I asked you to explain how you came to, after 28 years of a process challenging your beliefs, to where you became a "blessed seeker."
I spent a half hour documenting the main ins and outs of those two years on a timeline.
What I did those years varied widely, and I am not going to spend 4 hours digging up and writing up all that I did. I did what I felt I had to do to check things out. That varied over time.
If you wanted to do it yourself, you'd figure it out for yourself as you go.
Where did you read my words saying I hate any idea,
From your academic citations and using the same tools they use.
I get the impression you want me to lay out in detail the 28 years that I came to accept the collaterals SO THAT you can poke holes in my methods, and cause doubt in me.
I get the impression that you, like all academics would, feel that my acceptance of the collaterals is a mistake and that they can't be truth.
You already reject the collaterals, and now you want to reject the details of HOW I got to accept the collaterals.
From your academic citations and using the same tools they use.
I get the impression you want me to lay out in detail the 28 years that I came to accept the collaterals SO THAT you can poke holes in my methods, and cause doubt in me.
I get the impression that you, like all academics would, feel that my acceptance of the collaterals is a mistake and that they can't be truth.
You already reject the collaterals, and now you want to reject the details of HOW I got to accept the collaterals.
THAT kind of "civil discourse" I reject.
Nope. Might that really be projection?? That's what it sounds like.
If you were to actually, in a way that demonstrated emotional maturity, make your case, I would be compelled to acknowledge YOUR OPINION.
Sure, I certainly do not hold the PFLAP collaterals to be rife with credibility. But I'm pretty sure I didn't take any cheap shots at you.
I can't claim your honestly held views or opinions, communicated clearly and honestly are invalid.
But until you do so, you remain open to criticism.
From your academic citations and using the same tools they use.
I get the impression you want me to lay out in detail the 28 years that I came to accept the collaterals SO THAT you can poke holes in my methods, and cause doubt in me.
I get the impression that you, like all academics would, feel that my acceptance of the collaterals is a mistake and that they can't be truth.
You already reject the collaterals, and now you want to reject the details of HOW I got to accept the collaterals.
THAT kind of "civil discourse" I reject.
I'm not an academic. I'm a curious person who reads. The only degree I hold is a bachelor's degree, in accounting.
Are you really trying to say you need validation from people on GSC? My hunch is you're not likely to ever convince anyone here that Victor Wierwille, PFLAP, or the related collateral books are the will of God.
I really hope you don't need me or anyone else on GSC to validate your beliefs.
I can have compassion for you, yet I don't believe it's necessary for me to agree with you in order to do so.
Btw, vulnerability is strength. If emotional strength is what you need, you'll more likely find it in the pages of book written by Brene Brown than in books you're already plenty familiar with from twi.
If you wonder, 20 years of banging heads with people here probably hasn't been very fulfilling for you.
If you want to try a different perspective, try vulnerability. Here's the key, you don't need to be always right, or even right at all to be accepted by people here.
Good luck with that. Honestly, I don't care whether you ever spell out how you came to believe what you have about Victor Wierwille or his teachings. But if you continue to insist that "you're right," I'll be inclined to challenge you on it.
One more thing, you'll probably be able to find at least some of these books in your local public library.
I started with the Gospel of John, and had a notebook to record all the possible interpretations I could think of for each verse. I never finished chapter 1. I already knew the story, and was totally bogged down in minutia. Most of my study sessions were quickly converted to nap time.
Just read. Not note-taking and nit-picking. Just read, for the pleasure of learning and understanding. One word, then the next, then the next - and you don't need a concordance to do it.
Gospel of John isn't the easiest place to start. You could have tried Mark, considered by many the basis of the synoptic (look up meaning) gospels. Matthew and Luke are also easy to read.
For myself, it wasn't any of those that started me seeking - it was the riveting adventure story and display of power in Acts of the Apostles. Couldn't wait to read the next chapter! I wanted to see that power in everyday life. I wanted to tap into it. So then, I could look back at the gospels.
Mike, if one thing doesn't work, try another. Try reading Mark, Luke, John, Acts, or any of the epistles. Or even reading parts of the OT (for the time being, not Ezekiel, Isaiah, and some of the other more prophetic books). Try Good News Bible, a very easy reader, simple English. Or The Message, in everyday English. Just read the book.
