I admire and appreciate and celebrate. "
You keep insisting an AVERAGE athlete and AVERAGE student was in the top 1%. Of a man whose life supposedly didn't rely on either. And he died 32 years ago. That's not a healthy distance.
Mike are you really sure you want to be identified with ...
T-Bone,
No I don't want to be identified with someone who is like you describe. No one would.
I’m not sure at all that your description fits VPW. Along with the Pure Evil model the prevails here goes the relatively uncontested notion that the frequency and intensity of the depravity were of the highest nature. I don’t believe evil is that efficient. It gts sloppy and over plays it’s hand all the time in my experience.
So, I expect a degree of exaggeration in reports of evil. I came from a Catholic where I was steeped in analysis of sin intensity. I don’t want to severely bias my “fruit data” with your “fruit data.”
I trust the “fruit data” I see from PFAL I see in my own life much more than I trust the collective sight of those here to look inside someone else’s’ life for “fruit data.”
A judgment of the level of evil that thrived in VPWs life and how often it happened is not something I could trust. It is just not on as sound a footing as my judgment of the “fruit data” in my life from PFAL, and separated from TWI rotten fruit.
***
The subject I have been alluding here in several posts is an extended one. It’s the subject of going in and out of fellowship. How much can we do with God in fellowship, then we go out and what happens? Then we get back in fellowship.
It gets to be an even bigger topic when we consider us forgiving others for their past sins, and how do we deal with the future in their company. It’s a vast topic, that I have not the time for now, and this would need a separate thread to go as far aw we did ten years ago with it.
Fortunately, the end product of PFAL looks completely pure of this to me, so my conscience is clean. Sure I’d prefer to not be identified with evil, so I do not associate with it. I think I was lucky and successful in separating out PFAL from all the evil you talk about, even if it’s as intense as you say.
A couple months ago, I mentioned on a thread about referring VPW’s books to people, I reported (again) my conversations with JS of the adultery paper fame and how he agreed that the written forms were free of the TVT (Twi Verbal Traditions) that were dangerous.
No, we can know true prophets also by their fruits in our lives.
You don't comprehend, your still going against what Jesus Christ said: You will know them by their fruit. Asking how much fruit does nothing but cloud the issue.
Again, you have it wrong. I never said how MUCH fruit. I said ask WHERE is the fruit to look at. Try reading all my posts on this recently. You consistently fail to see what I am talking about about the LOCATION of the fruits to look at. Are you doing this on purpose?
...
So, tell me, how would I see the fruit in your life? How would I know whether or not your lying to me?
AGAIN, YOU MISSED IT!
If you had understood my point you would know that I was telling you that the ONLY fruit that you can see is the fruit in YOUR own life.
You DO seem to get the point that if I lied to about the fruit in my life it's because you can't see inside my life to see my fruit. You can ONLY see the fruit in your OWN life.
EVERY single time you have missed this point of which fruit are we to look at in judging prophets to be true of not.
Yah, well, where did I get the principle of believing from? Need I enumerate all the times I walked out on believing and fell flat on my face?
I think we all were wobbly in our application and understanding of the Law of Believing. From my observations we drifted more into TVTs (Twi Verbal Traditions) which were launched from our audio memorization of the film class. Our knowledge of the written forms on this Law were scant and fading in large form. Updates in the Way Mag were not rigorously included. We all drifted from the purity pf PFAL, and well before we mastered it. Many mastered the audio only.
Concerning vpw and whether or not he repented, I think it's good to go over what he said and did, and not what we THINK.
In his final hours of life, one of our posters actually had interacted with vpw. vpw was dying of cancer. His "Law of Believing" had completely failed him, as he was unable to just believe away the cancer in a manner consistent with decades of his teaching.
When I was a young PFAL grad and and witnessing about the law of believing I knew there were some things to keep in mind in not allowing a distorted understanding. One of them was that ALL of the apostles died. I think it's our believing that fails us.
It never shocks me that the Law of Believing seems to not work. We were amateurs at it most of the time. That was one of the reasons I finally did go out WOW. I could see that MOST of the time I was enjoying a LOT of mental assent and agreement, but little action, especially risky action.
I know we had TVTs that were wrong on believing. I know we drifted from what was taught in writing. I know VPW could drift also. ESPECIALLY when very sick. I think most death situations are confusing and things hardly ever go like in the movies.
Here's a possible answer I could have for VPW there. The job of written PFAL was finished. God's budget (another extended topic) was such that He had bent over backwards enough to cover for VPW, and that His grace was sufficient for him. This is just ONE possible answer. I haven't put that much thought into it yet.
At moments like that, anyone would be thinking a lot about their mortality, about what they'd done so far, what would happen after they were gone, what they were to do now, in the little time they had left. vpw had plenty of time to think over the rapes, druggings, molestations, plagiarisms, abuses of alcohol and tobacco that led him to that moment. What was his overwhelming thought in what he was sure were the final hours of his life?
He was reviewing it in his memory, and reviewing it more. According to him, he was trying to figure out when he'd displeased God Almighty that he was unable to believe himself healthy. He was unable to come up with ANYTHING, which is why he kept searching and searching.
For those of you who skipped over that, let's look at it from another angle.
Does God Almighty like rapes, ,molestations, druggings, etc? No, he does not. Do they displease Him? Yes, they do.
With David it cost him a lot. God was very unhappy over Uriah.
Did vpw know this? vpw supposedly spent his life teaching the Bible and about what God Almighty wants. If vpw, after all that time, still didn't know those were wrong, then he had to have been quite remarkable as a figure of immense ineptitude among Christians. one who could preach that God Almighty was pleased by sinning and displeased by temperance. If vpw really DID know, then he was completely fooling himself as to whether or not his rapes, molestations, etc counted among the rapes and molestations to which God Almighty disapproved.
