And here was me thinking this thread (and the other) had gone very quiet. Quiet, because Mike is busy writing his "manifesto" and none of us here want to disturb him in that most important act.
""Man’s writings are not trustworthy like God-breathed writings are. Not this great writer’s, not that great writer’s. Even some of MY own writings are in that untrustworthy category, and I was given the job of putting together the GENUINE God-breathed writings."""
And here was me thinking this thread (and the other) had gone very quiet. Quiet, because Mike is busy writing his "manifesto" and none of us here want to disturb him in that most important act.
There’s been two trains of thought on this thread and unfortunately someone has a one-track mind. When So_crates started this thread I was expecting Mike to present a thesis - arguments or proofs that PFAL is God-breathed. But as WordWolf predicted on page 2 – this was not going to happen:
On 1/3/2018 at 10:01 PM, WordWolf said:
This will go on for pages. Then he will eventually vanish. Later, he will claim he answered everybody and provided proof and nobody could dispute him. I don't think he even does it on purpose. He's not seeing the same reality most people are. So, where you see him stall for pages, he "remembers" he actually answered lots of questions. If you want to know what that's like, watch "Lord of the Rings-Fellowship of the RIng", and follow the ring in the scene where Bilbo is supposed to leave it behind as a gift for Frodo. I've shown that scene to people, prefacing it with "follow the ring in this scene", and periodically pausing and asking "Where is the ring now?" to make sure they realize Bilbo's not quite experiencing the reality he thinks he is, at that point.
Don't expect Mike to have learned anything, either. He once made a claim about the Bible. I refuted it verse by verse, and ended with a comment that he would probably make the same disproven claim again 6 months later. Sure enough, 6 months later, he did.
Though some posters have tried to keep him on the thesis track by asking pointed questions – instead Mike has once again continued on a pre-existing line of thought – the manifesto track – just declaring his intentions, motives and views – and as such no arguments or proofs needed…I’m tempted to say this thread has been derailed from So_crates’ intended course…but still I always appreciate the clarity and perspectives Grease Spotters bring to bear on all things related to wierwille doctrine and practice.
He's saying the untrustworthiness of man's man's writings is extreme. It's so extreme it even infects his own writings (some). You'd think he'd be immune to that, since he had the job of putting together PFAL. But no. This untrustworthiness infects EVEN his writings.
So, even if we were to buy into this: your saying Saint Vic is telling us his writings are worthless.
There is no way to tell what's God-breathe and what's not, so the whole discussion is academic.
It's the old Skittles problem: You know two Skittles in the pile are poisonous, do you eat a handful?
In this case, you know some of Saint Vic's writings are not God-breathe, do you follow them to the letter?
In this case, you know some of Saint Vic's writings are not God-breathe, do you follow them to the letter?
As I posted, there are other passages that help to narrow down which are God-breathed and which are not.
In a 1979 Way Mag he points to the "book and magazine form" God's Word was taking shape in. In his last teaching in 1985 he points to the "writings that came with the class." There are a few more. I'm not finished working them all.
As I posted, there are other passages that help to narrow down which are God-breathed and which are not.
In a 1979 Way Mag he points to the "book and magazine form" God's Word was taking shape in. In his last teaching in 1985 he points to the "writings that came with the class." There are a few more. I'm not finished working them all.
Waysider, stop baiting the silly beggar. Then, he'll have time to present his manifesto or thesis or whatever it is. Baiting him just prolongs the agony (from his PoV) or amusement (from our PoV).
As I posted, there are other passages that help to narrow down which are God-breathed and which are not.
In a 1979 Way Mag he points to the "book and magazine form" God's Word was taking shape in. In his last teaching in 1985 he points to the "writings that came with the class." There are a few more. I'm not finished working them all.
So ...can you quote here one passage or section that you think is God-breathed?
Waysider, stop baiting the silly beggar. Then, he'll have time to present his manifesto or thesis or whatever it is. Baiting him just prolongs the agony (from his PoV) or amusement (from our PoV).
Don't worry. He'll never post it. That would open the floor to honest debate.
As I posted, there are other passages that help to narrow down which are God-breathed and which are not.
In a 1979 Way Mag he points to the "book and magazine form" God's Word was taking shape in. In his last teaching in 1985 he points to the "writings that came with the class." There are a few more. I'm not finished working them all.
So then what's the test, in 25 words or less, that's, according to Saint Vic, supposed to tell us what's God-breathe and what's not?