Only when you have read the book, or sufficient parts of it, are you even remotely qualified to criticise. And youdo criticise the very Bible you purport to believe, when you submerge yourself in Janet & John books that purport to explain the Bible.
" I already knew the story..." - that's got to be a GSC gem, scintillating in its ridiculousness.
Just read. Not note-taking and nit-picking. Just read, for the pleasure of learning and understanding. One word, then the next, then the next - and you don't need a concordance to do it.
Not the simplistic collaterals. Read the book itself.
Didn't your hero himself advocate that, at some point, before he hauled his 3,000 study aids to the dump?
You are mistaking my carefully and slowly positioned LOCKS for unconscious and numb blinders.
Unlike most of you, I did not "fall in love" with VPW. I went back and forth for many years on how much and where I wanted to trust him. I was a very careful in thinking through my position; unlike most posters here IMO. Most here snapped when their vpw-idol failed them.
For sure, my careful and slow embracing of VPW and the collaterals, was unlike and even opposite of how Penworks made her early TWI decisions.
When I reached my 50th birthday, about 28 years after first taking PFAL, I was FINALLY ready to commit my life to the treasure I found by being occasionally meek to the collaterals.
J Juedes made up his mind to loath VPW in session one, from what I've seen.
Rocky, my expanded "search into religion/theology or any other way to characterize 'the things of God'" started in the late 1960s and was ENDING in the early 1970s years that I was in the Word. I gave it a run, and it sucks what others say about God out there. You folks just love to eat up that junk out of your love to hate PFAL and VPW. You can't fool me.
So unlike all the other VPW idolators who snap quickly to kneeling before their idol, because you did it slower it’s not idolatry!
It’s like the guy who stayed 3 weeks in Catholic mass because that’s how long it took his knees to creak allowing him to kneel on the kneeler!
JJ had several people who came to him a wreck from VPs so called ministry. That was the start of his opinion. Digging into the research was just the next step in helping those people.
And now you assess all those who refuse to bow the knee to the charlatan as consumed by hate. No we’re consumed by common sense. And we don’t like spending all our money on poor tasting snake oil telling everyone it’s great.
Just read. Not note-taking and nit-picking. Just read, for the pleasure of learning and understanding. One word, then the next, then the next - and you don't need a concordance to do it.
Gospel of John isn't the easiest place to start. You could have tried Mark, considered by many the basis of the synoptic (look up meaning) gospels. Matthew and Luke are also easy to read.
For myself, it wasn't any of those that started me seeking - it was the riveting adventure story and display of power in Acts of the Apostles. Couldn't wait to read the next chapter! I wanted to see that power in everyday life. I wanted to tap into it. So then, I could look back at the gospels.
Mike, if one thing doesn't work, try another. Try reading Mark, Luke, John, Acts, or any of the epistles. Or even reading parts of the OT (for the time being, not Ezekiel, Isaiah, and some of the other more prophetic books). Try Good News Bible, a very easy reader, simple English. Or The Message, in everyday English. Just read the book.
Only when you have read the book, or sufficient parts of it, are you even remotely qualified to criticise. And youdo criticise the very Bible you purport to believe, when you submerge yourself in Janet & John books that purport to explain the Bible.
" I already knew the story..." - that's got to be a GSC gem, scintillating in its ridiculousness.
That’s a good suggestion. I think the problem is that it’s like having on manure tinted sunglasses without knowing you have them on.
When Mike reads the book of Mark with the manure tinted sunglasses he doesn’t get an unbiased clear message straight off the page. He gets a distortion. He comes across all the Plaffy markings and underlining with a different color marker the verses from certain classes and interprets it in a Plaffy way. So Mark as a servant portrays that all wayfers were “born again to serve” and the way you serve in this day and time is go Way Ambassador and Corpse.
The dendrites need to be trained in a different direction for people to be able to simply read and understand what is there without all the external influence.
From your academic citations and using the same tools they use.
