Why complicate it beyond when his (Christ's) thoughts become our thoughts?
On 1/16/2018 at 9:41 PM, Mike said:
The complications are more than just our lack of understanding IMO.
Well, I'm inclined to think most (if not all) complications are probably nothing more than that. In other words, if our attention and focus is genuinely on or for the things of God (which axiomatically excludes selfishness), then how much energy and effort do you suppose would go into wondering or determining whether or not thoughts in our mind are really thoughts from, of, or as the Lord himself? In fact, would it be a strange or surprising thing to you if I said that I (now) primarily think that God probably does His greatest and best work in Christians that probably don't give much actual time or thought to whether (or how) God works within them? But, maybe this just doesn't make as sense to you, or certain others here.
...... would you want someone tell you they're laughing at you?
You had quoted me as gloating in the bold fonted text below.
"It’s so funny and ironic the way modcat5 slapped you down. Ten years ago he was in your role as prosecutor here. I mocked that approach then, and had a lot of fun with it."
***
Excuse me, but my use of "funny" here is synonymous with "odd" and NOT at all in the sense of jeering.
An example of these two usages in one sentence is: Famous funny man Steve Martin says that when he wants to feel funny he puts a piece of baloney in one of his shoes.
I was commenting on the odd irony that Raf was there. In no way was that a "laughing at" gloat. It was reflective. Oh, yes, I did gloat, mock and jeer 10 years ago, and I did have fun with that. I gave it up though. It was counterproductive here, even though it was some good comedy practice for me.
There were more bold fonts in your criticism of me, but they too were off target. Do you think maybe you projected that "will to gloat" into me from yourself?
There were more bold fonts in your criticism of me, but they too were off target. Do you think maybe you projected that "will to gloat" into me from yourself?
Do you think maybe your trying to rationalize your way out of a bad situation?
After all, it wasn't to long ago you told another female member of this forum she needed a more rounded education.
You know, you might accomplish more if you'd stop talking down to people
Well, I'm inclined to think most (if not all) complications are probably nothing more than that. In other words, if our attention and focus is genuinely on or for the things of God (which axiomatically excludes selfishness), then how much energy and effort do you suppose would go into wondering or determining whether or not thoughts in our mind are really thoughts from, of, or as the Lord himself? In fact, would it be a strange or surprising thing to you if I said that I (now) primarily think that God probably does His greatest and best work in Christians that probably don't give much actual time or thought to whether (or how) God works within them? But, maybe this just doesn't make as sense to you, or certain others here.
I'm intrigues by this, but I need to slightly re-format it for my own sake.
IF our attention and focus is genuinely on or for the things of God (which axiomatically excludes selfishness),
then how much energy and effort do you suppose would go into wondering or determining whether or not thoughts in our mind are really thoughts from, of, or as the Lord himself?
That’s a big “if.”
The context of my comment was in essence:
How can our natural man mind get its focus and attention
genuinely on the things of God,
when the things of God are foolishness to it?
***
… would it be a strange or surprising thing to you…
if I said that I (now) primarily think that God probably does His greatest and best work in Christians that probably don't give much actual time or thought to whether (or how) God works within them?
No, it would not seem strange. I think the “how” of God working within us is like the “how” of electricity in the wall circuits. All we need to know is where the switch is.
I think this talk about PFAL and Christ formed goes into the category of “documenting where the switch is” and hopefull will not be needed to be thunk by anyone any more.
***
But, maybe this just doesn't make as sense to you, or certain others here.
Your writing is complex, but I think I understood it. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Do you think maybe your trying to rationalize your way out of a bad situation?
After all, it wasn't to long ago you told another female member of this forum she needed a more rounded education.
You know, you might accomplish more if you'd stop talking down to people
A) Yes he is. He's not fooling us, but he might fool himself. After all, he's got a long, proud history of creatively rewriting everything that's happened here since he first started posting, so it would be no surprise.
B) On the one hand, if he stopped talking to people, he'd get a less-negative reception to his approach. So, people would be more likely to give him an initial hearing. On the other hand, no matter how you slice it, it's still baloney. The most perfect approach doesn't change the substance of what he's selling, which is why even the most pro-vpw people aren't buying it- and some of them would have been willing to drug someone if vpw had asked them to with all his rationalizing.
Yes. Does it work both ways or does my thesis nullify reciprocity?
Like maybe we can get farther into my "proof" if you'd stop throwing stones?
We'd get somewhere in your "proof" if you actually presented your proof. People here have actually been very nice with you overall, compared to last time. If you have some actual substance to present, this is the moment. By the time you return here again, you might be unable to post it due to physical reasons (old-age infirmities or death), so if I were you, I'd remember that the clock is still running, and sit down and articulate what you actually have to offer beyond advertising your product is better than any competitors'.
Yes. Does it work both ways or does my thesis nullify reciprocity?
Have you ever considered your getting reciprocity? People have asked you questions and shown interest in your thesis and what have you responded? I don't have time for that. Or I have to think about that.
Twinky asked you the simplest question of them all in the thread she created. Your response: I'm not prepared.
One of the first things they taught me at the university was always show up at meetings prepared.
I write screenplays and they have a thing called an elevator pitch. What's that? Suppose your on an elevator with a producer, how would you explain your project in the time he's in the elevator?
Quote
Like maybe we can get farther into my "proof" if you'd stop throwing stones?
Again, this shows how much PLAF has failed you. Your displaying negative believing. Everytime someone criques or asks about something you say you accuse them of tearing it apart or pouncing.
If a salesman was trying to sell me a car or house or even a laptap, I would have questions and not because I'm trying to tear his pitch apart or pounce on him. Questions are a normal part of the process
You had quoted me as gloating in the bold fonted text below.
"It’s so funny and ironic the way modcat5 slapped you down. Ten years ago he was in your role as prosecutor here. I mocked that approach then, and had a lot of fun with it."
***
Excuse me, but my use of "funny" here is synonymous with "odd" and NOT at all in the sense of jeering.
An example of these two usages in one sentence is: Famous funny man Steve Martin says that when he wants to feel funny he puts a piece of baloney in one of his shoes.