Did vpw repent? vpw didn't even repent ON HIS DEATHBED.
You stated he was "born with an overabundance of brains and brawn." You stated that he was "OVERgifted."
Mike:
"I also stated, and several times (and several times ignored by you) that a lot of people in the top 1% genetically are in that category. I identify him as being in the smart tail of the bell curve. Thereare many millions of such people. I was just saying, in a poetic way, that he was not averageC."
The thing is, Mike, you're putting him in "the top 1% genetically." The man's demonstrated accomplishments are- STATISTICALLY- strictly average.
My criteria for Putting him there is different from yours. I place very little importance on academic criteria, except in the hard sciences, medicine, and in some brain science. I myself am a “Rogue Scholar” (it sounds great in a noisy bar.) and have successfully (IMO) circulated amongst some pretty high ranking scientists with NO DEGREE whatsoever.
VPW’s great success was in putting so much into such a short class AND moving it around the world.
He reached even ME!I know I’m biased, but he intellectually connected enough WITH ME for me to turn from the RC god to Jesus Christ and his Father with GREAT joy!
VPW’s athletic prowess TO ME is a done deal in that he was able to play High School basketball and ride a motorcycle many blocks while standing on the seat.
I can do a lot of athletic things. I’ve done everything you can see baseball players do on TV. My diving catches or wholloping home runs only came one time because I was mediocre, but I can relate to it all.
Football was harder for me because I was always skinny.
But basketball was WAY, WAY, WAY over the top for me. The level of speed and aggressiveness needed to survive 2 minutes on a High School basketball court was staggering to me. Play college basketball and you’re another Mickey Mantle in my book.
According to my criteria VPW was in the top 1% athletically.
Of course this is only opinion. It’s also only opinion that another criteria, like yours, is the one we SHOULD use. I don't need no stinking statistics.
I just don’t care that much about the entire topic even. I said what I said and you tried to make me look crazy for it by excluding ALL of the contest of my quote.
Now here is a fresh batch of context for you to ignore, it that’s what you still want to do on THIS issue.
You say I worship the man; I say I don’t. That’s it. I shouldn’t need to correct you again, and again.
That's not opinion- when charted, he fell in the middle of the bell curve, where most people fall. Statistically, that's not below average, but that's not above it, either. For that matter, saying that performance is "genetic" is not measurable without reams of data which neither you nor I, or the Census Bureau have. Performance can be measured, but not its reason. Is that why you keep invoking "genetics", because it's not disproven that he had good genes, so you're going to claim he did? They're a complete non-issue sinc they can neither be measured nor matter in any material discussion.
WW:
The man's brains and brawn were strictly average- as has been shown beyond any REASONABLE doubt. "
Mike:
"Oh MY! We have a difference of opinion. Know what I want to do about it? Debate it? I don't care about this issue at all. I said what I said 10 years ago, forget the context, and moved on. When are you going to be honest about this? HMMMMM?"
You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. (DP Moynihan) When his performance was charted, it fell into "average", as it should have. I opened this up for discussion and possible debate if someone felt it wasn't definitive. I noticed a silence of disputing the facts. Oh, and let's be honest about things: You just said right now that you think vpw was in "the top 1%" when discussing "brains and brawn." There's no evidence to support this, and the evidence at hand is pretty consistent that he was pretty average. You're pretty emotional about how this plays out-vpw shown to be an AVERAGE athlete and AVERAGE student. Yet you insist you've "MOVED ON."
WW:
"You don't have "a healthy distance" from him."
Mike:
"He died 32 years ago! I have distanced myself from several aspects of his life and personality. What God worked out with him I admire and appreciate and celebrate. "
You keep insisting(NO. I’ll drop it 100%) an AVERAGE athlete and AVERAGE student was in the top 1%. Of a man whose life supposedly didn't rely on either. And he died 32 years ago. That's not a healthy distance.
.I totally forget the context of what others were saying when I first posted that. I don’t remember why I said it. I do believe it was a trivial reason. It’s not important to me where he was on the charts. It was some trivial point that is now long obscured by the intense fighting of 10 years ago.
WW:
You stated he was "born with an overabundance of brains and brawn." You stated that he was "OVERgifted."
Mike:
"I also stated, and several times (and several times ignored by you) that a lot of people in the top 1% genetically are in that category. I identify him as being in the smart tail of the bell curve. Thereare many millions of such people. I was just saying, in a poetic way, that he was not averageC."
The thing is, Mike, you're putting him in "the top 1% genetically." The man's demonstrated accomplishments are- STATISTICALLY- strictly average.
My criteria for putting him there is different from yours. I place very little importance on academic criteria, except in the hard sciences, medicine, and in some brain science. I myself am a “Rogue Scholar” (it sounds great in a noisy bar.) and have successfully (IMO) circulated among some pretty high ranking scientists.
VPW’s great success was in putting so much NEEDED material into such a short class AND moving it around the world. He reached even ME!I know I’m biased, but he intellectually connected enough WITH ME for me to turn from the RC god to Jesus Christ and his Father with GREAT joy!
VPW’s athletic prowess TO ME is a done deal that he was able to play High School basketball and ride a motorcycle many blocks while standing on the seat. I can do a lot of athletic things. I’ve done everything you can see baseball players do on TV. My diving catches or wholloping home runs only came only time, but I can relate to it all. Football is much harder for me because I was always skinny. But basketball is WAY over the top. The level of speed and aggressiveness needed to survive 2 minutes on a High School basketball court was staggering to me. Play college basketball and you’re another Mickey Mantle in my book. According to my criteria he was in the top 1% athletically.