There’s been two trains of thought on this thread and unfortunately someone has a one-track mind. When So_crates started this thread I was expecting Mike to present a thesis - arguments or proofs that PFAL is God-breathed. But as WordWolf predicted on page 2 – this was not going to happen:
Though some posters have tried to keep him on the thesis track by asking pointed questions – instead Mike has once again continued on a pre-existing line of thought – the manifesto track – just declaring his intentions, motives and views – and as such no arguments or proofs needed…I’m tempted to say this thread has been derailed from So_crates’ intended course…but still I always appreciate the clarity and perspectives Grease Spotters bring to bear on all things related to wierwille doctrine and practice.
All aboard ! Next stop - who knows?!?!
Cho - - cho - - - chugachugachuga - - Chooooo choooo
Waysider, stop baiting the silly beggar. Then, he'll have time to present his manifesto or thesis or whatever it is. Baiting him just prolongs the agony (from his PoV) or amusement (from our PoV).
Please speak for yourself, Twinky. I'll write whatever I write, whomever I write it to, in the speed I feel is best.
I don't regard questions and simple incorrect statements to be bait, especially to some trolling or bullying behavior. I regard them as CLARIFIERS.
It's hard enough for me to organize how I am to write on a complex topic, but it's SO much harder to deal with an audience that is riddled with inaccurate expectations of my writing. There are just SO MANY instances of some poster coming up and saying my thesis is stupid for such and such a reason, only to find they had it wrong in their original assessment of what I am even proposing. Since people have much confusion regarding just my thesis alone, how are they going to follow any kind of proof I write up?
Not only does the complication of "thesis confusion" gets cleared up a little from smalltalk, but pieces of my thesis can get a practice write-up.
Please speak for yourself, Twinky. I'll write whatever I write, whomever I write it to, in the speed I feel is best.
I don't regard questions and simple incorrect statements to be bait, especially to some trolling or bullying behavior. I regard them as CLARIFIERS.
It's hard enough for me to organize how I am to write on a complex topic, but it's SO much harder to deal with an audience that is riddled with inaccurate expectations of my writing. There are just SO MANY instances of some poster coming up and saying my thesis is stupid for such and such a reason, only to find they had it wrong in their original assessment of what I am even proposing. Since people have much confusion regarding just my thesis alone, how are they going to follow any kind of proof I write up?
Not only does the complication of "thesis confusion" gets cleared up a little from smalltalk, but pieces of my thesis can get a practice write-up.
Mike, until you stop posting and work on your thesis, you'll never get it done. As you must be aware, most GSC posters don't believe you'll ever get it done anyway. Being a pinball just plays into those expectations.
It doesn't matter what you are proposing. It will only matter if you ever get to doing it.
Your rationalizations of clarifiers and small talk simply reveal your personal excuses for never getting it done.
It's hard enough for me to organize how I am to write on a complex topic, but it's SO much harder to deal with an audience that is riddled with inaccurate expectations of my writing. There are just SO MANY instances of some poster coming up and saying my thesis is stupid for such and such a reason, only to find they had it wrong in their original assessment of what I am even proposing. Since people have much confusion regarding just my thesis alone, how are they going to follow any kind of proof I write up?
You've never heard of Occum's Razor?
A topic is only as complex as you make it.
When I ask you for the formula to find the area of a circle, I don't need the history of pi, the history of geometry, Archimedes biography, and a dissertation on the use of circles. The only thing I need to know is pi R-square.
If I'm asking for the time, I don't need someone to tell me how to build a clock.
As a matter of fact, my experience tells me the longer and more meandering an answer, the more likely someone's trying to con me. (Like the man said, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.)
So, in the spirit of that clarification you want to do:
So then what's the test, in 25 words or less, that's, according to Saint Vic, supposed to tell us what's God-breathe and what's not?
It's hard enough for me to organize how I am to write on a complex topic, but it's SO much harder to deal with an audience that is riddled with inaccurate expectations of my writing. ...
Not only does the complication of "thesis confusion" gets cleared up a little from smalltalk, but pieces of my thesis can get a practice write-up.
So why don't you just get on and write what you want to say? Stop "dealing with the audience" by dribs and drabs, and get on with the "main course."
"Practice write-up"? Huh? If you took on board what people said, and refined your - whatever you're pretending to write - then it could be a practice write-up. But this drib and drab style, drip-feeding your morsels to an unappreciative audience, isn't practice - it's procrastination.
Mike, until you stop posting and work on your thesis, you'll never get it done. As you must be aware, most GSC posters don't believe you'll ever get it done anyway. Being a pinball just plays into those expectations.
It doesn't matter what you are proposing. It will only matter if you ever get to doing it.