That's his response when people ask him how he can be so effin' funny...
Do you think maybe your trying to rationalize your way out of a bad situation?
After all, it wasn't to long ago you told another female member of this forum she needed a more rounded education.
You know, you might accomplish more if you'd stop talking down to people
Soc, I believe I might be the female "who needed a more rounded education." I was very ticked off by Mike's condensing attitude, and left. Personally, I think this thread is wearing very thin, and think it should have ended before now. I think Mike sings the same old song, and I am tired of it. Shalom!
We'd get somewhere in your "proof" if you actually presented your proof. People here have actually been very nice with you overall, compared to last time. If you have some actual substance to present, this is the moment. By the time you return here again, you might be unable to post it due to physical reasons (old-age infirmities or death), so if I were you, I'd remember that the clock is still running, and sit down and articulate what you actually have to offer beyond advertising your product is better than any competitors'.
This is not a proof. Let’s call it a mini-proof. I think lots of these can be strung together.
1. Mike’s thesis is regarded by all as totally his alone.
2. This is illustrated by “VPW is turning in his grave over Mike’s thesis” comments on Mike’s thesis.
3. Mike posts 22 VPW quotes showing that VPW definitely claimed that some of his PFAL written words were God-breathed.
Now that doesn’t look like much of a proof until it’s examined a little.
VPW was clever enough to place in the record this claim in such a way that no one saw it, including me. I was very much toying with the idea (and so were many others) that some of the audio soundtrack to the PFAL film was God-breathed or “straight prophesy,” but I never made the jump to the written forms.
I was shown a few of these claims in 1998, then remembered another, and then found MANY more as I was studying the collaterals again. They were easy to find.
Why were they easy for me to find in 1998 after a tip-off, when no one saw them for decades in the books and tapes?
Answer: God.
***
On old SNS tapes VPW makes many claims to be SPEAKING directly for God. They have never been hidden. But the reason God had VPW hide these claims of written God-breathed PFAL was because it had to be a secret in order for the books to be distributed far and wide, and around the world.
If I had known VPW had a plan to get his God-breathed written documents published I would have quit in either disgust or bewilderment or even fear. That’s pretty much the reaction to the idea here all the time. I would have been no different.
The only reason I have seen this idea is because I had a gentle and timely tip, ten years after I was out of TWI, and when all the fight in me was depleted.I also had all kinds of set-up, like my friendships with so many of VPW’s editors.
So I see the Divine Hand of Camouflage working in how VPW placed those 22 “Thus saith the Lord” statements. Actually I saw 90 of them since returning to PFAL, but only documented 22.
Remember how often VPW would teach that when God wants something to be a secret it STAYS a secret.
I think one of the main qualifications VPW had to function in this role was that he was able to keep this a secret for over 40 years. He wrote it in such a way that it would be undetected until the time was right to be revealed. VPW often talked about how God would only tell His secrets to those whom He could trust to keep them.
So the successfully secret set of 22 “Thus saith the Lord” statements testifies to the super intelligence of the REAL author of the final wording.
***
I find great persuasion in the unanimity here of NOT believing and totally rejecting the VPW thesis that I latched onto, and thinking it was mine. The unanimous blindness to the 22 statements tells me that the objections to the thesis are also blind. Not proof, but lots of comfort for me in my lonely stand.
Still more persuasion I gain from this is by asking how many OTHER things were buried in there that we all are still blind to?
BTW, the dance in that old thread I linked strongly mirrors this current discussion, in that I was constantly being goaded and challenged to post the 22 statements, but I was in no hurry to write them up into readable form. I eventually did in a Private Topic forum, then they were prematurely leaked to the thread by one of the private readers, and then I posted my final, more polished version of the 22 statements.
Word Wolf, it’s funny (like Steve Martin’s baloney) to see you complaining over and over on that old thread that I will never produce the 22 promised statements.
This is not a proof. Let’s call it a mini-proof. I think lots of these can be strung together.
1. Mike’s thesis is regarded by all as totally his alone.
Are their others your not mentioning?
Quote
2. This is illustrated by “VPW is turning in his grave over Mike’s thesis” comments on Mike’s thesis.
And this is supposed to be proof your thesis is correct?
Okay, my thesis is that Saint Vic is a Keebler elf and makes cookies in a hollow tree. People scoff at me over my thesis. Does that make my thesis true?
Quote
3. Mike posts 22 VPW quotes showing that VPW definitely claimed that some of his PFAL written words were God-breathed.
Rolling around in my head and in old GreaseSpot archives.
And this is supposed to be proof your thesis is correct?
No. Is this your post-proof rejection? ... as opposed to your pre-proof rejection?
Okay, my thesis is that Saint Vic is a Keebler elf and makes cookies in a hollow tree. People scoff at me over my thesis. Does that make my thesis true?
Hey! Please start a thread on that. Might be fun.
Buried by someone at GSC? No, then why make it sound like someone's trying to hide it?
.No. Buried by the dribble, dribble, dribble of a huge mudfight. It looks like a fun thread for just that reason... when we have time to burn.
Have you ever heard of cut and paste?
Oh! NO! Are you gloating on me not knowing cut and paste? I feel terrible. Oh no. I think this is going to slow down my proof writing. Oh well.
I'm not about to slog through 41 pages of dribble, dribble, dribble to locate something you could have just as easily cut and paste.
.OK I'll slog through the... through... WHAT? Oh WoW! I must have ESP to have known that you were going to type that exact phrase of "dribble, dribble, dribble" ! How's THAT for proof? I got ESP and that's how I know my thesis is right! Q.E. D. Boy! This is going to save me a lot of typing.
Remember: Your making the assertation, burden of proof is on you.
I'm not about to slog through 41 pages of dribble, dribble, dribble to locate something you could have just as easily cut and paste.
But seriously folks!
You're right So_crates, that thread is a thicket. I was unable to slog through it all to find the right posts.
From memory and a few peeks what happened was the mudfight was getting out of hand on many threads. I was given the thread to prove my points or thesis or something. I agreed to stay there (I think) to keep the peace. Special rules were given to participants, and the toned down fight resumed.