Of course this is only opinion. It’s also only opinion that another criteria, like yours, is the one we SHOULD use. I just don’t care that much about it. I said what I said and you tried to make me look crazy for it by excluding ALL of the contest of my quote.
Now here is a fresh batch of context for you to ignore, it that’s what you still want to do on THIS issue. You say I worship the man; I say I don’t. That’s it. I shouldn’t need to correct you again, and again.
That's not opinion- when charted, he fell in the middle of the bell curve, where most people fall. Statistically, that's not below average, but that's not above it, either. For that matter, saying that performance is "genetic" is not measurable without reams of data which neither you nor I, or the Census Bureau have. Performance can be measured, but not its reason. Is that why you keep invoking "genetics", because it's not disproven that he had good genes, so you're going to claim he did? They're a complete non-issue sinc they can neither be measured nor matter in any material discussion.
WW:
The man's brains and brawn were strictly average- as has been shown beyond any REASONABLE doubt. "
Mike:
"Oh MY! We have a difference of opinion. Know what I want to do about it? Debate it? I don't care about this issue at all. I said what I said 10 years ago, forget the context, and moved on. When are you going to be honest about this? HMMMMM?"
You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. (DP Moynihan) When his performance was charted, it fell into "average", as it should have. I opened this up for discussion and possible debate if someone felt it wasn't definitive. I noticed a silence of disputing the facts. Oh, and let's be honest about things: You just said right now that you think vpw was in "the top 1%" when discussing "brains and brawn." There's no evidence to support this, and the evidence at hand is pretty consistent that he was pretty average. You're pretty emotional about how this plays out-vpw shown to be an AVERAGE athlete and AVERAGE student. Yet you insist you've "MOVED ON."
WW:
"You don't have "a healthy distance" from him."
Mike:
"He died 32 years ago! I have distanced myself from several aspects of his life and personality. What God worked out with him I admire and appreciate and celebrate. "
You keep insisting(NO. I’ll drop it 100%) an AVERAGE athlete and AVERAGE student was in the top 1%. Of a man whose life supposedly didn't rely on either. And he died 32 years ago. That's not a healthy distance.
.I totally forget the context of what others were saying when I first posted that. I don’t remember why I said it. I do believe it was a trivial reason. It’s not important to me where he was on the charts. It was some trivial point that is now long obscured by the intense fighting of 10 years ago.
So, I’d appreciate a break on the shame and ridicule. But keep the questions coming that can clear up some of the shocks that this most controversial idea is so surrounded by.
Really, Mike? Sure, you'd appreciate it, but should you really expect it?
Pinball Wizard, Mike. Until you become like the Pinball Wizard instead of the pinball, it just ain't gonna happen.
No I don't want to be identified with someone who is like you describe. No one would.
I’m not sure at all that your description fits VPW. Along with the Pure Evil model the prevails here goes the relatively uncontested notion that the frequency and intensity of the depravity were of the highest nature. I don’t believe evil is that efficient. It gts sloppy and over plays it’s hand all the time in my experience.
So, I expect a degree of exaggeration in reports of evil. I came from a Catholic where I was steeped in analysis of sin intensity. I don’t want to severely bias my “fruit data” with your “fruit data.”
I trust the “fruit data” I see from PFAL I see in my own life much more than I trust the collective sight of those here to look inside someone else’s’ life for “fruit data.”
A judgment of the level of evil that thrived in VPWs life and how often it happened is not something I could trust. It is just not on as sound a footing as my judgment of the “fruit data” in my life from PFAL, and separated from TWI rotten fruit.
***
The subject I have been alluding here in several posts is an extended one. It’s the subject of going in and out of fellowship. How much can we do with God in fellowship, then we go out and what happens? Then we get back in fellowship.
It gets to be an even bigger topic when we consider us forgiving others for their past sins, and how do we deal with the future in their company. It’s a vast topic, that I have not the time for now, and this would need a separate thread to go as far aw we did ten years ago with it.
Fortunately, the end product of PFAL looks completely pure of this to me, so my conscience is clean. Sure I’d prefer to not be identified with evil, so I do not associate with it. I think I was lucky and successful in separating out PFAL from all the evil you talk about, even if it’s as intense as you say.
A couple months ago, I mentioned on a thread about referring VPW’s books to people, I reported (again) my conversations with JS of the adultery paper fame and how he agreed that the written forms were free of the TVT (Twi Verbal Traditions) that were dangerous.
Mike:
T-Bone,
No I don't want to be identified with someone who is like you describe. No one would.
I’m not sure at all that your description fits VPW. Along with the Pure Evil model the prevails here goes the relatively uncontested notion that the frequency and intensity of the depravity were of the highest nature. I don’t believe evil is that efficient. It gts sloppy and over plays it’s hand all the time in my experience.
T-Bone:
Perhaps if you went through the corps program you would have seen a whole other side of wierwille: witnessed the indoctrination process of his twisted-teachings for the corps program....witnessed the “sloppy” nature of his licentious lifestyle…as he let his guard down around “his kids”…drinking and smoking like it was going out of style…witnessed his inappropriate behavior and teaching methods around adults and teens…or worse yet, what if you were one of the women sexually victimized by wierwille...I can't imagine you still having such a high opinion of him.
yes, then maybe you’d be satisfied to see that evil is NOT THAT efficient, after all. If wierwille carried on like that to the general public he’d have totally blown his persona of “the man of god”. You’re closer to the truth than you think - hypocrites can only maintain their cloak of respectability for so long – Jesus pointed that out:
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others…Matthew 23: 1-7 NIV
== == == ==
Mike:
So, I expect a degree of exaggeration in reports of evil. I came from a Catholic where I was steeped in analysis of sin intensity. I don’t want to severely bias my “fruit data” with your “fruit data.”
