One last point regarding Mike's casual dismissal of my list of actual errors in PFAL. Mike writes that these errors are minor compared to the incredible amount of good in PFAL.
The problem with that is, it disagrees with Wierwille's declarations regarding God-breathed scripture. It was Wierwille who taught that one word out of place, and your whole Bible would fall apart.
Likewise, it was Jesus Christ who taught that he who is faithful in least is also faithful in much.
So your casual dismissal of my challenge is disobedient to the "scripture" of PFAL, which you idolize above the Word of God itself.
Further, I reject your claim that these are minor matters. Some are, but some clearly are not.
Wierwille spent a great deal of time and ink on Eli Eli lama sabacthani. He got it wrong. He certainly thought it was a big deal.
The Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven theory is one of the central tenets of Wierwille's theology. He would hardly call it minor.
Thanks for clearing that up Rafael, uh, I think. lol So now I'm back to my uncertainty about the origin of VPW's "ministry", though I have little doubt about the long term effects of it.
However, it is a relief to know I was not so totally blind and hungry that I missed something as blatant as that red flag.
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
Everyone needs to quit picking on Mike. He does have some unpopular ideas, but he does have the right to speak them in this forum. It is sad to see the underlying sarcasm in quite a few of the posts.
I'm glad most of you are lightening up on Mike a bit. You can get mostly petty and a even little vicious.
but...
Mike,
Try widening the lense on that telescope. Maybe find out how to swivel it to look at other bodies.
And as long your forgiving the sins of Victor to see underlying truths (truly noble, IMO), try forgiving a few sins of Catholics, Protestants, Atheists, Taoists, Mormens, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Dead Heads and Bohemians while yer at it. You might be surprised. Heck, you may find that someone has hit a few richer veins than ole' Vic ever could have.
It was refreshing to see that you are listed in the phone book. I’ve been attempting to deal with many leaders for over 15 years who are unlisted, and have insulated themselves in other ways as well. I’ll try calling again some other time.
I only have time now to respond to something I saw you posted most recently, and it’s with a paste from a previously written letter.
You wrote: “The context of that statement was Wierwille teaching people to speak in tongues. I don't think he meant for it to apply to anything else.†referring to one of Dr’s statements corresponding to both the last night of the class and page 116 in “The New, Dynamic Church.â€
Let me say first, though, that I REALIZE that Dr’s claims to having received and abundance of revelation do NOT prove that his claims are true. I don’t know why so many think I don’t see that.
What Dr’s claims do prove or demand is something different. His many, many claims like this do effectively eliminate all gray areas in how we should regard him.
Moderates and middle-of-the-roaders, people who think Dr’s material was in the gray area between good and evil, should be challenged by Dr’s extreme assertions. They need to get off the fence and decide which extreme he is in. His claims prove that he was either extremely right or extremely wrong. His claims force us to either totally reject his writings or totally accept them (in quality not quantity). His claims make dwelling in the gray area illogical.
If Dr’s writings fall into the totally evil category (with just enough good to hook people but not really bless them) then the ONLY proper response for one of his former disciples would be a TOTAL purge himself of everything Dr taught and then totally start over in some other camp. This would not only be a monumental task for some of the more entrenched grads, but WHERE to go to get their total re-education in Christianity (notice I didn’t say churchianity here) is even more arduous. This second task, in addition to purging, should severely challenge the wise seeker, because who’s to say he wouldn’t suffer from the “out of the frying pan and into the fire†syndrome.
If this possibility is true, that Dr’s claims were false, then the best response is to throw away BOTH the bathwater AND the baby, and start all over.
This logical consequence of Dr’s claims being false, the need of totally purging is something that I see ALL non-mastering admirer’s of Dr avoiding. These are the gray area people. I see all of CFF, CES, GRR, and other major splinter group leaders totally oblivious to this logical requirement, if it’s the case that Dr’s extreme claims are not true.
I was coming to see this logical requirement in the Nineties, and was moving more and more into fully investigating a total purge for myself. My respect for Dr was steadily declining from a moderate gray view to a more and more evil view. I was aware of the alternative (Dr’s claims being right) but I felt I had already looked deep enough into that possibility during the Seventies and Eighties.
My mental model of how I knew I needed to view Dr, good or evil, was probably only months away from being decided upon when a large body of new data found its way to me, including Dr’s last teaching, including its status of being rather totally lost, and including many more yet undescribed data points.
As I again, more rigorously this time, explored THIS possibility of Dr being totally correct (yet still remembering the limitation of PFALp.83) many of my reasons for accepting the totally evil possibility started evaporating one by one, some immediately, some after a few years. After pondering both possibilities the best I could, I decided to place my bet, stake my whole life of the God-breathed status of his PFAL books addressed to us, his class.
All of life is risk. There’s just as much risk in betting on the other horse.
So, now I’m late for work again, but I had to type out that introduction to my response to your post, Rafael. Yikes! I didn’t think it would take that much time and space, but I’m encoruaged by the fact that cyber paper is relatively free to print on. Maybe that requested English teacher can help me trim things down my wordiness as well as my ego.
Rafael, you posted above : “The context of that statement was Wierwille teaching people to speak in tongues. I don't think he meant for it to apply to anything else.†referring to one of Dr’s statements corresponding to both the last night of the class and page 116 in “The New, Dynamic Church.â€
I disagree, and here’s why:
This passage from "The New, Dynamic Church" is very familiar to all PFAL grads. It is a close re-work, nearly word-for-word, of the last night of the class where Dr led us into tongues. In this passage Dr lets it be known in no uncertain terms that he was God's spokesman. Yet, for those grads who have refused to follow Dr's instructions to master these materials, fading memories have helped muddy Dr's message here into oblivion in their minds.
On page 116 in that "Green Book" Dr writes:
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.
As I have presented this grand "Thus Saith The Lord" statement to grads, almost every one shoots from the hip (and their fading memory) and dismisses it as merely applying to the leading us into tongues, because that's its context. They say that this doesn't apply to the same books Dr told us to master. I've been told that to extend this page reference out to cover more than "tongues leading" is to take it out of context.
We'll have to look deeper into this matter of context.
In previous decades, I often found myself witnessing (or debating) with trinitarians over Jesus Christ being not God. In almost every conversation they would bring up Jesus' words in John 10:30 where he said "I and my Father are one." If you ever find yourself in a similar conversation I suggest that you ask them "Are you taking that statement out of context?" They will almost always insist that they are NOT taking it out of context. That's when you can ask them "Well then, what exactly IS the context?"
With Bibles closed very, very few can answer. They are SURE they're not taking it out of context, yet they have very little idea what the context is! What a deplorable situation. The conversation usually ends as Bibles open and the obvious context reveals that Jesus and the Father stand guard over the sheep as a unified team: "neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" is Jesus' job; "no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand" is the Father's job. That they are "one" in their anti-plucking stance is what the context reveals.