I get the impression you want me to lay out in detail the 28 years that I came to accept the collaterals SO THAT you can poke holes in my methods, and cause doubt in me.
I get the impression that you, like all academics would, feel that my acceptance of the collaterals is a mistake and that they can't be truth.
You already reject the collaterals, and now you want to reject the details of HOW I got to accept the collaterals.
THAT kind of "civil discourse" I reject.
Actually this thread is about a pastor of a mainstream Christian denomination church rejecting the collaterals because they are shallow and have shoddy handling of scripture and poor workmanship. He is on the same position of service VP was as a pastor so offers an objective external view based upon research into it.
What the thread is not about is Mike, his beliefs, views on Plaffy collaterals, or how he arrived at his conclusions.
I understand Mike regularly gets this confused on most of the threads he comments on trying to make them about him and his beliefs about the collaterals which defy common sense.
So that is why some threads get mucked up. Mike gets confused about the topic, starts changing it to himself, and everyone responds.
So unlike all the other VPW idolators who snap quickly to kneeling before their idol, because you did it slower it’s not idolatry!
No, because I did it slowly, I could take better aim at worshiping and serving the true God which was being taught in the words.
It took me time to locate WHICH words from VPW were the most trustworthy: from words spoken privately, to words spoken on tape, to "it is written."
I saw many in the shuffle who took his words in the wrong, opposite order, and they lacked good aim.
Those who fell in love with him wanted his personal private words, later his taped teachings, and last (or maybe never) his written words.
I did it slow so that I could do it right.
1 Thessalonians 2:13
And we continually thank God because, when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as the true word of God--the word which is now at work in you who believe.
I learned early from this verse (cited 3 times in the film class) that the proper aim is the True Word, and not the messenger.
No, because I did it slowly, I could take better aim at worshiping and serving the true God which was being taught in the words.
It took me time to locate WHICH words from VPW were the most trustworthy: from words spoken privately, to words spoken on tape, to "it is written."
I saw many in the shuffle who took his words in the wrong, opposite order, and they lacked good aim.
Those who fell in love with him wanted his personal private words, later his taped teachings, and last (or maybe never) his written words.
I did it slow so that I could do it right.
1 Thessalonians 2:13
And we continually thank God because, when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as the true word of God--the word which is now at work in you who believe.
I learned early from this verse (cited 3 times in the film class) that the proper aim is the True Word, and not the messenger.
That’s an amazing cult leader verse especially when you take it out of context.
I am sure Creflo Dollar prays the same prayer that all those that he is fleecing will receive his words not as those of a snake oil salesman but instead receiving them like it was God speaking to them directly. And not questioning those words they will send in their ABS.
VPWs personality had flaws but his research had more. Anyone with a reasonable logic process who watches Dr. Juedes video which is the topic of this thread probably will not accept VPWs words like they are coming directly from God.
Sure just suspend any critical thinking processes you have and immediately accept in these words like they were divine direction.
However Paul’s travels and teachings to Thessalonika were vastly different than Plaffy. Instead of plagiarizing Peters teachings and presenting them as his own he developed his own path and teachings to the Gentiles. He took the path Peter did not take instead of teaching to the same audience and trying to steal followers. There were no Great Principle charts or excellor sessions. There was no Way Ambassador program patterned after the Mormons where new converts and teenagers do the work to promulgate the group. There was No Corps with annual “placements” a thumb of control over all leadership.
I'm not an academic. I'm a curious person who reads. The only degree I hold is a bachelor's degree, in accounting.
Are you really trying to say you need validation from people on GSC? My hunch is you're not likely to ever convince anyone here that Victor Wierwille, PFLAP, or the related collateral books are the will of God.
I really hope you don't need me or anyone else on GSC to validate your beliefs.
I can have compassion for you, yet I don't believe it's necessary for me to agree with you in order to do so.
Btw, vulnerability is strength. If emotional strength is what you need, you'll more likely find it in the pages of book written by Brene Brown than in books you're already plenty familiar with from twi.
If you wonder, 20 years of banging heads with people here probably hasn't been very fulfilling for you.
If you want to try a different perspective, try vulnerability. Here's the key, you don't need to be always right, or even right at all to be accepted by people here.