Then I was being rushed with posting my 22 statements, but they were just paper notes. I wanted to write them up and polish them as fast as possible. I recruited several sympathetic posters (there were about 15 of them, some very active posters) and non-posting friends and started a Private Topic thread, or something like that. We worked on the 22 statements there for a while.
Then one of my friends got tired of all the nagging going on for me to produce my promised evidence. (Sounds familiar?) and he leaked the 22 just to shut people up. But I kept working on polishing them up and then I posted them a second time in the thread.
Lots of dribble, dribble, dribble. But inbetween are the 22 statements in more finished form.
THEN I eventually left GS and wanted to start a separate discussion forum for proPFAL people. It’s still up, with lots of grandiose expectations, but no one showed up very much. I lost interest eventually and just wanted to focus on my own life and applications of PFAL.
But I just found the grandiose, much more polished set of 22 from that abandoned website. I can post them here, starting now. Here’s the introduction:
***
I am often told that I'm promoting PFAL more than Dr ever intended, and that I give PFAL a status that VPW never intended for it to have.
The key words are “that VPW never intended.”
One frequent observation I’ve made in the last ten years is that all of us older grads have forgotten some of the printed material, and that some of that material was never absorbed in the first place.
This next set of Posting is on this subject of what VPW said and wrote about the status of the written forms of PFAL.
These quotes will tell us WHY he told us to master written PFAL in ever progressing intensity from 1975 t0 1985.
Hold onto your hats. I call these quotes VPW’s “Thus saith the Lord” statements.
TNDC p.34 Change what you put in your mind. To change the food you are sending to your mind is to “renew your mind.” Think those things which are true, honest, just, pure, lovely and of good report. __ If you by your free will accept Christ as your Savior and renew your mind according to The Word, you will find that every word I have written to you is true. I challenge you to stand upon the Word of God, declare your authority in Christ and claim your rights.”
In Dr’s vocabulary, “true” is bigger than “factually accurate.” Truth is spiritual, facts are man-made. Dr often taught this.
TNDC p.116 Paul in I Thessalonians 2:13, thanked God that ‘when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.’ You too must follow God’s truth as told in the Word of God. But if you think this is just Victor Paul Wierwille writing or speaking to you, you will never receive. If you know that what I am saying to you are words which the Holy Ghost has spoken and is speaking to you by me, then you too will manifest the greatness of the power of God. If you will literally do what I ask you, then you can manifest the fullness of the abundance of God, the wonderful power of God.
Like statement #1 from TNDC p.34 above, this one is strongly stated.
Now I know what your thinking! You're thinking... "Mike is bluffing."
But besides that.
Many grads quickly think that this "Thus Saith #2" only applies to Session 12 and to Dr leading us into tongues. This objection will evaporate as we deal with TWO words in the page 116 quote which may have slipped your attention.
Let's look MUCH more closely at this passage from "The New, Dynamic Church," even though it is very familiar to all PFAL grads. The passage is very similar to what Dr spoke in the last session of the class when he led us into tongues. In this written passage we will see that Dr lets it be known in no uncertain terms that he was God's spokesman.
As I have discussed this grand #2 "Thus Saith The Lord" statement with grads, almost every one's initial impression is that the passage merely applies to Dr's leading us into tongues, because that IS its context. That's what the chapter is about. The chapter title is "How to Speak in Tongues."
This initial impression makes it seem that for me to apply this strong claim of Dr's to ALL of the PFAL writings is to take it out of its context. I'm told I go too far with this passage.
Let's look deeper into this matter of context.
There are two small simple words in the immediate context of this passage in TNDC p.116 that slightly stand out to alert the watchful student. They are in the passage I quoted above. These two words stand out as a just a little bit odd, and by carefully investigating them we can see how they influence the context of this passage. These two odd words occur in this sentence: "But if you think this is just Victor Paul Wierwille writing or speaking to you, you will never receive.
Do you see them? They are small. The two words are "or speaking." Why are these two words in there? It's a BOOK, and he's writing, not speaking. Why does he print these two words there?
These two words bring in a broader context.
The printed words on TNDC p.116 were originally SPOKEN in Session Twelve of the class, and then edited down to the smaller passage that appears on that page. With my own capitalization added, here is exactly and in full what was SPOKEN in that session just before Dr led us into tongues:
"I know that you would like to receive into manifestation the power of the fullness of the holy spirit. I know that you would like to speak the wonderful works of God and magnify God. And so, now, I'm going to help you to manifest the power of the holy spirit, JUST LIKE I'VE HELPED HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF OTHER PEOPLE ACROSS THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD. And there's one thing I want to tell you, and that is that, if you can believe God's Word, and surely you can believe God's Word, FOR OF ALL THE TIMES THAT WE'VE BEEN IN THE DEPTH OF THE GREATNESS OF GOD'S WORD, YOU HAVE SEEN the mathematical exactness, the scientific precision with which it works. And that God's Word is faithful, what He has promised, He is not only willing to perform, but He's able to perform, not only able but willing.
"And therefore, I can assure you upon the integrity of God's Word, that you will be speaking in tongues the wonderful works of God and magnifying God. I'd like for you just to take your Bible, and what other materials you have, and just lay them to the side. And you just forget about them for the time being, and you just listen to me. Just let me unfold the keys to you, and within the next few minutes, you too will be speaking the wonderful works of God.
"You know, in Acts, chapter 2, in verse 4, it says: 'And they were all filled with the holy spirit ...' They were all filled - nobody got missed, just nobody. And, IN MY CLASSES ON POWER FOR ABUNDANT LIVING, nobody ever gets missed, because, IF YOU'RE IN THIS CLASS, YOU'VE HEARD THE WORD, you've believed God's Word, God is always faithful. And nobody ever misses, if you'll do exactly what I tell you to do, right down to the minute detail.