These wrong dividers of the Word rarely go back to check out everything they believe. They trust their memories and wing it. Now I see PFAL grads doing the same with page 116 of the Green Book and many other things we were taught.
I want to challenge you to avoid this pitfall. As masters of the Word God gave to Dr and Dr gave to us, we need to check out EVERYTHING we believe, even the simple stuff like this chapter on how to speak in tongues. We need to carefully read what's written, EVERY WORD.
There are two small simple words in the immediate context of this that stand out to alert the careful mastering student. They are in the passage I quoted above. Before I get into these two words I want to give you a chance to find them. They will amaze you as to what they open up to the diligent workman.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hint:
The two critical words I have in mind (that influence the context) from page 116 of the Green Book are in this sentence from that page:
"But if you think this is just Victor Paul Wierwille
writing or speaking to you, you will never receive."
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
They are the words "or speaking."
Often I have heard people say, regarding this particular page reference, that it only applies to the leading into tongues, because that's its context. I've been told that to extend this page reference out to cover more than "tongues leading" is to take it out of context.
But why are the words "or speaking" in there? It's a BOOK, and he's writing, not speaking. These two words bring in a broader context. The printed words on 116 were originally used in the Twelfth Session of the class, when Dr led us into tongues. With my own capitalization added, here is what he SPOKE:
“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 ...â€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.â€
Now I want to repeat the capitalized passages:
"JUST LIKE I'VE HELPED HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS" refers to previous live classes AND other teachings.
"FOR ALL THE TIMES" refers to the entire span of "this" particular film class.
"IN MY CLASSES ON POWER FOR ABUNDANT LIVING" refers to all previous PFAL classes.
"IF YOU'RE IN THIS CLASS" refers to "this" class .
"THROUGH MY MINISTRY AND MY LIFE" refers to all previous classes as well as other teachings.
"LIKE ALL THE REST OF US HAVE" refers to previous classes.
So, in addition to the leading into tongues, the whole class as well as other teachings of Dr's are a big part of the context of page 116.
That’s why I believe the context of that statement was much broader than merely Dr’s teaching people how and why to speak in tongues. I think he meant for it to apply to much more.
Agape,
Mike
[This message was edited by Mike on January 04, 2003 at 11:12.]
[This message was edited by Mike on January 04, 2003 at 11:33.]
[This message was edited by Mike on January 04, 2003 at 18:04.]
I obviously need to take more time to read your comments, but on a cursory reading, I have to say you're off base. To say that Wierwille's words were applying to more than just that particular instruction he was giving because they are written in a book simply fails to take into account the CHAPTER in the book in which the words are written. Read that three times fast.
In other words, Wierwille was teaching people how to speak in tongues, and he spoke those words. Fine. In converting that teaching into written form, he included the same words (well, DUH, that's what "converting the teaching into written form" means). We cannot say, after the fact, that Wierwille's statement on that page refers to other statements in other chapters, particularly when he himself stated that not everything he writes will be God-breathed.
Dr. Wierwille never intended for us to exalt his words to the level of Scripture. His own words prove that, and I believe your interpretation of his denial twists his words to the extent that you interpret them to say the polar opposite of what Wierwille was trying to communicate.
As for EWB and sirguessalot:
Mike has every right to speak his mind, and I have no problem with him doing so. By his own words, his position is extreme. It is my belief that his POSITION deserves an extreme response. I wish you would fight for my right to continue this dialogue as much as you fight for his right to express his views.
If Mike feels PERSONALLY insulted by anything I've written, let him say so. I have said before and will say again that my problem is with his POSITION, not his person. The closest I come to insulting him as a person is in criticizing the way he sometimes expresses his opinion, which I've criticized as insulting and arrogant. If he thinks that is a personal attack, he has not told me.
Mike, I'll have more to say, maybe, when I give your post a more thorough reading.
It was refreshing to see that you are listed in the phone book. I’ve been attempting to deal with many leaders for over 15 years who are unlisted, and have insulated themselves in other ways as well. I’ll try calling again some other time.
Like I said, I'm remarkably easy to find.
I appreciate your respect for me, Mike, but it is inaccurate to call myself a "leader" in any context regarding a discussion of The Way International. I never made any such claim, and hope you and others understand that about me.
quote:Let me say first, though, that I REALIZE that Dr’s claims to having received and abundance of revelation do NOT prove that his claims are true. I don’t know why so many think I don’t see that.
It's because when we ask you to support the thesis that Wierwille's writings are God-breathed, you quote him. I also think it's recognized that you believe Wierwille's claims regarding the promise of 1942 came to pass, as evidenced by the benefit to your life. I disagree, as evidenced by the lives of many people he hurt and abused in God's name, but that's not the subject of this discussion.
quote:Moderates and middle-of-the-roaders, people who think Dr’s material was in the gray area between good and evil, should be challenged by Dr’s extreme assertions to get off the fence and decide which extreme he is in. His claims prove that he was either extremely right or extremely right.
Ha ha. I know that was a typo, or a Freudian slip. What you meant to say, of course, was that his claims prove he was either extremely right or extremely wrong.
quote:His claims force us to either totally reject his writings or totally accept them (in quality not quantity). His claims make dwelling in the gray area illogical.
And here is where we have our most profound disagreement. I believe when Wierwille wrote that not all that he writes will necessarily be God-breathed, he challenged us to sort out that which is God-breathed from that which is not. He made NO claim to divine inspiration in his writing. Rather, he claimed that when and where he was in agreement with God's Word, the Bible, then his writing was just as valuable. He did not look at his written work as "perfect" or "divinely inspired," and in fact he personally revised his written work more than once.
The Bible teaches us to PROVE ALL THINGS, and hold to that which is good. This includes PFAL. We are to prove it, all of it. We don't need to discard the new birth because we disagree with the law of believing. We do not need to embrace fear because we reject Wierwille's "analysis" of Job 3:25. We do not need to believe the trinity just because Wierwille can't get his "all without/with distinction" story straight.
You would have us embrace every jot and tittle in Wierwille's books, or throw it all out like so much toilet paper.
I REFUSE to buy into your extremist interpretation of Wierwille's words. I fail to see any place in the print or tape record in which he insisted that PFAL or any of his other written work is on par with the Bible, or in your estimation, even MORE trustworthy than the Bible itself. I do not see anyplace where he attributes divine authorship to PFAL.
Your worship of his written material is an abdication of your responsibility to prove it against the standard of the Bible. In your eyes, PFAL IS the standard by which the Bible is to be judged. Mike, that worries me. It is the polar opposite of the best Wierwille stood for. No one, not one person alive, subscribes to this ridiculous theory, except for you. Don't you see? If Wierwille had meant for people to believe that, he would have TOLD someone. More than one person would be believing it and trying to convince others.
It's one thing to teach that PFAL is a unique and valuable tool. It is quite another to teach that it is the God-breathed word. It is not. Wierwille said it is not. Wierwille felt free to revise it because it is not.