I trust the “fruit data” I see from PFAL I see in my own life much more than I trust the collective sight of those here to look inside someone else’s’ life for “fruit data.”
T-Bone:
I don’t think you understand Jesus’ criteria for judging fruit; Jesus never instructed us to pick and choose fruit that appeals to us…he never portrayed that a life of discernment was like going to a farmer's market and seeing which fruit is ripe, which fruit we prefer - his instructions regard how to determine if a tree (a person) is good or evil...and he never said anything about trying to look INSIDE someone else’s life for “fruit data”…Jesus said a bad tree is recognized by its fruit…an evil man brings evil things OUT of the evil stored up inside him - in other words, it's something we can SEE - it's not something hidden from view:
33 “Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. 35 A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. 36 But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. 37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”…Matthew 12: 33-37 NIV
No, we can know true prophets also by their fruits in our lives.
You don't comprehend, your still going against what Jesus Christ said: You will know them by their fruit. Asking how much fruit does nothing but cloud the issue.
Again, you have it wrong. I never said how MUCH fruit. I said ask WHERE is the fruit to look at. Try reading all my posts on this recently. You consistently fail to see what I am talking about about the LOCATION of the fruits to look at. Are you doing this on purpose?
...
So, tell me, how would I see the fruit in your life? How would I know whether or not your lying to me?
AGAIN, YOU MISSED IT!
If you had understood my point you would know that I was telling you that the ONLY fruit that you can see is the fruit in YOUR own life.
You DO seem to get the point that if I lied to about the fruit in my life it's because you can't see inside my life to see my fruit. You can ONLY see the fruit in your OWN life.
EVERY single time you have missed this point of which fruit are we to look at in judging prophets to be true of not.
Once again, hotshot, the responsibility of the communication lies with the communicator. Whether I get it or not is YOUR FAULT. It's not my responsibility to attempt to decode what you write. It's your responsibility to write it in a way that can be easily understood.
I don't understand a story or article in a magazine, I put it down and walk away. I don't have the author calling me screaming I missed his point. It's his responsibility to make sure his point is clear.
Now, as far as this only fruit in your life drek goes. That's a recipe for disaster.
Ted Bundy looked like an average guy who drove a Volkswagen and volunteered for his political party. I'm sure he put good fruit in many of the young ladies lives that went with him and were never seen alive again.
Same with John Wayne Gacy, I'm sure he put joy into a lot of those children's hearts when he was doing his clown routine, but then his other side came out.
So, you fruit others put into our lives theory is wrong. Many people put good fruit in our lives with the intent of setting us up to do evil.
Further, the text says, "Ye will know them by THEIR fruit," NOT ye shall know them by YOUR fruit...
Remember, PLAF, God has a purpose for everything he says, when he says it....
10 hours ago, Mike said:
I’he subject I have been alluding here in several posts is an extended one. It’s the subject of going in and out of fellowship. How much can we do with God in fellowship, then we go out and what happens? Then we get back in fellowship.
It gets to be an even bigger topic when we consider us forgiving others for their past sins, and how do we deal with the future in their company. It’s a vast topic, that I have not the time for now, and this would need a separate thread to go as far aw we did ten years ago with it.
Yah, you allude a lot but never post anything of substance.
It's like I asked you before:
What's with all this hemming and hawing (you call it alluding)? Did Peter beat around the bush after Pentacost? Did Paul dance people around at Mars Hill?
If you had understood my point you would know that I was telling you that the ONLY fruit that you can see is the fruit in YOUR own life.
You DO seem to get the point that if I lied to about the fruit in my life it's because you can't see inside my life to see my fruit. You can ONLY see the fruit in your OWN life.
EVERY single time you have missed this point of which fruit are we to look at in judging prophets to be true of not.
This is completely illogical. Why would Jesus instruct his followers that they were to know people by their fruit if they were not able to see the fruit in other people's lives? So VP's words are "God-breathed", but Jesus words, we can just ignore those, because Jesus didn't understand your point that his followers could only see the fruit in their own lives.
And you are getting lecturing in your tone here. Cap letters, every single time, saying people are missing your point. No Mike, just like your postulate about VP's last teaching, we don't miss your point. Your point is illogical to a normal human being. There is no logic reasoning with you. You have a delusional viewpoint. It has come now to where you are trolling this forum on about 3 different threads, all juggling to keep up on answering everyone. All to try and convince the GSC posters that some of VP's written works were God-breathed.
I think I'm going to drop out of this conversation now. No offense, but even though you sound nice, you are either trolling this forum or you have some challenges I don't think are conducive to conversation.
I am saying that you have to look properly at the fruit, as Jesus said.
I think (not totally sure) that means that we look for the fruit WHERE we are able to see it efficiently: within ourselves.
It's hard to see ALL the fruit ACCURATELY in someone else's life.
It's much easier and more accurate to look at the ALL the fruit in your own life.
I look at the fruit post-1985 TWI produced in my life and I don't like it. I know TWI's fruit in my life is not good. I quit allowing them to teach me, gradually by 1987.
I look at the fruit of PFAL in my life, especially the more refined written focus since 1998, and Iam happy with what I see. The fruit I see is good, and tht's PART of my proof that PFAL is God-breathed. It's a proof you have to perform to see its merits. I did.
I am trying to ACCURATELY follow what Jesus Christ told us in that passage.