Good luck with that. Honestly, I don't care whether you ever spell out how you came to believe what you have about Victor Wierwille or his teachings. But if you continue to insist that "you're right," I'll be inclined to challenge you on it.
One more thing, you'll probably be able to find at least some of these books in your local public library.
Thanks for the list of websites. I'm starting today to listen to The Power of Vulnerability through the public library here and I've placed a hold on Braving the Wilderness - only one hold before me.
What the thread is not about is Mike, his beliefs, views on Plaffy collaterals, or how he arrived at his conclusions.
I understand Mike regularly gets this confused on most of the threads he comments on trying to make them about him and his beliefs about the collaterals which defy common sense.
So that is why [ALL] some threads get mucked up. Mike gets confused about the topic, starts changing it to himself, and everyone responds. [You nailed it]
Give it a rest ostrich boy.
Yes, that's an astute assessment.
Restated in the framework of Brené Brown's research, Mike is apparently too insecure to vulnerably show up as himself. Instead of "fitting in," he has spent more than two decades trying to make readers here fit in to his belief system, even though pretty much everyone he addresses has rejected that world view and belief system.
Mike also adamantly heretofore has refused and rebuffed efforts to reach out to him with compassion.
He doesn't engage in legitimate discussion. That's sad for him and sad for us.
Thanks for the list of websites. I'm starting today to listen to The Power of Vulnerability through the public library here and I've placed a hold on Braving the Wilderness - only one hold before me.
YW. I am confident you will benefit greatly from her message, her insight, her wisdom.
When the student is ready the master appears. When the student is TRULY ready the master disappears. (Tao Te Ching)
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. (1 John 2:27)
It was describing why you are so perplexed that I don't tear up my beliefs with critical thinking skills. You, like all acdemics, hate the idea that I would be FINISHED with that process, because I FOUND the truth. Academics don't like it when some says this. It is anathema to the Academics Creed - We will seek forever.
Your hubris is showing.
16 hours ago, Mike said:
I was a blessed seeker who found.
So this is what you use to convince yourself your better than anyone else here?
16 hours ago, Mike said:
You say that's impossible.
That's because is. As it's impossible for any one person to know everything in the universe, so it is impossible to know the whole truth. At best we get just a very, very small piece.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
52
50
37
Popular Days
Jul 31
87
Jul 27
47
Aug 4
36
Aug 5
34
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 61 posts
Mike 52 posts
OldSkool 50 posts
Nathan_Jr 37 posts
Popular Days
Jul 31 2023
87 posts
Jul 27 2023
47 posts
Aug 4 2023
36 posts
Aug 5 2023
34 posts
Popular Posts
penworks
Or, for something completely different along these lines, there's a very compelling argument for doing away with bible study altogether in a "shocking" book called The End of Biblical Studies (gasp!)
waysider
The sound of irony is deafening.
OldSkool
I dont see jeering and chatter I saw you completely shut down because you were confronted with uncomfortable truths that you are smart enough to recognize but deluded enough to rationalize them away.
Posted Images
Mike
By having a lower bar for what constitutes civil discourse.
I see no obligation to engage on every point thrown at me, especially when most of the throwers are far from civil themselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I spent a half hour documenting the main ins and outs of those two years on a timeline.
What I did those years varied widely, and I am not going to spend 4 hours digging up and writing up all that I did. I did what I felt I had to do to check things out. That varied over time.
If you wanted to do it yourself, you'd figure it out for yourself as you go.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
From your academic citations and using the same tools they use.
I get the impression you want me to lay out in detail the 28 years that I came to accept the collaterals SO THAT you can poke holes in my methods, and cause doubt in me.
I get the impression that you, like all academics would, feel that my acceptance of the collaterals is a mistake and that they can't be truth.
You already reject the collaterals, and now you want to reject the details of HOW I got to accept the collaterals.
THAT kind of "civil discourse" I reject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Nope. Might that really be projection?? That's what it sounds like.
If you were to actually, in a way that demonstrated emotional maturity, make your case, I would be compelled to acknowledge YOUR OPINION.