I wish I could get that through to you, but 27 years of convincing yourself otherwise cannot be undone in a thread or a conversation.
Wierwille made mistakes. Some were minor. Some were major.
Wierwille got some things right. Some were minor. Some were major.
I reject your insistence that one must embrace ALL or NOTHING. I think that's hogwash, and I think it's an abdication of our responsibility to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good.
quote:If Dr’s writings fall into the totally evil category (with just enough good to hook people but not really bless them) then the ONLY proper response for one of his former disciples would be a TOTAL purge himself of everything Dr taught and then totally start over in some other camp.
You know what I feel like sometimes? I feel like a fish that got away with the bait. I wasn't hooked. I wasn't reeled in. I wasn't hurt. Thank God. Others were. That's a part of Wierwille's legacy, as much as the people he blessed.
But me? I got the bait, and I recognize the difference between the bait, which is actually food, and the hook, which is the harmful stuff that happens if I swallow the bait blindly without regard to everything else around it.
Get it?
quote:If this possibility is true, that Dr’s claims were false, then the best response is to throw away BOTH the bathwater AND the baby, and start all over.
No, the best response is the Biblical one: PROVE ALL THINGS, HOLD FAST TO THAT WHICH IS GOOD. Is there an echo in here?
quote:This logical consequence of Dr’s claims being false, the need of totally purging is something that I see ALL non-mastering admirer’s of Dr avoiding.
Perhaps because it's not necessary, Meek Master Mike.
quote:These are the gray area people. I see all of CFF, CES, GRR, and other major splinter group leaders totally oblivious to this logical requirement, if it’s the case that Dr’s extreme claims are not true.
I see them all proving all things and holding... oh forget it. Hello, McFly, your shoe's untied.
quote: My mental model of how I knew I needed to view Dr, good or evil, was probably only months away from being decided upon when a large body of new data found its way to me, including Dr’s last teaching, including its status of being rather totally lost, and including many more yet undescribed data points.
Once again, I reject your false choice. It is not a matter of discarding it all or embracing it all. It is a matter of proving... sigh.
quote: As I again, more rigorously this time, explored THIS possibility of Dr being totally correct (yet still remembering the limitation of PFALp.83) many of my reasons for accepting the totally evil possibility started evaporating one by one, some immediately, some after a few years.
No, sir, I disagree with you. YOU melted them away. The damage Wierwille did to people's lives is a fact, something YOU refuse to look at any longer strictly because it does not conform to your idolatrous worship of his writings and, in many ways, his character as well.
Mike, what can I tell you? You have convinced yourself of a logical model that does not hold.
You tell us that we MUST choose option A or B. The simple fact that there are countless other options escapes you. Why? I do not know. I believe you are GRAVELY misinterpreting Wierwille, to the detriment of his words and God's Word. I wish I could make you see that, but like I said before, 27 years of convincing yourself otherwise cannot be undone by logic, common sense, scripture, or even the words of Wierwille himself.
If nothing else your posts and evaluation of Victor Wierwille are entertaining. I can't help, but laugh when I read them or think about them. Thank you for the entertainment.
Now I better get back to work. My office is a mess and it needs tending to. Thanks again for the entertainment.
As far as picking on Mike goes, I haven't read all his (or anyone else's) extremely long posts, but I've skimmed them. I haven't seen any indication where Mike has accused anyone of "picking" on him.
This is a discussion forum. Disagreements and opinions are common.
I know if I thought I was getting "picked on" - I'd say something to the posters I thought were causing the harm - which (as many can tell you) I have done in the past.
Mike - do you feel like people who are reponding to your posts as vehemently as you write them are "picking" on you?
(caution – it has been a few hours since a customer walked in the gallery, so this’ll be kinda long. Oh well, I had fun writing it.)
Mike,
I hope my being in TWI-2 and never having made it to reverend or corps will keep you from reading or responding.
You wrote:
“Moderates and middle-of-the-roaders, people who think Dr’s material was in the gray area between good and evil, should be challenged by Dr’s extreme assertions to get off the fence and decide which extreme he is in. His claims prove that he was either extremely right or extremely right. His claims force us to either totally reject his writings or totally accept them (in quality not quantity). His claims make dwelling in the gray area illogical.â€
Illogical? Really?
Heerz some heavy bible rhetoric, (for anyone reading, of course, not just Mike):
Last I checked a bible, The God was the only truly singular thing. The Christ was the only truly dual thing (the alpha and omega, having experienced the beginning and the end and back again). Us more complex folk exist in the great wide somewhere between God and nothing called creation, which seems quite a vast place to dismiss as irrelevant.
Is either a man’s ministries or his sins less complex than even his own personal self?
Can you really boil him down to two things?
All good? All evil? All right? All wrong?
And will one element define the entire mixture? Even the dominant or most potent one?
Whenever someone draws a line and defines two extremes, I hafta ask myself, “Who drew this particular line?†And so, logically, “whose definitions of extremes am I being offered?â€
And even if a man was to discover a part of the line (that God drew) while digging in the evergrowing mountain of books and knowledge, how can he really know the full ends of it when the only ends he sees are those at each side of his own little hole?
How can we “logically†claim one man’s ministry as THE alpha and omega?
Is any one’s version of another’s version of “yes or no†really a question we must answer?
Did Vic’s ministry really become as simple and pure and complete as Christ’s, as to be reduced to two such pure dimensions?
Did not Paul express a manifold grace and a multi-dimensional ministry?
Heck, any crooked politician can define an alpha and omega to move and herd people?
And he may even believe it.
Also, why is gray deemed so unimportant by so many?
Isn’t the flesh of our brain gray?
Is gray maybe just the blur I see when I am breaking my neck to find two extremes of truth at the expense of all those infinite truths “in the midst†of us?
Besides, no matter how I try to separate gray, there are always THREE primary colors in it, NEVER just two.
Blue
Gold
Red
Same with brown (a primary and a secondary, which is a mix of two primaries).
So, why not a call it a “brown area?â€
Your flesh and hair are degrees of brown.
The wood of "trees" are more or less brown.
Or, why not call it the “prismatic area†between pure light and not light?
Why neglect the full spectrum of creation? Is that not where truth is given?
So...
Is the fence really that narrow?
And if so, aren’t bible fans proud of the fact that Jesus’s path was narrow, too?
Does this narrow path draw a line BETWEEN God (life) and nothing (death)?
Or does it connect them?
Both?
Wasn’t it the tree of knowledge of (BOTH) good and evil that Adam and Eve were not to F with? The one in the MIDST of the garden? Cuz it was for knowledge, not fuel?
Is not the tree of life in the MIDST of the garden as well?
Does not the flaming sword turn EVERY WAY to guard the tree of life?
Are we to strive for BALANCE?
Or strive for PERFECTION?
Is not extreme balance also a perfection?
Finally, let me ask you this, PFAL fans,
If we eliminate the relevance of the middle mind, what are we really eliminating?
Alignment?
Harmony?