Jesus didn't instruct them that they would know themselves by looking at all the fruit in their own life, he instructed them that they would know OTHERS by their fruit. Exactly the opposite of your main idea you are cap yelling that we are missing.
I'm amused by our brief interaction here, and while I think it opens up a fascinating discussion, it is one that is off-topic here. Agree?
Everyone else:
If you're wondering where I am in this discussion, there are multiple explanations for my relative lack of participation.
First and foremost, I consider Mike's thesis factually debunked. There is nothing to discuss. He has never answered for the plain and obvious factual errors and contradictions in PFAL and the writings of VPW that discredit his thesis conclusively all by themselves. If he ever gets around to it, maybe I'll jump back in. But I see no need to revisit the endless cycle of "dodge, deflect, deny, anything other than admit an error is an error" that is his stated m.o. Honestly, why debate someone who announces upfront that he will not debate with integrity?
My apologies if this sounds like a personal attack. I'm struggling to separate criticism of the person from criticism of his stated m.o.
I have nothing to say about the person that would not result in a violation of GSC rules.
Which brings up another reason for my relative silence: I humbly recognize that a decent portion of the GSC rules appear to have been developed to address the various ways I behaved in dealing with Mike. Lots of things I said and did would be considered blatant rule violations today. While I have not discussed this with anyone recently, and I only discussed it minimally with people years ago, I do not believe this is a coincidence. I also do not believe I am able to disguise my feelings enough to avoid rule violations if I should re-engage in the discussion.
Housekeeping: I DO believe I am capable of behaving fairly as a moderator. So for no one has asked for that, and if that should happen, I'll see if any other mods are available to take action before I step in. And I will advise Mike personally if there is something I do that he would like to challenge.
Somewhere in this list of why I'm not participating is the fact that my beliefs have changed between the original discussions and today. As such, it would be too easy for people to dismiss my comments because I do not believe ANYTHING can be "God-breathed," so how can I fairly judge whether VPW's writings are? (My answer: By holding VPW's writings to their own definitions of the characteristics of the "God-breathed Word." Surely it cannot be God-breathed and yet be incorrect about what God-breathed means!)
All said, in the olden days these discussions were shipped to doctrinal. I am inclined to move it again. The only reason I haven't done it already is that the GSC has changed so much that this conversation may not be the nuisance in About the Way that it once was considered. Nonetheless, the question of whether a written work is "God-breathed" automatically falls into doctrinal, for the record.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
63
252
68
130
Popular Days
Jan 25
114
Jan 6
58
Jan 9
51
Jan 3
45
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 63 posts
Mike 252 posts
waysider 68 posts
So_crates 130 posts
Popular Days
Jan 25 2018
114 posts
Jan 6 2018
58 posts
Jan 9 2018
51 posts
Jan 3 2018
45 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."........Thomas Paine.
penworks
Here's an idea: we each drop out of this topic and go read a book.
DontWorryBeHappy
Can anyone tell me dictor paul's scriptural position on the word "Covfefe"? What is the true meaning of that word?? Mike's textual criticism, and use of the basic dictor "keys to research", is as made
Posted Images
Twinky
Impossible.
Unless maybe you use a spiritual sword to do the separating out of PFAL from TWI. Are you meaning to separate out the fruit of PFAL from the fruit of TWI in general, is that what you were saying? But TWI is PFAL in action. No-one else has PFAL. Therefore, no-one else can be modelling PFAL to the world. Therefore, whatever fruit there may be is fruit of PFAL as manifest as fruit of TWI.
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, [and of PFAL from TWI], and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
So_crates, he can't look any verses up.
Even if they're copied into PFAL or the collaterals, they're certainly not interpreted "right where they're written" in PFAL materials. Remember, all the Bible is suspect, probably corrupt. Therefore, direct Bible quotes are all suspect and corrupt. And in any event, they're only "background."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Mike are you really sure you want to be identified with an unrepentant and devious sinner like wierwille? It seems like you expend more energy to defend his licentious lifestyle here and on other threads than you do in logical arguments over a doctrinal issue. And that makes it look like you have no other basis for your viewpoint other than “doctor taught this and that settles it”.
wierwille never gave any indication of repentance to all those he victimized. Did he ever apologize and offer to set things right to those he sexually molested, to those who he used every form of coercion and manipulation to silence them from speaking out about what he did to them, to those he stole from by his plagiarism?
you talk of separating the fruit. what Jesus said in Matthew 7:15-20 was that we will know what type of tree it is by its fruit; that’s how we’re to be on the lookout for false prophets…Jesus never advised us to look for any fruit that is redeemable from a bad tree:
15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them….Matthew 7:15-20
I’m sorry to sound like a broken record but whenever you get into your defensive mode for wierwille I cannot in good conscience stand by while another coat of paint is applied to that whitewashed sepulcher. And as a Christian I feel duty-bound to warn others of this treacherous deception. I really try to give you the benefit of a doubt that this is not your intention (to be deceptive) , that you are merely deceived yourself. But you seem so sincere and persistent in your defense of wierwille that I sometimes wonder if that sincerity is just an act – I mean, to me it seems so mind-boggling that anyone in their right mind would defend such a consummate hypocrite, liar, thief, plagiarist, and sexual predator. The Bible does not mince words about false prophets and false teachers; we are never instructed to look for the good in their teachings:
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment. 10 This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh and despise authority.
Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings; 11 yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not heap abuse on such beings when bringing judgment on them from the Lord. 12 But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish.
13 They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. 14 With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! 15 They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Bezer, who loved the wages of wickedness. 16 But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—an animal without speech—who spoke with a human voice and restrained the prophet’s madness.