"It's like, in I Thessalonians, chapter 2, verse 13. Remember where the Apostle Paul said: 'I thank my God, that, when you received the Word of God which you heard of us, you received it not as the word of man, but as it is in truth, the Word of God.' Now, if you'll be as honest with God as that Word of God says, you too can walk into the greatness of the manifestation of the power of God. But, if you think this is just V.P. Wierwille talking, you'll never get it.
"But if you know that what I am saying -- it's V.P. Wierwille saying it, but these are words which the Holy Ghost has spoken and is utilizing and speaking to you THROUGH MY MINISTRY AND MY LIFE, then you too will manifest forth the greatness of the power of God. If you will, literally, do what I tell you and ask you to do, and show you why, then you can walk into the greatness of this power, LIKE ALL THE REST OF US HAVE, and manifest forth the greatness of this abundance of God, the wonderful power of God."
I'll pause for a bit.
Brings back some strong memories, don't it?
Now I want to repeat the capitalized passages and note their meaning:
"JUST LIKE I'VE HELPED HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS" - refers to previous live classes.
"FOR ALL THE TIMES" - refers to the entire span of "this" particular film class.
"IN MY CLASSES ON POWER FOR ABUNDANT LIVING" - refers to previous PFAL classes.
"IF YOU'RE IN THIS CLASS" - refers to "this" entire class.
"THROUGH MY MINISTRY AND MY LIFE" - refers to teachings other than the class.
"LIKE ALL THE REST OF US HAVE" - refers to previous classes.
We can see here that in addition to the leading us into tongues, those two odd words "or speaking" alert us and show us that the entire class as well as many other teachings of Dr's are a big part of the context of page 116.
This letter opens with my use of the phrase "God's spokesman" in describing Dr's ministry to us and his teaching. Dr phrased this similarly on page 9 of "Jesus Christ Is Not God" (2nd edition) where he says of Jesus Christ:
"It is he who appointed me as a spokesman of God's accurate Word;
may I be found faithful in that calling."
Since coming back to PFAL I have found many, many "Thus Saith The Lord" statements by Dr in writing or on tape. Some are overt, but many are very well hidden.
Remember the stated goal here on this section of this thread, also. It's to show that we forgot a lot or a lot slipped past us unawares. The specific "lost item" I'm retrieving is that Dr made some pretty strong claims to be writing (or speaking ) for God.
For Dr to claim this authority to write and speak for God does not necessarily make it true. For THAT certainty we need to go to God and His Word and have HIM verify Dr's claims. But to be certain that Dr DID claim to be giving us God's pure written Word in his teachings to us is as easy as reading what is written.
I have decided to accept Dr's claims.
The objection that Dr did not intend us to view his writings to us as special is unfounded. It reveals an inaccurate memory of what Dr thought of the PFAL writings.
He told us to master the PFAL writings a lot BECAUSE he knew they are of God!
PFAL p.83 The Bible was written so that you as a believer need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine or theory or ideology. This Word of God does not change. Men change, ideologies change, opinions change; but this Word of God lives and abides forever. It endures, it stands. Let’s see this from John 5:39. “Search the scriptures ....” It does not say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P. Wierwille’s writings or the writings of a denomination. No, it says, “Search the scriptures ....” because all Scripture is God-breathed. Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures – they are God-breathed."
***
The key sentence is the last one. It's taken nearly word-for-word exactly from the '67 film class, so everyone was exposed to this sentence a maximum number of times. Here's how we heard it in the film class:
FILM segment 8 'Search the scriptures.' It doesn't say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P. Wierwille's writings or the writings of my denomination, no. It's says, 'search the scriptures!' Why search the scriptures? Because all scripture is God-breathed. But not all that V.P. Wierwille would write would of necessity be God-breathed, nor what Shakespeare said nor Kant nor Plato not Aristotle or Freud. But the scriptures; they are God-breathed. All scripture, all of it.
How many times were we exposed to this sentence? Many. Yet it eludes us to this day. Why? What many unbelievers have tried to assert is that this key sentence in Dr's teaching to us was equivalent to the following sentence of their own composition:
"Not what Wierwille writes will be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures – they are God-breathed."
But that's not at all the choice of words Dr used. What Dr said and wrote says the exact opposite of the above sentence. It’s the addition of just a few words, “not all” and “necessarily” that make the big difference.
***
The ACTUAL sentence reads (with my bold fonts):
"Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures – they are God-breathed."
The phrase "not all" implies "some."
If I eat NOT ALL of a pizza pie, then that means there's SOME left for you.
This means Dr's statement on PFAL page 83 asserts that...
SOME some of what Wierwille writes will OF NECESSITY be God-breathed.
Why “of necessity” must SOME of Dr’s writings be God-breathed? Because God appointed him as His spokesman.
***
There were times when Dr would put something in writing and it was God-breathed, like when he wrote to US, his students. As he claimed in my TNDC p.34 quote above, every word he wrote to US, his PFAL students, was true. Then there were also times when he wrote something and it was NOT God-breathed, but just his flesh understanding, whether correct or incorrect.
This passage on PFAL p. 83 troubles a lot of people. He’s just saying there that man’s word is untrustworthy, but God’s IS trustworthy. He says that, compared to God’s Word, man’s is faulty, every man’s, even great religious leaders’ words. He then goes one step farther and says (in effect) that even a man (himself) who is appointed as a spokesman for God, by God, has faulty words when he is not speaking (or writing) exactly what God commissions.
So, all of written PFAL, what Dr told us to master, is worthy of mastery because THOSE writings are God-breathed. God inspired them and supervised them being printed and handed to us grads. This is why I write in the CSBP thread that we are SO rich!
It's good to keep TIMING in mind. That's why I have so much going on regarding publication dates here. The TIMING of PFAL p.83 is such that much of written PFAL had not yet been written. Working (even mastering) our KJVs was right and proper when that's all there was. But as God and Dr and staff produced more and more of written PFAL Dr stepped up his urging that we master THAT body of material, and NOT our KJVs.
Ok. Those are the first 3 statements and I call them the Sledgehammer Set. They are up front and obvious, yet they were lost to us all.