Would not the power of an INWARD man live in the center, or middle of us (where else would it be if it is an inner man? On the tip of our nose?).
Todd…
(How can I ask questions if all I already have the answers?)
Mike, you claim that you did not quote the statement on page 116 out of context. I offer the following:
quote:Before you can tap any of God's resources, you must know, first of all, what is available. You knowspeaking in tongues is available because the Word of God says all born-again believers have the holy spirit within them, which is the ability to speak in tongues. Next you must know how to receive it, which is set forth in the following paragraphs.
The statement you quote is in the second paragraph following that statement. Therefore, it is SPECIFICALLY regarding "how to receive" in terms of speaking in tongues. It is specifically NOT a declaration that everything Wierwille writes is God-breathed. Your refusal to see that does not change the statement or its context.
quote:Everyone needs to quit picking on Mike. He does have some unpopular ideas, but he does have the right to speak them in this forum
What everyone needs to do? No, I don't need to do that. I don't even want to do that!
Just kidding. I agree with previous posters, those who disagree with Mike have the right to speak, in fact, some of us feel very strongly about responding to this line of thought and not letting it go unanswered.
Oakspear
...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...
My words come from personal dealings with Mike on these very issues.
I stated that fact as well.
It is true Mike has been making this pitch for many many years and has not been the least bit confused or considered any other view.
Right Mike ?
Those of you who think kid gloves are neccesary with posters do not seem to have much to say other than who is wrong and who is right not by activly participating in the discussion.
Mike likes this.
I dare say Mike is waiting for time in his life to begin even more posting.. he gets excited and feels alot of emotion thinking he has converted or helped the poor lost souls who need him.
Your right it is all about feeling sorry for Mike.
He has had his *** kicked for so long now he actualy wishes for more.
I ask Mike himself what is your purpose Mike?
Why is it you need to tell others your news?
On a mission from God dude?
The issue of whether flakes were involved in peoples lifes in twi is of no doubt to me whatsoever.
quote:Let me say first, though, that I REALIZE that Dr’s claims to having received and abundance of revelation do NOT prove that his claims are true. I don’t know why so many think I don’t see that.
Mike, every question about why you think something, including why you believe VP's works are God-breathed, is some version of "Doctor said", or "Doctor wrote". Everything you have written so far refers back to VP Wierwille as the authority. You have repeatedly used circular logic. That's why we think you can't see that.
quote:...people who think Dr’s material was in the gray area between good and evil, should be challenged by Dr’s extreme assertions to get off the fence and decide which extreme he is in. His claims prove that he was either extremely right or extremely [wrong]. His claims force us to either totally reject his writings or totally accept them (in quality not quantity). His claims make dwelling in the gray area illogical.
You're doing it again Mike: Wierwille's teachings cannot be in a grey area between good and evil because Wierwille said so.
This is a logical fallacy: that because something is not 100% one thing, it therefore must be 100% another. (logic experts, feel free to supply the correct name).
I saw Way people use this fallacy over the years: "Do you think I'm totally f---ed up?", one might ask, or "Do you think I'm possessed?" When you would answer no (maybe the person was just wrong, or simply mistaken), the person would conclude that they were right...end of discussion.
Oakspear
...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...
I got a question for you, if you could find it in your heart to answer a question from this poor infidel. (I've noticed that you haven't answered any of my questions before. I mean, what is it, my breath? )
Weren't you the guy who, 3-4 years ago, posted on the Trancenet message board about some Corps-like program that you wanted to set up, and you invited folks on Trancenet to take part and join that Corps-like program? And I 'highly suggested' to you that the Trancenet boards weren't exactly the place to go recruiting for your 'Corps' program, because many of the folks there were still smarting from the abuse that they endured under TWI, and that they might turn some of that frustration on you, in no uncertain terms?
And you got that kind of response back then, didn't you? In spades!
So maybe that should be a bit of a clue for you as to the success (or lack of same) that you'll get here, ... doncha think?
Anyway, let me know what your answer is to that, as I hope I haven't offended you too terribly by my questions before.
quote: "Everyone needs to quit picking on Mike. He does have some unpopular ideas, but he does have the right to speak them in this forum. It is sad to see the underlying sarcasm in quite a few of the posts."
Oh really? If it has not already been said, "everyone" is not picking on Mike personally, but his ideas and and methods are definitely being challenged - and rightly so.
I might also point out that absolutely no one has interfered with Mike's right to speak in this forum - He has spoken freely without hindrance or obstruction.
And by the same token everyone else has the right to express their ideas as well - even if it means challenging, criticizing or rejecting what another has presented. Let's not mistake criticism of someone's ideas with sarcasm that is intended to wound someone personally.
I agree that Mike's ideas are unpopular, but even more than that, no matter how well-intended, these ideas spit in the face of what many here believe to be true and factual. Do we not have the right to challenge, criticize, reject or even ridicule these ideas?
Ethelbert, who are you to tell "everyone" what they need to do?
I’d like to answer you better, but it’s a little difficult. You place me at a slight disadvantage. Could you please tell me you name, or the name you used when we communicated by e-mail? I’ve written to, and had lots of replies from almost a hundred people these past 5 years, so please don’t be offended that I don’t recognize who you are. I mean no offense.
I have done lots and lots of reading here at GreaseSpot lately, and some details blur in my memory, so correct me if I’m wrong. Didn’t you say on some other post that you are, or were in college, and in New York? I know Yew York is a pretty big state, but do you by any chance know a girl named Sandy who lives there?
The reason I ask is because I was corresponding with her some time ago and she stopped answering my e-mails. I feel very concerned about her because she told me things were pretty rough spiritually at her college. That’s why I thought you might know her, because she went to college in New York too, and that kinds increases the odds that you might know her.
She contacted me one day out of the blue. We never knew each other prior to this or had any contact whatsoever, so she introduced herself to me by e-mail. That’s another thing you two have in common, a computer.
It turned out that she had done a Google search on Dr. Wierwille and came up with that old post (now erased) of mine on www.eph320.com about Dr’s Last/Lost Teaching. Her first letter was very abrupt and short. She simply asked about the teaching without any explanation at all. I sensed she was hurting (she later confirmed it) and prayed before I replied.
Anyway, she was pretty upset, so it took a few letters to calm her down a little. I tried my best to let her know I wasn’t going to hurt her like the CES people on her campus that were bugging her, so she said. I think there might have also been another splinter group involved or even that biggest of them, the twi-2 stump.
I told her more about Dr’s last teaching and how it blessed me. She said she had a lot of his books and liked them. We corresponded for a few months and she seemed blessed. I kept on praying for her, sent her my phone number, and thought I had made a new friend.
Then all of a sudden she stopped e-mailing back. I sent one or two short letters (real short, one paragraph, not like my posts) asking her if she was all right, but I heard nothing back. By this time I had finally leaned a few things about wisdom (still more to go though) and figured I’d better back off.