Sure, I certainly do not hold the PFLAP collaterals to be rife with credibility. But I'm pretty sure I didn't take any cheap shots at you.
I can't claim your honestly held views or opinions, communicated clearly and honestly are invalid.
But until you do so, you remain open to criticism.
Projection occurs when a person attributes a quality to another person that really comes from themselves.
FWIW, this is what you CAN avoid when you dare to use genuine "I" statements.
Did I declare what YOUR motives were? Did I characterize your tactics using any emotionally loaded language?
THIS kind of "civil discourse" would actually protect you from emotional attacks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I'm not an academic. I'm a curious person who reads. The only degree I hold is a bachelor's degree, in accounting.
Are you really trying to say you need validation from people on GSC? My hunch is you're not likely to ever convince anyone here that Victor Wierwille, PFLAP, or the related collateral books are the will of God.
I really hope you don't need me or anyone else on GSC to validate your beliefs.
I can have compassion for you, yet I don't believe it's necessary for me to agree with you in order to do so.
Btw, vulnerability is strength. If emotional strength is what you need, you'll more likely find it in the pages of book written by Brene Brown than in books you're already plenty familiar with from twi.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/57763399-the-power-of-vulnerability
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22812284-daring-greatly
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22973083-spiritual-growth
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34564109-braving-the-wilderness
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/19996676-i-thought-it-was-just-me-but-it-isn-t
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/19984792-men-women-and-worthiness
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58330567-atlas-of-the-heart
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23511311-the-art-of-asking-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-let-people-hel
If you wonder, 20 years of banging heads with people here probably hasn't been very fulfilling for you.
If you want to try a different perspective, try vulnerability. Here's the key, you don't need to be always right, or even right at all to be accepted by people here.
Good luck with that. Honestly, I don't care whether you ever spell out how you came to believe what you have about Victor Wierwille or his teachings. But if you continue to insist that "you're right," I'll be inclined to challenge you on it.
One more thing, you'll probably be able to find at least some of these books in your local public library.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Just read. Not note-taking and nit-picking. Just read, for the pleasure of learning and understanding. One word, then the next, then the next - and you don't need a concordance to do it.
Gospel of John isn't the easiest place to start. You could have tried Mark, considered by many the basis of the synoptic (look up meaning) gospels. Matthew and Luke are also easy to read.
For myself, it wasn't any of those that started me seeking - it was the riveting adventure story and display of power in Acts of the Apostles. Couldn't wait to read the next chapter! I wanted to see that power in everyday life. I wanted to tap into it. So then, I could look back at the gospels.
Mike, if one thing doesn't work, try another. Try reading Mark, Luke, John, Acts, or any of the epistles. Or even reading parts of the OT (for the time being, not Ezekiel, Isaiah, and some of the other more prophetic books). Try Good News Bible, a very easy reader, simple English. Or The Message, in everyday English. Just read the book.
Only when you have read the book, or sufficient parts of it, are you even remotely qualified to criticise. And you do criticise the very Bible you purport to believe, when you submerge yourself in Janet & John books that purport to explain the Bible.
" I already knew the story..." - that's got to be a GSC gem, scintillating in its ridiculousness.
Edited by TwinkyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Well, that is what I did do the next year, which was 1971.
I was being taught the Word by teenagers in twig, and then I would read.
Note taking was a part of my life and I did it up bigtime with the Bible.
But it was the collaterals and the class that gave me the framework to see it all fit into.
It also helped getting a rough timeline as another frame to build my understanding on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Mike. As I said:
Not the simplistic collaterals. Read the book itself.
Didn't your hero himself advocate that, at some point, before he hauled his 3,000 study aids to the dump?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You seem to have trouble reading my simplistic posts.
I read.
NEXT TOPIC: .......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So unlike all the other VPW idolators who snap quickly to kneeling before their idol, because you did it slower it’s not idolatry!
It’s like the guy who stayed 3 weeks in Catholic mass because that’s how long it took his knees to creak allowing him to kneel on the kneeler!
JJ had several people who came to him a wreck from VPs so called ministry. That was the start of his opinion. Digging into the research was just the next step in helping those people.