How did they get hidden? My guess is #1 was in such an elementary chapter on Romans 10:9,10 that we all probably read it ONLY very early when we took the class. Similar is #2, and it looks, at first glance, like it''s confined to apply only to leading us into tongues. But #3 looks to me like it's the complicated grammar and the context that throws most of us completely off the scent. It did Penworks and she's a writer.
I'll hold off with those three for a while. We can compare our discussions now with discussions 10 years ago, item for item.
Soc, I believe I might be the female "who needed a more rounded education." I was very ticked off by Mike's condensing attitude, and left. Personally, I think this thread is wearing very thin, and think it should have ended before now. I think Mike sings the same old song, and I am tired of it. Shalom!
Hi Grace Valarie Claire,
If we look at my comment to you again, maybe you can reconsider or at least feel better that you were not slammed by me. Then again, if you WANTED to get slammed for the drama, then GO FOR IT!
Here is what I said to you:
“I knew him [VPW] personally. I know what the scriptures say about OUR old man nature. I know all sin stinks. I do NOT buy the model him being pure evil being sold here. I saw him do good. The pure evil model does not fly with reality. Get a rounded education and you may think differently. If you spent a year with some proPFAL people you would be able to see more.”
I highlighted to help.The FIGURATIVELY unrounded education I criticized you for is the education you got HERE.I suggested you round it out with proPFAL people, of which you KNOW there are many.
So, anyone who wants to get all huffy about what I said should look at the context. Thank you. If anyone thought I was referring to GVC’s formal education, that does not speak well for the quality of THEIR education, at least not in English grammar.
Then again, maybe it was not poor education but clouding emotions.
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
He's a fool, So_Crates, or badly fooled, little difference here. I can't be bothered with him any more. I have things of genuine profit, to do.
Prov 26:4 "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Expounding a bit on the subject of stories and Mike's allegations of a so-called "pure evil" model of evaluating Dictor.
Btw, didn't Jesus use stories (parables) to communicate?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, I'm inclined to think most (if not all) complications are probably nothing more than that. In other words, if our attention and focus is genuinely on or for the things of God (which axiomatically excludes selfishness), then how much energy and effort do you suppose would go into wondering or determining whether or not thoughts in our mind are really thoughts from, of, or as the Lord himself? In fact, would it be a strange or surprising thing to you if I said that I (now) primarily think that God probably does His greatest and best work in Christians that probably don't give much actual time or thought to whether (or how) God works within them? But, maybe this just doesn't make as sense to you, or certain others here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You had quoted me as gloating in the bold fonted text below.
"It’s so funny and ironic the way modcat5 slapped you down. Ten years ago he was in your role as prosecutor here. I mocked that approach then, and had a lot of fun with it."
***
Excuse me, but my use of "funny" here is synonymous with "odd" and NOT at all in the sense of jeering.
An example of these two usages in one sentence is: Famous funny man Steve Martin says that when he wants to feel funny he puts a piece of baloney in one of his shoes.
I was commenting on the odd irony that Raf was there. In no way was that a "laughing at" gloat. It was reflective. Oh, yes, I did gloat, mock and jeer 10 years ago, and I did have fun with that. I gave it up though. It was counterproductive here, even though it was some good comedy practice for me.
There were more bold fonts in your criticism of me, but they too were off target. Do you think maybe you projected that "will to gloat" into me from yourself?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Do you think maybe your trying to rationalize your way out of a bad situation?
After all, it wasn't to long ago you told another female member of this forum she needed a more rounded education.
You know, you might accomplish more if you'd stop talking down to people
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I'm intrigues by this, but I need to slightly re-format it for my own sake.
IF our attention and focus is genuinely on or for the things of God (which axiomatically excludes selfishness),
then how much energy and effort do you suppose would go into wondering or determining whether or not thoughts in our mind are really thoughts from, of, or as the Lord himself?
That’s a big “if.”
The context of my comment was in essence:
How can our natural man mind get its focus and attention
genuinely on the things of God,
when the things of God are foolishness to it?
***
… would it be a strange or surprising thing to you…
if I said that I (now) primarily think that God probably does His greatest and best work in Christians that probably don't give much actual time or thought to whether (or how) God works within them?
No, it would not seem strange. I think the “how” of God working within us is like the “how” of electricity in the wall circuits. All we need to know is where the switch is.
I think this talk about PFAL and Christ formed goes into the category of “documenting where the switch is” and hopefull will not be needed to be thunk by anyone any more.
***
But, maybe this just doesn't make as sense to you, or certain others here.
Your writing is complex, but I think I understood it. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
I am a bit baffled by the last phrase above.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yes. Does it work both ways or does my thesis nullify reciprocity?
Like maybe we can get farther into my "proof" if you'd stop throwing stones?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
A) Yes he is. He's not fooling us, but he might fool himself. After all, he's got a long, proud history of creatively rewriting everything that's happened here since he first started posting, so it would be no surprise.
B) On the one hand, if he stopped talking to people, he'd get a less-negative reception to his approach. So, people would be more likely to give him an initial hearing. On the other hand, no matter how you slice it, it's still baloney. The most perfect approach doesn't change the substance of what he's selling, which is why even the most pro-vpw people aren't buying it- and some of them would have been willing to drug someone if vpw had asked them to with all his rationalizing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
We'd get somewhere in your "proof" if you actually presented your proof. People here have actually been very nice with you overall, compared to last time. If you have some actual substance to present, this is the moment. By the time you return here again, you might be unable to post it due to physical reasons (old-age infirmities or death), so if I were you, I'd remember that the clock is still running, and sit down and articulate what you actually have to offer beyond advertising your product is better than any competitors'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Have you ever considered your getting reciprocity? People have asked you questions and shown interest in your thesis and what have you responded? I don't have time for that. Or I have to think about that.
Twinky asked you the simplest question of them all in the thread she created. Your response: I'm not prepared.
One of the first things they taught me at the university was always show up at meetings prepared.
I write screenplays and they have a thing called an elevator pitch. What's that? Suppose your on an elevator with a producer, how would you explain your project in the time he's in the elevator?
Again, this shows how much PLAF has failed you. Your displaying negative believing. Everytime someone criques or asks about something you say you accuse them of tearing it apart or pouncing.