Your rationalizations of clarifiers and small talk simply reveal your personal excuses for never getting it done.
My priorities are not the same as your priorities.
I’ll go at the speed that suits me, and in the format that suits me.
That may change from day to day.
FOR SURE any product I do finally put out will NOT suit you, right?
I mean, isn’t that a documented given already? You all are bound and determined to reject, pick apart, deride, mock, and DISOBEY any directive or plan of action my proof points to. So why should I fret about suiting you now, before I deliver the finished product?
IF it takes me twenty years, think of all the frustration that would cause you. Why don’t you focus on the logic of my posts instead of the timing and format?
***
There’s still, also, the unfinished business of to whom I address it. Actually, I could “address” the logic to be compelling to the man-on-the-street, while I literally address it to you folks here.There’s lots of decisions to make there.
***
Just today I, as I was brainstorming through the posts of the last few days, I happened on an new tack. Another proof I’ve discussed much here is this:How will the genuine Christ Jesus PROVE to you who he says he is at the gathering together?
I mean a proof that he is NOT the anti-Christ, who could be a convincing counterfeit of the genuine. How do you know you got the genuine Christ in the end. What would be the ULTIMATE proof of this?
Sounds trivial, until you actually think about it a little. Even a tiny discussion of this side-topic would give me lots of hints as to how to eventually put something together that would stimulate the LEAST amount of rejection, pickings apart, derisions, mockings, and disobedience.
***
And those of you who are (or were) believers in the God-breathed ancient scriptures, might you still have in your possession an old proof that got you started on that track? I think some you might be pretty hard pressed to come up with such a proof. Even current believers in perfect God-breathed documents in the days of old, usually back off real fast if given a challenge to prove such a fundamental belief.How fast would you folks back off? Do any of you still witness?
***
In mathematical proofs, a common strategy it to take a well known problem and its well known proof and try to get it to fit with another completely different problem.
A simple case of this is differential equations. Equation A has a known solution. Equation B has no known solution. Both equations are manipulated in ways appropriate with the established laws. Eventually, a happy similarity between the two equations is noticed. The two equations can be then manipulated in such a way that they look like each other. FINALLY, the solution to A can be modified to fit B, and the proof is done.
I did this wit the mirror riddle. I got it’s proof down tight, first. Then I manipulated it constantly, for 20 years, to make it easier for others to understand. Then suddenly, eureka!, I notice that the form of the mirror riddle makes it look like another, much more difficult riddle.In no time the mirror solution was modified and working for the new tougher riddle.
***
I’m VERY interested in proofs of all sorts. Has anyone ever seen one?I mean a significant proof. A proof of a significant thing as opposed to a proof of a trivial thing.
I’ve hardly ever seen a proof of a significant thing.
If any of you know any proofs well, I want to see how high a bar you’re holding upfor me.
IF it takes me twenty years, think of all the frustration that would cause you. Why don’t you focus on the logic of my posts instead of the timing and format?
We would focus on the logic if there was any. All you do is make claims and then hem and haw about proving them
If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough. -- Albert Einstein
I agree. This business of producing a proof on demand is not well understood by me... yet.
Plus, discussing and "proving" the God-breathed nature of PFAL is something I put down 10 years ago so that I could focus more on LIVING what I had sufficiently proved for myself. My memory of those discussions is being constantly revived, though. Plus I’m finding more and more in my post archive. More and more ideas are occurring to me.
So, hang in there Professor Einstein. I may get this explained simply, eventually.
(snip)...I mean, isn’t that a documented given already? You all are bound and determined to reject, pick apart, deride, mock, and DISOBEY any directive or plan of action my proof points to. So why should I fret about suiting you now, before I deliver the finished product?
...(snip) Just today I, as I was brainstorming through the posts of the last few days, I happened on an new tack. Another proof I’ve discussed much here is this: How will the genuine Christ Jesus PROVE to you who he says he is at the gathering together?
I mean a proof that he is NOT the anti-Christ, who could be a convincing counterfeit of the genuine. How do you know you got the genuine Christ in the end. What would be the ULTIMATE proof of this?
...(snip)
Mike:
You all are bound and determined to reject, pick apart, deride, mock, and DISOBEY any directive or plan of action my proof points to.
T-Bone:
But you haven’t shown any proofs yet
== == == ==
Mike:
Another proof I’ve discussed much here is this: How will the genuine Christ Jesus PROVE to you who he says he is at the gathering together?