And now you assess all those who refuse to bow the knee to the charlatan as consumed by hate. No we’re consumed by common sense. And we don’t like spending all our money on poor tasting snake oil telling everyone it’s great.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
That’s a good suggestion. I think the problem is that it’s like having on manure tinted sunglasses without knowing you have them on.
When Mike reads the book of Mark with the manure tinted sunglasses he doesn’t get an unbiased clear message straight off the page. He gets a distortion. He comes across all the Plaffy markings and underlining with a different color marker the verses from certain classes and interprets it in a Plaffy way. So Mark as a servant portrays that all wayfers were “born again to serve” and the way you serve in this day and time is go Way Ambassador and Corpse.
The dendrites need to be trained in a different direction for people to be able to simply read and understand what is there without all the external influence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Actually this thread is about a pastor of a mainstream Christian denomination church rejecting the collaterals because they are shallow and have shoddy handling of scripture and poor workmanship. He is on the same position of service VP was as a pastor so offers an objective external view based upon research into it.
What the thread is not about is Mike, his beliefs, views on Plaffy collaterals, or how he arrived at his conclusions.
I understand Mike regularly gets this confused on most of the threads he comments on trying to make them about him and his beliefs about the collaterals which defy common sense.
So that is why some threads get mucked up. Mike gets confused about the topic, starts changing it to himself, and everyone responds.
Give it a rest ostrich boy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No, because I did it slowly, I could take better aim at worshiping and serving the true God which was being taught in the words.
It took me time to locate WHICH words from VPW were the most trustworthy: from words spoken privately, to words spoken on tape, to "it is written."
I saw many in the shuffle who took his words in the wrong, opposite order, and they lacked good aim.
Those who fell in love with him wanted his personal private words, later his taped teachings, and last (or maybe never) his written words.
I did it slow so that I could do it right.
1 Thessalonians 2:13
And we continually thank God because, when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as the true word of God--the word which is now at work in you who believe.
I learned early from this verse (cited 3 times in the film class) that the proper aim is the True Word, and not the messenger.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
But if the messenger delivers a flawed message...
Well, you do the math.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
That’s an amazing cult leader verse especially when you take it out of context.
I am sure Creflo Dollar prays the same prayer that all those that he is fleecing will receive his words not as those of a snake oil salesman but instead receiving them like it was God speaking to them directly. And not questioning those words they will send in their ABS.
VPWs personality had flaws but his research had more. Anyone with a reasonable logic process who watches Dr. Juedes video which is the topic of this thread probably will not accept VPWs words like they are coming directly from God.
Sure just suspend any critical thinking processes you have and immediately accept in these words like they were divine direction.
However Paul’s travels and teachings to Thessalonika were vastly different than Plaffy. Instead of plagiarizing Peters teachings and presenting them as his own he developed his own path and teachings to the Gentiles. He took the path Peter did not take instead of teaching to the same audience and trying to steal followers. There were no Great Principle charts or excellor sessions. There was no Way Ambassador program patterned after the Mormons where new converts and teenagers do the work to promulgate the group. There was No Corps with annual “placements” a thumb of control over all leadership.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Thanks for the list of websites. I'm starting today to listen to The Power of Vulnerability through the public library here and I've placed a hold on Braving the Wilderness - only one hold before me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/57763399-the-power-of-vulnerability
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Yes, that's an astute assessment.
Restated in the framework of Brené Brown's research, Mike is apparently too insecure to vulnerably show up as himself. Instead of "fitting in," he has spent more than two decades trying to make readers here fit in to his belief system, even though pretty much everyone he addresses has rejected that world view and belief system.
Mike also adamantly heretofore has refused and rebuffed efforts to reach out to him with compassion.
He doesn't engage in legitimate discussion. That's sad for him and sad for us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
YW. I am confident you will benefit greatly from her message, her insight, her wisdom.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
When the student is ready the master appears. When the student is TRULY ready the master disappears. (Tao Te Ching)
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. (1 John 2:27)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Your hubris is showing.
So this is what you use to convince yourself your better than anyone else here?
That's because is. As it's impossible for any one person to know everything in the universe, so it is impossible to know the whole truth. At best we get just a very, very small piece.
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.