(Sorry alfakat, I had not learned this lesson when I kept sending you stuff, ignoring your silence. I never meant to be a spammer. Can you find it in your heart to forgive me?)
So, mj412, the reason I asked you if you knew Sandy is because I’m still praying for her. It hurt my heart many times, how confusing all this ministry stuff is, so I really know how she feels.
There were quite a few times these past 17 or so years that I stayed up all night in bed, unable to sleep, because I was so distressed with the ministry meltdown, and how the adversary had confused us all so much, and how we were all so mean to each other. I had tears, real drippy, wet-my-collar tears on more than one occasion about all this stuff.
So, I really know how she felt as she explained to me how nasty everyone was to her. I really try my best to love my family, and I regarded Sandy as my sister. I only hope she found peace, so I keep praying.
Mj412, even if you don’t know Sandy now, if you should meet her in the future, could you please ask her to e-mail me, or at least pass a message on to me by way of you? I just want to know that she is ok. I am doing my best to see her healed, but a little feedback would help.
“I got a question for you, if you could find it in your heart to answer a question from this poor infidel. (I've noticed that you haven't answered any of my questions before. I mean, what is it, my breath? )â€
Please don’t be offended. It’s not you, it’s me.
I’m swamped with work right now, but that will end soon. I work a very physically demanding job for an old hippie like me, and when I get home I’m usually bushed. Then after reading through all the posts that I want to answer RIGHT NOW gets my head spinning.
Most of my free time these days is either sleeping, reading or writing. Please be patient, and eventually I’ll get to almost everyone, except the crazies, and even a few of them I can relate to being an arch Firesign Theatre fan(atic).
I keep posting that I’m super busy like this, but maybe you missed it. I’ve got a pile of e-mails from GreaseSpotters backlogged, and there are so many posts I really need to answer. Some of these e-mail and post replies require a hour or more, because I want to be careful and thorough. I really do care about all you out there, and my heart is to answer much more than I can just now. I keep trying my best though. I have to pick and choose who needs what the most. You can pray for me that I get these kind of judgement calls right.
Then you wrote:
“Weren't you the guy who, 3-4 years ago, posted on the Trancenet message board about some Corps-like program that you wanted to set up, and you invited folks on Trancenet to take part and join that Corps-like program? And I 'highly suggested' to you that the Trancenet boards weren't exactly the place to go recruiting for your 'Corps' program, because many of the folks there were still smarting from the abuse that they endured under TWI, and that they might turn some of that frustration on you, in no uncertain terms?â€
No. Whew! That was an easy answer.
((((pssssssst! Mike! This is your ego speaking. That response was waaaaaaaaay too short. Do something to beef it up, get real detailed and thorough, several long paragraphs, give the guy much more than he asked for. This way you’ll impress him and maybe he’ll start sending you abundant sharing. You could get rich on this sucker. You could even retire! How many window cleaners do you know that can retire? Come on the guy is asking for it. You... er... uh I mean... I can do it. Hit him with both barrels blazing, lots of big 50 cent words. Don’t worry, he’ll never look them up. Listen to me, I’m you ego, I call the shots around here. Don’t you trust me? Look at all I’ve done for me....... hey! Wha.. What the???... no.... NO! DON'T SAY ONLY T-H-A-T!!!!
One thing I can say about ya, ... I love your wierd sense of humor!! :D--> Firesign Theatre fan! Cool! That's right on up there in my book, right along with Monty Python, Bloom County, and Zonker!
Now where do I mail my $$$$ .... Jeeezz, I almost got 'brainwashed' for a minute there!!
Anywho, I can relate to trying to get everything done all at once. And even if I don't agree with hardly anything you say here, I do appreciate you being polite and all.
But overall, perhaps the reason that Raf and the others are saying the things that they are to you isn't because of bitterness, unbelief in God's Word, or any other ungodly reason, but from an honest and thinking position that they have arrived at and that you might learn a thing or three from. Just like we can learn from you.
Just as long as God is the final determining source, and not any man or organization, trinitarian or unitarian, Democratic or Republican. (Altho, I hafta draw the line at Reform Party hacks. I had enough of them with seeing Pat Buchanan and Co. :D--> )
Thank you for speaking up for me. I tried to find your e-mail address but you kept it private. I did volunteer for all this, and knew from a distance that it would get tough, but once in it I noticed it was a lot tougher than expected.
I’m thankful, though, that in spite of the mindless heckling, some thoughtful conversations do take place at times. You can pray for me, and better yet, e-mail me. I’d love to trade notes with you on mastering the collateral’s, and techniques that yield the most fruit, and such. Once those books are open and the contents become the main topic for an extended time, things start resembling the good old days.. er uh.. I mean the good old days FOR ME and lots of grads before the Eighties, especially back in the early Seventies.
That’s the NINETEEN Seventies I’m talking about. Say, I didn’t mean anything by “good old days,†and to tell you the truth, I get a little sensitive about the word “old†these days myself. You seem to be doing pretty well for someone who’s been around for a while.
By the way, my teacher was a big fan of yours. I think you’d really appreciate how God taught him to go even beyond your material. You were a great comfort to him when people thought HE was crazy about the 4 crucified with Christ, and a ton of other things. You comforted me in a different way, but it was comforting just the same.
Please e-mail me. It’s really cool to see such a mature gentleman such as yourself using a computer. My great, great grandfather, if he were alive today, probably would stayed as far away as possible from new fangled things. Have you ever rode in a jet plane?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
58
236
44
53
Popular Days
Dec 29
100
Mar 8
77
Jan 5
74
Dec 27
59
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 58 posts
Mike 236 posts
Tom Strange 44 posts
OldSkool 53 posts
Popular Days
Dec 29 2022
100 posts
Mar 8 2004
77 posts
Jan 5 2003
74 posts
Dec 27 2002
59 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
Great posts Rocky & Waysider ! Sometimes wierwille apologetics make me think of an Old Testament passage: 20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and
Bolshevik
He tells them to be joyful. Doesn't explain how. The Word says be joyful *POOF* you are now joyful. Like when claiming verses. Craftily disconnects the motive from the action. . . .
WordWolf
Yes. BTW, anyone who wants a quick summary of the main points of that entire transcript, it's simple. I said it before: "Serving people is important for Christians. Therefore, master
Posted Images
Raf
One last point regarding Mike's casual dismissal of my list of actual errors in PFAL. Mike writes that these errors are minor compared to the incredible amount of good in PFAL.
The problem with that is, it disagrees with Wierwille's declarations regarding God-breathed scripture. It was Wierwille who taught that one word out of place, and your whole Bible would fall apart.
Likewise, it was Jesus Christ who taught that he who is faithful in least is also faithful in much.
So your casual dismissal of my challenge is disobedient to the "scripture" of PFAL, which you idolize above the Word of God itself.
Further, I reject your claim that these are minor matters. Some are, but some clearly are not.
Wierwille spent a great deal of time and ink on Eli Eli lama sabacthani. He got it wrong. He certainly thought it was a big deal.
The Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven theory is one of the central tenets of Wierwille's theology. He would hardly call it minor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
deleted by Abigail
[This message was edited by Abigail on January 09, 2003 at 3:09.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Abigail,
The context of that statement was Wierwille teaching people to speak in tongues. I don't think he meant for it to apply to anything else.
The Living Epistles Society
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Thanks for clearing that up Rafael, uh, I think. lol So now I'm back to my uncertainty about the origin of VPW's "ministry", though I have little doubt about the long term effects of it.
However, it is a relief to know I was not so totally blind and hungry that I missed something as blatant as that red flag.
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
If you look at the text of "Doctor's" lost last teaching...it looks like
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...a bondage face
Oakspear
...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
E. W. Bullinger
Dear Greasespot:
Everyone needs to quit picking on Mike. He does have some unpopular ideas, but he does have the right to speak them in this forum. It is sad to see the underlying sarcasm in quite a few of the posts.
E.W.B.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
I agree with EWB...
GSCers,
I'm glad most of you are lightening up on Mike a bit. You can get mostly petty and a even little vicious.
but...
Mike,
Try widening the lense on that telescope. Maybe find out how to swivel it to look at other bodies.
And as long your forgiving the sins of Victor to see underlying truths (truly noble, IMO), try forgiving a few sins of Catholics, Protestants, Atheists, Taoists, Mormens, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Dead Heads and Bohemians while yer at it. You might be surprised. Heck, you may find that someone has hit a few richer veins than ole' Vic ever could have.
And hey, answer an email sometime, will ya?
Todd...
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thanks. I appreciate that.
Rafael,
It was refreshing to see that you are listed in the phone book. I’ve been attempting to deal with many leaders for over 15 years who are unlisted, and have insulated themselves in other ways as well. I’ll try calling again some other time.
I only have time now to respond to something I saw you posted most recently, and it’s with a paste from a previously written letter.
You wrote: “The context of that statement was Wierwille teaching people to speak in tongues. I don't think he meant for it to apply to anything else.†referring to one of Dr’s statements corresponding to both the last night of the class and page 116 in “The New, Dynamic Church.â€
Let me say first, though, that I REALIZE that Dr’s claims to having received and abundance of revelation do NOT prove that his claims are true. I don’t know why so many think I don’t see that.
What Dr’s claims do prove or demand is something different. His many, many claims like this do effectively eliminate all gray areas in how we should regard him.
Moderates and middle-of-the-roaders, people who think Dr’s material was in the gray area between good and evil, should be challenged by Dr’s extreme assertions. They need to get off the fence and decide which extreme he is in. His claims prove that he was either extremely right or extremely wrong. His claims force us to either totally reject his writings or totally accept them (in quality not quantity). His claims make dwelling in the gray area illogical.
If Dr’s writings fall into the totally evil category (with just enough good to hook people but not really bless them) then the ONLY proper response for one of his former disciples would be a TOTAL purge himself of everything Dr taught and then totally start over in some other camp. This would not only be a monumental task for some of the more entrenched grads, but WHERE to go to get their total re-education in Christianity (notice I didn’t say churchianity here) is even more arduous. This second task, in addition to purging, should severely challenge the wise seeker, because who’s to say he wouldn’t suffer from the “out of the frying pan and into the fire†syndrome.
If this possibility is true, that Dr’s claims were false, then the best response is to throw away BOTH the bathwater AND the baby, and start all over.
This logical consequence of Dr’s claims being false, the need of totally purging is something that I see ALL non-mastering admirer’s of Dr avoiding. These are the gray area people. I see all of CFF, CES, GRR, and other major splinter group leaders totally oblivious to this logical requirement, if it’s the case that Dr’s extreme claims are not true.
I was coming to see this logical requirement in the Nineties, and was moving more and more into fully investigating a total purge for myself. My respect for Dr was steadily declining from a moderate gray view to a more and more evil view. I was aware of the alternative (Dr’s claims being right) but I felt I had already looked deep enough into that possibility during the Seventies and Eighties.
My mental model of how I knew I needed to view Dr, good or evil, was probably only months away from being decided upon when a large body of new data found its way to me, including Dr’s last teaching, including its status of being rather totally lost, and including many more yet undescribed data points.
As I again, more rigorously this time, explored THIS possibility of Dr being totally correct (yet still remembering the limitation of PFALp.83) many of my reasons for accepting the totally evil possibility started evaporating one by one, some immediately, some after a few years. After pondering both possibilities the best I could, I decided to place my bet, stake my whole life of the God-breathed status of his PFAL books addressed to us, his class.
All of life is risk. There’s just as much risk in betting on the other horse.
So, now I’m late for work again, but I had to type out that introduction to my response to your post, Rafael. Yikes! I didn’t think it would take that much time and space, but I’m encoruaged by the fact that cyber paper is relatively free to print on. Maybe that requested English teacher can help me trim things down my wordiness as well as my ego.
**********************************************************
Rafael, you posted above : “The context of that statement was Wierwille teaching people to speak in tongues. I don't think he meant for it to apply to anything else.†referring to one of Dr’s statements corresponding to both the last night of the class and page 116 in “The New, Dynamic Church.â€
I disagree, and here’s why:
This passage from "The New, Dynamic Church" is very familiar to all PFAL grads. It is a close re-work, nearly word-for-word, of the last night of the class where Dr led us into tongues. In this passage Dr lets it be known in no uncertain terms that he was God's spokesman. Yet, for those grads who have refused to follow Dr's instructions to master these materials, fading memories have helped muddy Dr's message here into oblivion in their minds.
On page 116 in that "Green Book" Dr writes:
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.
As I have presented this grand "Thus Saith The Lord" statement to grads, almost every one shoots from the hip (and their fading memory) and dismisses it as merely applying to the leading us into tongues, because that's its context. They say that this doesn't apply to the same books Dr told us to master. I've been told that to extend this page reference out to cover more than "tongues leading" is to take it out of context.
We'll have to look deeper into this matter of context.
In previous decades, I often found myself witnessing (or debating) with trinitarians over Jesus Christ being not God. In almost every conversation they would bring up Jesus' words in John 10:30 where he said "I and my Father are one." If you ever find yourself in a similar conversation I suggest that you ask them "Are you taking that statement out of context?" They will almost always insist that they are NOT taking it out of context. That's when you can ask them "Well then, what exactly IS the context?"
With Bibles closed very, very few can answer. They are SURE they're not taking it out of context, yet they have very little idea what the context is! What a deplorable situation. The conversation usually ends as Bibles open and the obvious context reveals that Jesus and the Father stand guard over the sheep as a unified team: "neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" is Jesus' job; "no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand" is the Father's job. That they are "one" in their anti-plucking stance is what the context reveals.
These wrong dividers of the Word rarely go back to check out everything they believe. They trust their memories and wing it. Now I see PFAL grads doing the same with page 116 of the Green Book and many other things we were taught.