T-Bone:
Christ won't have to prove anything; I think the experience itself will make it self-evident – as I Corinthians 13:12 NIV states:
For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
You all are bound and determined to reject, pick apart, deride, mock, and DISOBEY any directive or plan of action my proof points to.
Boy, are you in the wrong business.
Nobody ever told you that it requires a tough skin to write.
What you call rejecting, picking apart, deriding and mocking is pointing to the illogic in you claims. As for your proofs, well I deal with them when and IF I ever see them.
As far as disobeying, just who do you think you are? You make claims and you expect us to OBEY them?
Sorry. I stopped running after outragious claims when I left the ministry.
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
And here was me thinking this thread (and the other) had gone very quiet. Quiet, because Mike is busy writing his "manifesto" and none of us here want to disturb him in that most important act.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Add a word, subtract a word....hahahahahahahaha!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
There’s been two trains of thought on this thread and unfortunately someone has a one-track mind. When So_crates started this thread I was expecting Mike to present a thesis - arguments or proofs that PFAL is God-breathed. But as WordWolf predicted on page 2 – this was not going to happen:
Though some posters have tried to keep him on the thesis track by asking pointed questions – instead Mike has once again continued on a pre-existing line of thought – the manifesto track – just declaring his intentions, motives and views – and as such no arguments or proofs needed…I’m tempted to say this thread has been derailed from So_crates’ intended course…but still I always appreciate the clarity and perspectives Grease Spotters bring to bear on all things related to wierwille doctrine and practice.
All aboard ! Next stop - who knows?!?!
Edited by T-Boneformatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
So, even if we were to buy into this: your saying Saint Vic is telling us his writings are worthless.
There is no way to tell what's God-breathe and what's not, so the whole discussion is academic.
It's the old Skittles problem: You know two Skittles in the pile are poisonous, do you eat a handful?
In this case, you know some of Saint Vic's writings are not God-breathe, do you follow them to the letter?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
As I posted, there are other passages that help to narrow down which are God-breathed and which are not.
In a 1979 Way Mag he points to the "book and magazine form" God's Word was taking shape in. In his last teaching in 1985 he points to the "writings that came with the class." There are a few more. I'm not finished working them all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Examples, please. One or two would be just fine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Waysider, stop baiting the silly beggar. Then, he'll have time to present his manifesto or thesis or whatever it is. Baiting him just prolongs the agony (from his PoV) or amusement (from our PoV).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
So ...can you quote here one passage or section that you think is God-breathed?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Don't worry. He'll never post it. That would open the floor to honest debate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
So then what's the test, in 25 words or less, that's, according to Saint Vic, supposed to tell us what's God-breathe and what's not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Cho - - cho - - - chugachugachuga - - Chooooo choooo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
That sounds like someone with crazy intentions....loco-motive
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Please speak for yourself, Twinky. I'll write whatever I write, whomever I write it to, in the speed I feel is best.
I don't regard questions and simple incorrect statements to be bait, especially to some trolling or bullying behavior. I regard them as CLARIFIERS.
It's hard enough for me to organize how I am to write on a complex topic, but it's SO much harder to deal with an audience that is riddled with inaccurate expectations of my writing. There are just SO MANY instances of some poster coming up and saying my thesis is stupid for such and such a reason, only to find they had it wrong in their original assessment of what I am even proposing. Since people have much confusion regarding just my thesis alone, how are they going to follow any kind of proof I write up?
Not only does the complication of "thesis confusion" gets cleared up a little from smalltalk, but pieces of my thesis can get a practice write-up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Mike, until you stop posting and work on your thesis, you'll never get it done. As you must be aware, most GSC posters don't believe you'll ever get it done anyway. Being a pinball just plays into those expectations.
It doesn't matter what you are proposing. It will only matter if you ever get to doing it.
Your rationalizations of clarifiers and small talk simply reveal your personal excuses for never getting it done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
You've never heard of Occum's Razor?
A topic is only as complex as you make it.
When I ask you for the formula to find the area of a circle, I don't need the history of pi, the history of geometry, Archimedes biography, and a dissertation on the use of circles. The only thing I need to know is pi R-square.
If I'm asking for the time, I don't need someone to tell me how to build a clock.
As a matter of fact, my experience tells me the longer and more meandering an answer, the more likely someone's trying to con me. (Like the man said, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.)
So, in the spirit of that clarification you want to do:
So then what's the test, in 25 words or less, that's, according to Saint Vic, supposed to tell us what's God-breathe and what's not?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
So why don't you just get on and write what you want to say? Stop "dealing with the audience" by dribs and drabs, and get on with the "main course."