17 These people are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. 18 For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. 19 They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for “people are slaves to whatever has mastered them.” 20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22 Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.”…II Peter 2: 1-22 NIV
Edited by T-Boneformatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I did look it up. I did know the context was prophets.
The point you're not seeing yet is that I'm humbly asking "Which fruit? Where?"
You seem to be answering this question of mine with the fruit the prophets produce in their own lives.
I ask you how do I get a full and accurate view of that fruit in his private, personal life? I can see some, with some accuracy, not not nearly all. And how do I go back in time and ACCURATELY look at ALL the fruit the prophet produced then in his own life?
Now, when it comes to me judging a prophet by the fruit he produces (or helps produce) in MY life, that's much easier. If I want to obey Jesus' command, here is where I will put most of my effort.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I am sorry to hear this. I believe it. I know you are not lying to me.
I think you are lumping together PFAL with TWI-1,2,3.
I think it would be a very difficult thing for you to separate them out.
I was lucky here. My devotion to video PFAL went from 1971-87, and I had little interference from TWI. I was VERY lucky in that I hovered very close to top leadership wherever I lived, yet was never snagged by the Corps hassles.
Then I took a relative break from my respect for video 1987-1998. Not a total break, but lowered focus and respect. I was not connected to TWI nor to any splinter groups, though I sampled from all.
In 1998 I started focusing on written PFAL.
So it's EASY for me to separate PFAL, see it's good fruit in my life for 20 years and far from TWI, and not confuse it with all the stench that the ministry became.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
You forgot the word "false." Freudian slip?
You don't comprehend, your still going against what Jesus Christ said: You will know them by their fruit. Asking how much fruit does nothing but cloud the issue.
How many women have to be raped? How many people have to be abused? Does it really make a difference?
(points over Mikes head) Look Mike there goes the point. You seem to want to cloud the issue. Christ said you will see the fruit (how else would you know the tree by its fruit}.
So, tell me, how would I see the fruit in your life? How would I know whether or not your lying to me?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Please agree with me that this is all hyperbole or sarcasm or venting, and that you know none of is actually factual. Right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Yah, well, where did I get the principle of believing from? Need I enumerate all the times I walked out on believing and fell flat on my face?
Not as difficult as you think. See above.
All any of the PLAF principles did for me was make me 42 years older
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Concerning vpw and whether or not he repented, I think it's good to go over what he said and did, and not what we THINK.
In his final hours of life, one of our posters actually had interacted with vpw. vpw was dying of cancer. His "Law of Believing" had completely failed him, as he was unable to just believe away the cancer in a manner consistent with decades of his teaching. At moments like that, anyone would be thinking a lot about their mortality, about what they'd done so far, what would happen after they were gone, what they were to do now, in the little time they had left. vpw had plenty of time to think over the rapes, druggings, molestations, plagiarisms, abuses of alcohol and tobacco that led him to that moment. What was his overwhelming thought in what he was sure were the final hours of his life?
He was reviewing it in his memory, and reviewing it more. According to him, he was trying to figure out when he'd displeased God Almighty that he was unable to believe himself healthy. He was unable to come up with ANYTHING, which is why he kept searching and searching.
For those of you who skipped over that, let's look at it from another angle.
Does God Almighty like rapes, ,molestations, druggings, etc? No, he does not. Do they displease Him? Yes, they do. Did vpw know this? vpw supposedly spent his life teaching the Bible and about what God Almighty wants. If vpw, after all that time, still didn't know those were wrong, then he had to have been quite remarkable as a figure of immense ineptitude among Christians. one who could preach that God Almighty was pleased by sinning and displeased by temperance. If vpw really DID know, then he was completely fooling himself as to whether or not his rapes, molestations, etc counted among the rapes and molestations to which God Almighty disapproved.
Did vpw repent? vpw didn't even repent ON HIS DEATHBED.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
WW:
You stated he was "born with an overabundance of brains and brawn." You stated that he was "OVERgifted."
Mike:
"I also stated, and several times (and several times ignored by you) that a lot of people in the top 1% genetically are in that category. I identify him as being in the smart tail of the bell curve. Thereare many millions of such people. I was just saying, in a poetic way, that he was not averageC."
The thing is, Mike, you're putting him in "the top 1% genetically." The man's demonstrated accomplishments are- STATISTICALLY- strictly average. That's not opinion- when charted, he fell in the middle of the bell curve, where most people fall. Statistically, that's not below average, but that's not above it, either. For that matter, saying that performance is "genetic" is not measurable without reams of data which neither you nor I, or the Census Bureau have. Performance can be measured, but not its reason. Is that why you keep invoking "genetics", because it's not disproven that he had good genes, so you're going to claim he did? They're a complete non-issue sinc they can neither be measured nor matter in any material discussion.
WW:
The man's brains and brawn were strictly average- as has been shown beyond any REASONABLE doubt. "
Mike:
"Oh MY! We have a difference of opinion. Know what I want to do about it? Debate it? I don't care about this issue at all. I said what I said 10 years ago, forget the context, and moved on. When are you going to be honest about this? HMMMMM?"
You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. (DP Moynihan) When his performance was charted, it fell into "average", as it should have. I opened this up for discussion and possible debate if someone felt it wasn't definitive. I noticed a silence of disputing the facts. Oh, and let's be honest about things: You just said right now that you think vpw was in "the top 1%" when discussing "brains and brawn." There's no evidence to support this, and the evidence at hand is pretty consistent that he was pretty average. You're pretty emotional about how this plays out-vpw shown to be an AVERAGE athlete and AVERAGE student. Yet you insist you've "MOVED ON."