I want to challenge you to avoid this pitfall. As masters of the Word God gave to Dr and Dr gave to us, we need to check out EVERYTHING we believe, even the simple stuff like this chapter on how to speak in tongues. We need to carefully read what's written, EVERY WORD.
There are two small simple words in the immediate context of this that stand out to alert the careful mastering student. They are in the passage I quoted above. Before I get into these two words I want to give you a chance to find them. They will amaze you as to what they open up to the diligent workman.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hint:
The two critical words I have in mind (that influence the context) from page 116 of the Green Book are in this sentence from that page:
"But if you think this is just Victor Paul Wierwille
writing or speaking to you, you will never receive."
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
They are the words "or speaking."
Often I have heard people say, regarding this particular page reference, that it only applies to the leading into tongues, because that's its context. I've been told that to extend this page reference out to cover more than "tongues leading" is to take it out of context.
But why are the words "or speaking" in there? It's a BOOK, and he's writing, not speaking. These two words bring in a broader context. The printed words on 116 were originally used in the Twelfth Session of the class, when Dr led us into tongues. With my own capitalization added, here is what he SPOKE:
“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 ...â€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.â€
Now I want to repeat the capitalized passages:
"JUST LIKE I'VE HELPED HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS" refers to previous live classes AND other teachings.
"FOR ALL THE TIMES" refers to the entire span of "this" particular film class.
"IN MY CLASSES ON POWER FOR ABUNDANT LIVING" refers to all previous PFAL classes.
"IF YOU'RE IN THIS CLASS" refers to "this" class .
"THROUGH MY MINISTRY AND MY LIFE" refers to all previous classes as well as other teachings.
"LIKE ALL THE REST OF US HAVE" refers to previous classes.
So, in addition to the leading into tongues, the whole class as well as other teachings of Dr's are a big part of the context of page 116.
That’s why I believe the context of that statement was much broader than merely Dr’s teaching people how and why to speak in tongues. I think he meant for it to apply to much more.
Agape,
Mike
[This message was edited by Mike on January 04, 2003 at 11:12.]
[This message was edited by Mike on January 04, 2003 at 11:33.]
[This message was edited by Mike on January 04, 2003 at 18:04.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
LG
[This message was edited by Long Gone on January 04, 2003 at 17:13.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mike,
I obviously need to take more time to read your comments, but on a cursory reading, I have to say you're off base. To say that Wierwille's words were applying to more than just that particular instruction he was giving because they are written in a book simply fails to take into account the CHAPTER in the book in which the words are written. Read that three times fast.
In other words, Wierwille was teaching people how to speak in tongues, and he spoke those words. Fine. In converting that teaching into written form, he included the same words (well, DUH, that's what "converting the teaching into written form" means). We cannot say, after the fact, that Wierwille's statement on that page refers to other statements in other chapters, particularly when he himself stated that not everything he writes will be God-breathed.
Dr. Wierwille never intended for us to exalt his words to the level of Scripture. His own words prove that, and I believe your interpretation of his denial twists his words to the extent that you interpret them to say the polar opposite of what Wierwille was trying to communicate.
As for EWB and sirguessalot:
Mike has every right to speak his mind, and I have no problem with him doing so. By his own words, his position is extreme. It is my belief that his POSITION deserves an extreme response. I wish you would fight for my right to continue this dialogue as much as you fight for his right to express his views.
If Mike feels PERSONALLY insulted by anything I've written, let him say so. I have said before and will say again that my problem is with his POSITION, not his person. The closest I come to insulting him as a person is in criticizing the way he sometimes expresses his opinion, which I've criticized as insulting and arrogant. If he thinks that is a personal attack, he has not told me.
Mike, I'll have more to say, maybe, when I give your post a more thorough reading.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Like I said, I'm remarkably easy to find.
I appreciate your respect for me, Mike, but it is inaccurate to call myself a "leader" in any context regarding a discussion of The Way International. I never made any such claim, and hope you and others understand that about me.
Here's my relevant bio.
It's because when we ask you to support the thesis that Wierwille's writings are God-breathed, you quote him. I also think it's recognized that you believe Wierwille's claims regarding the promise of 1942 came to pass, as evidenced by the benefit to your life. I disagree, as evidenced by the lives of many people he hurt and abused in God's name, but that's not the subject of this discussion.
Ha ha. I know that was a typo, or a Freudian slip. What you meant to say, of course, was that his claims prove he was either extremely right or extremely wrong.
And here is where we have our most profound disagreement. I believe when Wierwille wrote that not all that he writes will necessarily be God-breathed, he challenged us to sort out that which is God-breathed from that which is not. He made NO claim to divine inspiration in his writing. Rather, he claimed that when and where he was in agreement with God's Word, the Bible, then his writing was just as valuable. He did not look at his written work as "perfect" or "divinely inspired," and in fact he personally revised his written work more than once.
The Bible teaches us to PROVE ALL THINGS, and hold to that which is good. This includes PFAL. We are to prove it, all of it. We don't need to discard the new birth because we disagree with the law of believing. We do not need to embrace fear because we reject Wierwille's "analysis" of Job 3:25. We do not need to believe the trinity just because Wierwille can't get his "all without/with distinction" story straight.
You would have us embrace every jot and tittle in Wierwille's books, or throw it all out like so much toilet paper.
I REFUSE to buy into your extremist interpretation of Wierwille's words. I fail to see any place in the print or tape record in which he insisted that PFAL or any of his other written work is on par with the Bible, or in your estimation, even MORE trustworthy than the Bible itself. I do not see anyplace where he attributes divine authorship to PFAL.
Your worship of his written material is an abdication of your responsibility to prove it against the standard of the Bible. In your eyes, PFAL IS the standard by which the Bible is to be judged. Mike, that worries me. It is the polar opposite of the best Wierwille stood for. No one, not one person alive, subscribes to this ridiculous theory, except for you. Don't you see? If Wierwille had meant for people to believe that, he would have TOLD someone. More than one person would be believing it and trying to convince others.
It's one thing to teach that PFAL is a unique and valuable tool. It is quite another to teach that it is the God-breathed word. It is not. Wierwille said it is not. Wierwille felt free to revise it because it is not.
I wish I could get that through to you, but 27 years of convincing yourself otherwise cannot be undone in a thread or a conversation.
Wierwille made mistakes. Some were minor. Some were major.
Wierwille got some things right. Some were minor. Some were major.
I reject your insistence that one must embrace ALL or NOTHING. I think that's hogwash, and I think it's an abdication of our responsibility to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good.
You know what I feel like sometimes? I feel like a fish that got away with the bait. I wasn't hooked. I wasn't reeled in. I wasn't hurt. Thank God. Others were. That's a part of Wierwille's legacy, as much as the people he blessed.
But me? I got the bait, and I recognize the difference between the bait, which is actually food, and the hook, which is the harmful stuff that happens if I swallow the bait blindly without regard to everything else around it.
Get it?