"Practice write-up"? Huh? If you took on board what people said, and refined your - whatever you're pretending to write - then it could be a practice write-up. But this drib and drab style, drip-feeding your morsels to an unappreciative audience, isn't practice - it's procrastination.
Put up or shut up, Mike.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Quite clear your name's MIKE not NIKE ("just do it!")
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough. -- Albert Einstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
My priorities are not the same as your priorities.
I’ll go at the speed that suits me, and in the format that suits me.
That may change from day to day.
FOR SURE any product I do finally put out will NOT suit you, right?
I mean, isn’t that a documented given already? You all are bound and determined to reject, pick apart, deride, mock, and DISOBEY any directive or plan of action my proof points to. So why should I fret about suiting you now, before I deliver the finished product?
IF it takes me twenty years, think of all the frustration that would cause you. Why don’t you focus on the logic of my posts instead of the timing and format?
***
There’s still, also, the unfinished business of to whom I address it. Actually, I could “address” the logic to be compelling to the man-on-the-street, while I literally address it to you folks here. There’s lots of decisions to make there.
***
Just today I, as I was brainstorming through the posts of the last few days, I happened on an new tack. Another proof I’ve discussed much here is this: How will the genuine Christ Jesus PROVE to you who he says he is at the gathering together?
I mean a proof that he is NOT the anti-Christ, who could be a convincing counterfeit of the genuine. How do you know you got the genuine Christ in the end. What would be the ULTIMATE proof of this?
Sounds trivial, until you actually think about it a little. Even a tiny discussion of this side-topic would give me lots of hints as to how to eventually put something together that would stimulate the LEAST amount of rejection, pickings apart, derisions, mockings, and disobedience.
***
And those of you who are (or were) believers in the God-breathed ancient scriptures, might you still have in your possession an old proof that got you started on that track? I think some you might be pretty hard pressed to come up with such a proof. Even current believers in perfect God-breathed documents in the days of old, usually back off real fast if given a challenge to prove such a fundamental belief. How fast would you folks back off? Do any of you still witness?
***
In mathematical proofs, a common strategy it to take a well known problem and its well known proof and try to get it to fit with another completely different problem.
A simple case of this is differential equations. Equation A has a known solution. Equation B has no known solution. Both equations are manipulated in ways appropriate with the established laws. Eventually, a happy similarity between the two equations is noticed. The two equations can be then manipulated in such a way that they look like each other. FINALLY, the solution to A can be modified to fit B, and the proof is done.
I did this wit the mirror riddle. I got it’s proof down tight, first. Then I manipulated it constantly, for 20 years, to make it easier for others to understand. Then suddenly, eureka!, I notice that the form of the mirror riddle makes it look like another, much more difficult riddle. In no time the mirror solution was modified and working for the new tougher riddle.
***
I’m VERY interested in proofs of all sorts. Has anyone ever seen one? I mean a significant proof. A proof of a significant thing as opposed to a proof of a trivial thing.
I’ve hardly ever seen a proof of a significant thing.
If any of you know any proofs well, I want to see how high a bar you’re holding up for me.
Show me your proofs!
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
We would focus on the logic if there was any. All you do is make claims and then hem and haw about proving them
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I agree. This business of producing a proof on demand is not well understood by me... yet.
Plus, discussing and "proving" the God-breathed nature of PFAL is something I put down 10 years ago so that I could focus more on LIVING what I had sufficiently proved for myself. My memory of those discussions is being constantly revived, though. Plus I’m finding more and more in my post archive. More and more ideas are occurring to me.
So, hang in there Professor Einstein. I may get this explained simply, eventually.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I get the feeling Christ will return first.
I figure if you could do it, you would.
But, you aren't, so....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Mike:
You all are bound and determined to reject, pick apart, deride, mock, and DISOBEY any directive or plan of action my proof points to.
T-Bone:
But you haven’t shown any proofs yet
== == == ==
Mike:
Another proof I’ve discussed much here is this: How will the genuine Christ Jesus PROVE to you who he says he is at the gathering together?
T-Bone:
Christ won't have to prove anything; I think the experience itself will make it self-evident – as I Corinthians 13:12 NIV states:
For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
Edited by T-Boneformatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Boy, are you in the wrong business.
Nobody ever told you that it requires a tough skin to write.
What you call rejecting, picking apart, deriding and mocking is pointing to the illogic in you claims. As for your proofs, well I deal with them when and IF I ever see them.
As far as disobeying, just who do you think you are? You make claims and you expect us to OBEY them?
Sorry. I stopped running after outragious claims when I left the ministry.
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.