WW:
"You don't have "a healthy distance" from him."
Mike:
"He died 32 years ago! I have distanced myself from several aspects of his life and personality. What God worked out with him I admire and appreciate and celebrate. "
You keep insisting an AVERAGE athlete and AVERAGE student was in the top 1%. Of a man whose life supposedly didn't rely on either. And he died 32 years ago. That's not a healthy distance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
T-Bone,
No I don't want to be identified with someone who is like you describe. No one would.
I’m not sure at all that your description fits VPW. Along with the Pure Evil model the prevails here goes the relatively uncontested notion that the frequency and intensity of the depravity were of the highest nature. I don’t believe evil is that efficient. It gts sloppy and over plays it’s hand all the time in my experience.
So, I expect a degree of exaggeration in reports of evil. I came from a Catholic where I was steeped in analysis of sin intensity. I don’t want to severely bias my “fruit data” with your “fruit data.”
I trust the “fruit data” I see from PFAL I see in my own life much more than I trust the collective sight of those here to look inside someone else’s’ life for “fruit data.”
A judgment of the level of evil that thrived in VPWs life and how often it happened is not something I could trust. It is just not on as sound a footing as my judgment of the “fruit data” in my life from PFAL, and separated from TWI rotten fruit.
***
The subject I have been alluding here in several posts is an extended one. It’s the subject of going in and out of fellowship. How much can we do with God in fellowship, then we go out and what happens? Then we get back in fellowship.
It gets to be an even bigger topic when we consider us forgiving others for their past sins, and how do we deal with the future in their company. It’s a vast topic, that I have not the time for now, and this would need a separate thread to go as far aw we did ten years ago with it.
Fortunately, the end product of PFAL looks completely pure of this to me, so my conscience is clean. Sure I’d prefer to not be identified with evil, so I do not associate with it. I think I was lucky and successful in separating out PFAL from all the evil you talk about, even if it’s as intense as you say.
A couple months ago, I mentioned on a thread about referring VPW’s books to people, I reported (again) my conversations with JS of the adultery paper fame and how he agreed that the written forms were free of the TVT (Twi Verbal Traditions) that were dangerous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I think we all were wobbly in our application and understanding of the Law of Believing. From my observations we drifted more into TVTs (Twi Verbal Traditions) which were launched from our audio memorization of the film class. Our knowledge of the written forms on this Law were scant and fading in large form. Updates in the Way Mag were not rigorously included. We all drifted from the purity pf PFAL, and well before we mastered it. Many mastered the audio only.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Really, Mike? Sure, you'd appreciate it, but should you really expect it?
Pinball Wizard, Mike. Until you become like the Pinball Wizard instead of the pinball, it just ain't gonna happen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Mike:
T-Bone,
No I don't want to be identified with someone who is like you describe. No one would.
I’m not sure at all that your description fits VPW. Along with the Pure Evil model the prevails here goes the relatively uncontested notion that the frequency and intensity of the depravity were of the highest nature. I don’t believe evil is that efficient. It gts sloppy and over plays it’s hand all the time in my experience.
T-Bone:
Perhaps if you went through the corps program you would have seen a whole other side of wierwille: witnessed the indoctrination process of his twisted-teachings for the corps program....witnessed the “sloppy” nature of his licentious lifestyle…as he let his guard down around “his kids”…drinking and smoking like it was going out of style…witnessed his inappropriate behavior and teaching methods around adults and teens…or worse yet, what if you were one of the women sexually victimized by wierwille...I can't imagine you still having such a high opinion of him.
yes, then maybe you’d be satisfied to see that evil is NOT THAT efficient, after all. If wierwille carried on like that to the general public he’d have totally blown his persona of “the man of god”. You’re closer to the truth than you think - hypocrites can only maintain their cloak of respectability for so long – Jesus pointed that out:
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others…Matthew 23: 1-7 NIV
== == == ==
Mike:
So, I expect a degree of exaggeration in reports of evil. I came from a Catholic where I was steeped in analysis of sin intensity. I don’t want to severely bias my “fruit data” with your “fruit data.”
I trust the “fruit data” I see from PFAL I see in my own life much more than I trust the collective sight of those here to look inside someone else’s’ life for “fruit data.”
T-Bone:
I don’t think you understand Jesus’ criteria for judging fruit; Jesus never instructed us to pick and choose fruit that appeals to us…he never portrayed that a life of discernment was like going to a farmer's market and seeing which fruit is ripe, which fruit we prefer - his instructions regard how to determine if a tree (a person) is good or evil...and he never said anything about trying to look INSIDE someone else’s life for “fruit data”…Jesus said a bad tree is recognized by its fruit…an evil man brings evil things OUT of the evil stored up inside him - in other words, it's something we can SEE - it's not something hidden from view:
33 “Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. 35 A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. 36 But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. 37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”…Matthew 12: 33-37 NIV
Edited by T-Boneformatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
My quotes in black
Mike's in red
My comments below
_____________________________
You forgot the word "false." Freudian slip?
No, we can know true prophets also by their fruits in our lives.
You don't comprehend, your still going against what Jesus Christ said: You will know them by their fruit. Asking how much fruit does nothing but cloud the issue.
Again, you have it wrong. I never said how MUCH fruit. I said ask WHERE is the fruit to look at. Try reading all my posts on this recently. You consistently fail to see what I am talking about about the LOCATION of the fruits to look at. Are you doing this on purpose?
...
So, tell me, how would I see the fruit in your life? How would I know whether or not your lying to me?
AGAIN, YOU MISSED IT!