If a salesman was trying to sell me a car or house or even a laptap, I would have questions and not because I'm trying to tear his pitch apart or pounce on him. Questions are a normal part of the process
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
That's his response when people ask him how he can be so effin' funny...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Soc, I believe I might be the female "who needed a more rounded education." I was very ticked off by Mike's condensing attitude, and left. Personally, I think this thread is wearing very thin, and think it should have ended before now. I think Mike sings the same old song, and I am tired of it. Shalom!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
This is not a proof. Let’s call it a mini-proof. I think lots of these can be strung together.
1. Mike’s thesis is regarded by all as totally his alone.
2. This is illustrated by “VPW is turning in his grave over Mike’s thesis” comments on Mike’s thesis.
3. Mike posts 22 VPW quotes showing that VPW definitely claimed that some of his PFAL written words were God-breathed.
4. The 22 quotes are here on GreaseSpot, buried deep within this thread: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/9131-the-official-the-ultimate-the-amazing-pfal-thread/
***
Now that doesn’t look like much of a proof until it’s examined a little.
VPW was clever enough to place in the record this claim in such a way that no one saw it, including me. I was very much toying with the idea (and so were many others) that some of the audio soundtrack to the PFAL film was God-breathed or “straight prophesy,” but I never made the jump to the written forms.
I was shown a few of these claims in 1998, then remembered another, and then found MANY more as I was studying the collaterals again. They were easy to find.
Why were they easy for me to find in 1998 after a tip-off, when no one saw them for decades in the books and tapes?
Answer: God.
***
On old SNS tapes VPW makes many claims to be SPEAKING directly for God. They have never been hidden. But the reason God had VPW hide these claims of written God-breathed PFAL was because it had to be a secret in order for the books to be distributed far and wide, and around the world.
If I had known VPW had a plan to get his God-breathed written documents published I would have quit in either disgust or bewilderment or even fear. That’s pretty much the reaction to the idea here all the time. I would have been no different.
The only reason I have seen this idea is because I had a gentle and timely tip, ten years after I was out of TWI, and when all the fight in me was depleted. I also had all kinds of set-up, like my friendships with so many of VPW’s editors.
So I see the Divine Hand of Camouflage working in how VPW placed those 22 “Thus saith the Lord” statements. Actually I saw 90 of them since returning to PFAL, but only documented 22.
Remember how often VPW would teach that when God wants something to be a secret it STAYS a secret.
I think one of the main qualifications VPW had to function in this role was that he was able to keep this a secret for over 40 years. He wrote it in such a way that it would be undetected until the time was right to be revealed. VPW often talked about how God would only tell His secrets to those whom He could trust to keep them.
So the successfully secret set of 22 “Thus saith the Lord” statements testifies to the super intelligence of the REAL author of the final wording.
***
I find great persuasion in the unanimity here of NOT believing and totally rejecting the VPW thesis that I latched onto, and thinking it was mine. The unanimous blindness to the 22 statements tells me that the objections to the thesis are also blind. Not proof, but lots of comfort for me in my lonely stand.
Still more persuasion I gain from this is by asking how many OTHER things were buried in there that we all are still blind to?
BTW, the dance in that old thread I linked strongly mirrors this current discussion, in that I was constantly being goaded and challenged to post the 22 statements, but I was in no hurry to write them up into readable form. I eventually did in a Private Topic forum, then they were prematurely leaked to the thread by one of the private readers, and then I posted my final, more polished version of the 22 statements.
Word Wolf, it’s funny (like Steve Martin’s baloney) to see you complaining over and over on that old thread that I will never produce the 22 promised statements.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yes. I paraphrased it. Hope he doesn't sue me for plagiarism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Are their others your not mentioning?
And this is supposed to be proof your thesis is correct?
Okay, my thesis is that Saint Vic is a Keebler elf and makes cookies in a hollow tree. People scoff at me over my thesis. Does that make my thesis true?
Buried by someone at GSC? No, then why make it sound like someone's trying to hide it?
Have you ever heard of cut and paste?
I'm not about to slog through 41 pages of dribble, dribble, dribble to locate something you could have just as easily cut and paste.
Remember: Your making the assertation, burden of proof is on you.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
But seriously folks!
You're right So_crates, that thread is a thicket. I was unable to slog through it all to find the right posts.
From memory and a few peeks what happened was the mudfight was getting out of hand on many threads. I was given the thread to prove my points or thesis or something. I agreed to stay there (I think) to keep the peace. Special rules were given to participants, and the toned down fight resumed.
Then I was being rushed with posting my 22 statements, but they were just paper notes. I wanted to write them up and polish them as fast as possible. I recruited several sympathetic posters (there were about 15 of them, some very active posters) and non-posting friends and started a Private Topic thread, or something like that. We worked on the 22 statements there for a while.
Then one of my friends got tired of all the nagging going on for me to produce my promised evidence. (Sounds familiar?) and he leaked the 22 just to shut people up. But I kept working on polishing them up and then I posted them a second time in the thread.
Lots of dribble, dribble, dribble. But in between are the 22 statements in more finished form.
Here it is: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/9131-the-official-the-ultimate-the-amazing-pfal-thread/
THEN I eventually left GS and wanted to start a separate discussion forum for proPFAL people. It’s still up, with lots of grandiose expectations, but no one showed up very much. I lost interest eventually and just wanted to focus on my own life and applications of PFAL.
But I just found the grandiose, much more polished set of 22 from that abandoned website. I can post them here, starting now. Here’s the introduction:
***
I am often told that I'm promoting PFAL more than Dr ever intended, and that I give PFAL a status that VPW never intended for it to have.
The key words are “that VPW never intended.”
One frequent observation I’ve made in the last ten years is that all of us older grads have forgotten some of the printed material, and that some of that material was never absorbed in the first place.
This next set of Posting is on this subject of what VPW said and wrote about the status of the written forms of PFAL.
These quotes will tell us WHY he told us to master written PFAL in ever progressing intensity from 1975 t0 1985.
Hold onto your hats. I call these quotes VPW’s “Thus saith the Lord” statements.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
#1 - VPW "Thus Saith the Lord" Statement
TNDC p.34
Change what you put in your mind. To change the food you are sending to your mind is to “renew your mind.” Think those things which are true, honest, just, pure, lovely and of good report. __ If you by your free will accept Christ as your Savior and renew your mind according to The Word, you will find that every word I have written to you is true. I challenge you to stand upon the Word of God, declare your authority in Christ and claim your rights.”
In Dr’s vocabulary, “true” is bigger than “factually accurate.” Truth is spiritual, facts are man-made. Dr often taught this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
#2 - VPW "Thus Saith the Lord" Statement
TNDC p.116
Paul in I Thessalonians 2:13, thanked God that ‘when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.’ You too must follow God’s truth as told in the Word of God. But if you think this is just Victor Paul Wierwille writing or speaking to you, you will never receive. If you know that what I am saying to you are words which the Holy Ghost has spoken and is speaking to you by me, then you too will manifest the greatness of the power of God. If you will literally do what I ask you, then you can manifest the fullness of the abundance of God, the wonderful power of God.
Like statement #1 from TNDC p.34 above, this one is strongly stated.
Now I know what your thinking! You're thinking... "Mike is bluffing."
But besides that.
Many grads quickly think that this "Thus Saith #2" only applies to Session 12 and to Dr leading us into tongues. This objection will evaporate as we deal with TWO words in the page 116 quote which may have slipped your attention.
Let's look MUCH more closely at this passage from "The New, Dynamic Church," even though it is very familiar to all PFAL grads. The passage is very similar to what Dr spoke in the last session of the class when he led us into tongues. In this written passage we will see that Dr lets it be known in no uncertain terms that he was God's spokesman.
As I have discussed this grand #2 "Thus Saith The Lord" statement with grads, almost every one's initial impression is that the passage merely applies to Dr's leading us into tongues, because that IS its context. That's what the chapter is about. The chapter title is "How to Speak in Tongues."
This initial impression makes it seem that for me to apply this strong claim of Dr's to ALL of the PFAL writings is to take it out of its context. I'm told I go too far with this passage.
Let's look deeper into this matter of context.
There are two small simple words in the immediate context of this passage in TNDC p.116 that slightly stand out to alert the watchful student. They are in the passage I quoted above. These two words stand out as a just a little bit odd, and by carefully investigating them we can see how they influence the context of this passage. These two odd words occur in this sentence: "But if you think this is just Victor Paul Wierwille writing or speaking to you, you will never receive.
Do you see them? They are small. The two words are "or speaking." Why are these two words in there? It's a BOOK, and he's writing, not speaking. Why does he print these two words there?
These two words bring in a broader context.
The printed words on TNDC p.116 were originally SPOKEN in Session Twelve of the class, and then edited down to the smaller passage that appears on that page. With my own capitalization added, here is exactly and in full what was SPOKEN in that session just before Dr led us into tongues:
"I know that you would like to receive into manifestation the power of the fullness of the holy spirit. I know that you would like to speak the wonderful works of God and magnify God. And so, now, I'm going to help you to manifest the power of the holy spirit, JUST LIKE I'VE HELPED HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF OTHER PEOPLE ACROSS THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD. And there's one thing I want to tell you, and that is that, if you can believe God's Word, and surely you can believe God's Word, FOR OF ALL THE TIMES THAT WE'VE BEEN IN THE DEPTH OF THE GREATNESS OF GOD'S WORD, YOU HAVE SEEN the mathematical exactness, the scientific precision with which it works. And that God's Word is faithful, what He has promised, He is not only willing to perform, but He's able to perform, not only able but willing.
"And therefore, I can assure you upon the integrity of God's Word, that you will be speaking in tongues the wonderful works of God and magnifying God. I'd like for you just to take your Bible, and what other materials you have, and just lay them to the side. And you just forget about them for the time being, and you just listen to me. Just let me unfold the keys to you, and within the next few minutes, you too will be speaking the wonderful works of God.
"You know, in Acts, chapter 2, in verse 4, it says: 'And they were all filled with the holy spirit ...' They were all filled - nobody got missed, just nobody. And, IN MY CLASSES ON POWER FOR ABUNDANT LIVING, nobody ever gets missed, because, IF YOU'RE IN THIS CLASS, YOU'VE HEARD THE WORD, you've believed God's Word, God is always faithful. And nobody ever misses, if you'll do exactly what I tell you to do, right down to the minute detail.
"It's like, in I Thessalonians, chapter 2, verse 13. Remember where the Apostle Paul said: 'I thank my God, that, when you received the Word of God which you heard of us, you received it not as the word of man, but as it is in truth, the Word of God.' Now, if you'll be as honest with God as that Word of God says, you too can walk into the greatness of the manifestation of the power of God. But, if you think this is just V.P. Wierwille talking, you'll never get it.
"But if you know that what I am saying -- it's V.P. Wierwille saying it, but these are words which the Holy Ghost has spoken and is utilizing and speaking to you THROUGH MY MINISTRY AND MY LIFE, then you too will manifest forth the greatness of the power of God. If you will, literally, do what I tell you and ask you to do, and show you why, then you can walk into the greatness of this power, LIKE ALL THE REST OF US HAVE, and manifest forth the greatness of this abundance of God, the wonderful power of God."
I'll pause for a bit.
Brings back some strong memories, don't it?
Now I want to repeat the capitalized passages and note their meaning:
"JUST LIKE I'VE HELPED HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS" - refers to previous live classes.
"FOR ALL THE TIMES" - refers to the entire span of "this" particular film class.
"IN MY CLASSES ON POWER FOR ABUNDANT LIVING" - refers to previous PFAL classes.
"IF YOU'RE IN THIS CLASS" - refers to "this" entire class.
"THROUGH MY MINISTRY AND MY LIFE" - refers to teachings other than the class.
"LIKE ALL THE REST OF US HAVE" - refers to previous classes.
We can see here that in addition to the leading us into tongues, those two odd words "or speaking" alert us and show us that the entire class as well as many other teachings of Dr's are a big part of the context of page 116.