If you had understood my point you would know that I was telling you that the ONLY fruit that you can see is the fruit in YOUR own life.
You DO seem to get the point that if I lied to about the fruit in my life it's because you can't see inside my life to see my fruit. You can ONLY see the fruit in your OWN life.
EVERY single time you have missed this point of which fruit are we to look at in judging prophets to be true of not.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Once again, hotshot, the responsibility of the communication lies with the communicator. Whether I get it or not is YOUR FAULT. It's not my responsibility to attempt to decode what you write. It's your responsibility to write it in a way that can be easily understood.
I don't understand a story or article in a magazine, I put it down and walk away. I don't have the author calling me screaming I missed his point. It's his responsibility to make sure his point is clear.
Now, as far as this only fruit in your life drek goes. That's a recipe for disaster.
Ted Bundy looked like an average guy who drove a Volkswagen and volunteered for his political party. I'm sure he put good fruit in many of the young ladies lives that went with him and were never seen alive again.
Same with John Wayne Gacy, I'm sure he put joy into a lot of those children's hearts when he was doing his clown routine, but then his other side came out.
So, you fruit others put into our lives theory is wrong. Many people put good fruit in our lives with the intent of setting us up to do evil.
Further, the text says, "Ye will know them by THEIR fruit," NOT ye shall know them by YOUR fruit...
Remember, PLAF, God has a purpose for everything he says, when he says it....
Yah, you allude a lot but never post anything of substance.
It's like I asked you before:
What's with all this hemming and hawing (you call it alluding)? Did Peter beat around the bush after Pentacost? Did Paul dance people around at Mars Hill?
Did Saint Vic tell us to speak with boldness?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
AGAIN, YOU MISSED IT!
If you had understood my point you would know that I was telling you that the ONLY fruit that you can see is the fruit in YOUR own life.
You DO seem to get the point that if I lied to about the fruit in my life it's because you can't see inside my life to see my fruit. You can ONLY see the fruit in your OWN life.
EVERY single time you have missed this point of which fruit are we to look at in judging prophets to be true of not.
--------------------------------------------------------
This is completely illogical. Why would Jesus instruct his followers that they were to know people by their fruit if they were not able to see the fruit in other people's lives? So VP's words are "God-breathed", but Jesus words, we can just ignore those, because Jesus didn't understand your point that his followers could only see the fruit in their own lives.
And you are getting lecturing in your tone here. Cap letters, every single time, saying people are missing your point. No Mike, just like your postulate about VP's last teaching, we don't miss your point. Your point is illogical to a normal human being. There is no logic reasoning with you. You have a delusional viewpoint. It has come now to where you are trolling this forum on about 3 different threads, all juggling to keep up on answering everyone. All to try and convince the GSC posters that some of VP's written works were God-breathed.
I think I'm going to drop out of this conversation now. No offense, but even though you sound nice, you are either trolling this forum or you have some challenges I don't think are conducive to conversation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Jesus didn't instruct them that they would know themselves by looking at all the fruit in their own life, he instructed them that they would know OTHERS by their fruit. Exactly the opposite of your main idea you are cap yelling that we are missing.
NO MIKE YOU DIDN"T READ JESUS WORDS CLOSELY
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Chockfull,
I'm amused by our brief interaction here, and while I think it opens up a fascinating discussion, it is one that is off-topic here. Agree?
Everyone else:
If you're wondering where I am in this discussion, there are multiple explanations for my relative lack of participation.
First and foremost, I consider Mike's thesis factually debunked. There is nothing to discuss. He has never answered for the plain and obvious factual errors and contradictions in PFAL and the writings of VPW that discredit his thesis conclusively all by themselves. If he ever gets around to it, maybe I'll jump back in. But I see no need to revisit the endless cycle of "dodge, deflect, deny, anything other than admit an error is an error" that is his stated m.o. Honestly, why debate someone who announces upfront that he will not debate with integrity?
My apologies if this sounds like a personal attack. I'm struggling to separate criticism of the person from criticism of his stated m.o.
I have nothing to say about the person that would not result in a violation of GSC rules.
Which brings up another reason for my relative silence: I humbly recognize that a decent portion of the GSC rules appear to have been developed to address the various ways I behaved in dealing with Mike. Lots of things I said and did would be considered blatant rule violations today. While I have not discussed this with anyone recently, and I only discussed it minimally with people years ago, I do not believe this is a coincidence. I also do not believe I am able to disguise my feelings enough to avoid rule violations if I should re-engage in the discussion.
Housekeeping: I DO believe I am capable of behaving fairly as a moderator. So for no one has asked for that, and if that should happen, I'll see if any other mods are available to take action before I step in. And I will advise Mike personally if there is something I do that he would like to challenge.
Somewhere in this list of why I'm not participating is the fact that my beliefs have changed between the original discussions and today. As such, it would be too easy for people to dismiss my comments because I do not believe ANYTHING can be "God-breathed," so how can I fairly judge whether VPW's writings are? (My answer: By holding VPW's writings to their own definitions of the characteristics of the "God-breathed Word." Surely it cannot be God-breathed and yet be incorrect about what God-breathed means!)
All said, in the olden days these discussions were shipped to doctrinal. I am inclined to move it again. The only reason I haven't done it already is that the GSC has changed so much that this conversation may not be the nuisance in About the Way that it once was considered. Nonetheless, the question of whether a written work is "God-breathed" automatically falls into doctrinal, for the record.
In any event, happy debating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
me too regarding amusement, fascinating discussion, and off topic. so i guess i need to start a thread in doctrinal / faith area for this.
Keyser Soze lives on !!!!!
Edited by chockfullLink 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.