This letter opens with my use of the phrase "God's spokesman" in describing Dr's ministry to us and his teaching. Dr phrased this similarly on page 9 of "Jesus Christ Is Not God" (2nd edition) where he says of Jesus Christ:
"It is he who appointed me as a spokesman of God's accurate Word;
may I be found faithful in that calling."
Since coming back to PFAL I have found many, many "Thus Saith The Lord" statements by Dr in writing or on tape. Some are overt, but many are very well hidden.
Remember the stated goal here on this section of this thread, also. It's to show that we forgot a lot or a lot slipped past us unawares. The specific "lost item" I'm retrieving is that Dr made some pretty strong claims to be writing (or speaking
For Dr to claim this authority to write and speak for God does not necessarily make it true. For THAT certainty we need to go to God and His Word and have HIM verify Dr's claims. But to be certain that Dr DID claim to be giving us God's pure written Word in his teachings to us is as easy as reading what is written.
I have decided to accept Dr's claims.
The objection that Dr did not intend us to view his writings to us as special is unfounded. It reveals an inaccurate memory of what Dr thought of the PFAL writings.
He told us to master the PFAL writings a lot BECAUSE he knew they are of God!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
#3 - VPW "Thus Saith the Lord" Statement
PFAL p.83
The Bible was written so that you as a believer need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine or theory or ideology. This Word of God does not change. Men change, ideologies change, opinions change; but this Word of God lives and abides forever. It endures, it stands. Let’s see this from John 5:39. “Search the scriptures ....” It does not say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P. Wierwille’s writings or the writings of a denomination. No, it says, “Search the scriptures ....” because all Scripture is God-breathed. Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures – they are God-breathed."
***
The key sentence is the last one. It's taken nearly word-for-word exactly from the '67 film class, so everyone was exposed to this sentence a maximum number of times. Here's how we heard it in the film class:
FILM segment 8
'Search the scriptures.' It doesn't say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P. Wierwille's writings or the writings of my denomination, no. It's says, 'search the scriptures!' Why search the scriptures? Because all scripture is God-breathed. But not all that V.P. Wierwille would write would of necessity be God-breathed, nor what Shakespeare said nor Kant nor Plato not Aristotle or Freud. But the scriptures; they are God-breathed. All scripture, all of it.
How many times were we exposed to this sentence? Many. Yet it eludes us to this day. Why? What many unbelievers have tried to assert is that this key sentence in Dr's teaching to us was equivalent to the following sentence of their own composition:
"Not what Wierwille writes will be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures – they are God-breathed."
But that's not at all the choice of words Dr used. What Dr said and wrote says the exact opposite of the above sentence. It’s the addition of just a few words, “not all” and “necessarily” that make the big difference.
***
The ACTUAL sentence reads (with my bold fonts):
"Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures – they are God-breathed."
The phrase "not all" implies "some."
If I eat NOT ALL of a pizza pie, then that means there's SOME left for you.
This means Dr's statement on PFAL page 83 asserts that...
SOME some of what Wierwille writes will OF NECESSITY be God-breathed.
Why “of necessity” must SOME of Dr’s writings be God-breathed? Because God appointed him as His spokesman.
***
There were times when Dr would put something in writing and it was God-breathed, like when he wrote to US, his students. As he claimed in my TNDC p.34 quote above, every word he wrote to US, his PFAL students, was true. Then there were also times when he wrote something and it was NOT God-breathed, but just his flesh understanding, whether correct or incorrect.
This passage on PFAL p. 83 troubles a lot of people. He’s just saying there that man’s word is untrustworthy, but God’s IS trustworthy. He says that, compared to God’s Word, man’s is faulty, every man’s, even great religious leaders’ words. He then goes one step farther and says (in effect) that even a man (himself) who is appointed as a spokesman for God, by God, has faulty words when he is not speaking (or writing) exactly what God commissions.
So, all of written PFAL, what Dr told us to master, is worthy of mastery because THOSE writings are God-breathed. God inspired them and supervised them being printed and handed to us grads. This is why I write in the CSBP thread that we are SO rich!
It's good to keep TIMING in mind. That's why I have so much going on regarding publication dates here. The TIMING of PFAL p.83 is such that much of written PFAL had not yet been written. Working (even mastering) our KJVs was right and proper when that's all there was. But as God and Dr and staff produced more and more of written PFAL Dr stepped up his urging that we master THAT body of material, and NOT our KJVs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ok. Those are the first 3 statements and I call them the Sledgehammer Set. They are up front and obvious, yet they were lost to us all.
How did they get hidden? My guess is #1 was in such an elementary chapter on Romans 10:9,10 that we all probably read it ONLY very early when we took the class. Similar is #2, and it looks, at first glance, like it''s confined to apply only to leading us into tongues. But #3 looks to me like it's the complicated grammar and the context that throws most of us completely off the scent. It did Penworks and she's a writer.
I'll hold off with those three for a while. We can compare our discussions now with discussions 10 years ago, item for item.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi Grace Valarie Claire,
If we look at my comment to you again, maybe you can reconsider or at least feel better that you were not slammed by me. Then again, if you WANTED to get slammed for the drama, then GO FOR IT!
Here is what I said to you:
“I knew him [VPW] personally. I know what the scriptures say about OUR old man nature. I know all sin stinks. I do NOT buy the model him being pure evil being sold here. I saw him do good. The pure evil model does not fly with reality. Get a rounded education and you may think differently. If you spent a year with some proPFAL people you would be able to see more.”
I highlighted to help. The FIGURATIVELY unrounded education I criticized you for is the education you got HERE. I suggested you round it out with proPFAL people, of which you KNOW there are many.
So, anyone who wants to get all huffy about what I said should look at the context. Thank you. If anyone thought I was referring to GVC’s formal education, that does not speak well for the quality of THEIR education, at least not in English grammar.
Then again, maybe it was not poor education but clouding emotions.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I've been getting laughs with that bit for more than 40 years.... that and "I'm so mad at my mother..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
He's a master!
Have you ever been into the Firesign Theatre?
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.