No, the best response is the Biblical one: PROVE ALL THINGS, HOLD FAST TO THAT WHICH IS GOOD. Is there an echo in here?
Perhaps because it's not necessary, Meek Master Mike.
I see them all proving all things and holding... oh forget it. Hello, McFly, your shoe's untied.
Once again, I reject your false choice. It is not a matter of discarding it all or embracing it all. It is a matter of proving... sigh.
No, sir, I disagree with you. YOU melted them away. The damage Wierwille did to people's lives is a fact, something YOU refuse to look at any longer strictly because it does not conform to your idolatrous worship of his writings and, in many ways, his character as well.
Mike, what can I tell you? You have convinced yourself of a logical model that does not hold.
You tell us that we MUST choose option A or B. The simple fact that there are countless other options escapes you. Why? I do not know. I believe you are GRAVELY misinterpreting Wierwille, to the detriment of his words and God's Word. I wish I could make you see that, but like I said before, 27 years of convincing yourself otherwise cannot be undone by logic, common sense, scripture, or even the words of Wierwille himself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Hi Mike:
If nothing else your posts and evaluation of Victor Wierwille are entertaining. I can't help, but laugh when I read them or think about them. Thank you for the entertainment.
Now I better get back to work. My office is a mess and it needs tending to. Thanks again for the entertainment.
Sincerely,
Mark
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
EWB -
As far as picking on Mike goes, I haven't read all his (or anyone else's) extremely long posts, but I've skimmed them. I haven't seen any indication where Mike has accused anyone of "picking" on him.
This is a discussion forum. Disagreements and opinions are common.
I know if I thought I was getting "picked on" - I'd say something to the posters I thought were causing the harm - which (as many can tell you) I have done in the past.
Mike - do you feel like people who are reponding to your posts as vehemently as you write them are "picking" on you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
In defense of the “grayâ€â€¦
(caution – it has been a few hours since a customer walked in the gallery, so this’ll be kinda long. Oh well, I had fun writing it.)
Mike,
I hope my being in TWI-2 and never having made it to reverend or corps will keep you from reading or responding.
You wrote:
“Moderates and middle-of-the-roaders, people who think Dr’s material was in the gray area between good and evil, should be challenged by Dr’s extreme assertions to get off the fence and decide which extreme he is in. His claims prove that he was either extremely right or extremely right. His claims force us to either totally reject his writings or totally accept them (in quality not quantity). His claims make dwelling in the gray area illogical.â€
Illogical? Really?
Heerz some heavy bible rhetoric, (for anyone reading, of course, not just Mike):
Last I checked a bible, The God was the only truly singular thing. The Christ was the only truly dual thing (the alpha and omega, having experienced the beginning and the end and back again). Us more complex folk exist in the great wide somewhere between God and nothing called creation, which seems quite a vast place to dismiss as irrelevant.
Is either a man’s ministries or his sins less complex than even his own personal self?
Can you really boil him down to two things?
All good? All evil? All right? All wrong?
And will one element define the entire mixture? Even the dominant or most potent one?
Whenever someone draws a line and defines two extremes, I hafta ask myself, “Who drew this particular line?†And so, logically, “whose definitions of extremes am I being offered?â€
And even if a man was to discover a part of the line (that God drew) while digging in the evergrowing mountain of books and knowledge, how can he really know the full ends of it when the only ends he sees are those at each side of his own little hole?
How can we “logically†claim one man’s ministry as THE alpha and omega?
Is any one’s version of another’s version of “yes or no†really a question we must answer?
Did Vic’s ministry really become as simple and pure and complete as Christ’s, as to be reduced to two such pure dimensions?
Did not Paul express a manifold grace and a multi-dimensional ministry?
Heck, any crooked politician can define an alpha and omega to move and herd people?
And he may even believe it.
Also, why is gray deemed so unimportant by so many?
Isn’t the flesh of our brain gray?
Is gray maybe just the blur I see when I am breaking my neck to find two extremes of truth at the expense of all those infinite truths “in the midst†of us?
Besides, no matter how I try to separate gray, there are always THREE primary colors in it, NEVER just two.
Blue
Gold
Red
Same with brown (a primary and a secondary, which is a mix of two primaries).
So, why not a call it a “brown area?â€
Your flesh and hair are degrees of brown.
The wood of "trees" are more or less brown.
Or, why not call it the “prismatic area†between pure light and not light?
Why neglect the full spectrum of creation? Is that not where truth is given?
So...
Is the fence really that narrow?
And if so, aren’t bible fans proud of the fact that Jesus’s path was narrow, too?
Does this narrow path draw a line BETWEEN God (life) and nothing (death)?
Or does it connect them?
Both?
Wasn’t it the tree of knowledge of (BOTH) good and evil that Adam and Eve were not to F with? The one in the MIDST of the garden? Cuz it was for knowledge, not fuel?
Is not the tree of life in the MIDST of the garden as well?
Does not the flaming sword turn EVERY WAY to guard the tree of life?
Are we to strive for BALANCE?
Or strive for PERFECTION?
Is not extreme balance also a perfection?
Finally, let me ask you this, PFAL fans,
If we eliminate the relevance of the middle mind, what are we really eliminating?
Alignment?
Harmony?
Would not the power of an INWARD man live in the center, or middle of us (where else would it be if it is an inner man? On the tip of our nose?).
Todd…
(How can I ask questions if all I already have the answers?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Very nice, sirguess.
Mike, you claim that you did not quote the statement on page 116 out of context. I offer the following:
The statement you quote is in the second paragraph following that statement. Therefore, it is SPECIFICALLY regarding "how to receive" in terms of speaking in tongues. It is specifically NOT a declaration that everything Wierwille writes is God-breathed. Your refusal to see that does not change the statement or its context.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Posted by EW Bullinger
What everyone needs to do? No, I don't need to do that. I don't even want to do that!
Just kidding. I agree with previous posters, those who disagree with Mike have the right to speak, in fact, some of us feel very strongly about responding to this line of thought and not letting it go unanswered.
Oakspear
...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
your right Mike does have a right to write here.
My words come from personal dealings with Mike on these very issues.
I stated that fact as well.
It is true Mike has been making this pitch for many many years and has not been the least bit confused or considered any other view.
Right Mike ?
Those of you who think kid gloves are neccesary with posters do not seem to have much to say other than who is wrong and who is right not by activly participating in the discussion.
Mike likes this.
I dare say Mike is waiting for time in his life to begin even more posting.. he gets excited and feels alot of emotion thinking he has converted or helped the poor lost souls who need him.
Your right it is all about feeling sorry for Mike.
He has had his *** kicked for so long now he actualy wishes for more.
I ask Mike himself what is your purpose Mike?
Why is it you need to tell others your news?
On a mission from God dude?
The issue of whether flakes were involved in peoples lifes in twi is of no doubt to me whatsoever.
I saw plenty all year long.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
from Mike:
Mike, every question about why you think something, including why you believe VP's works are God-breathed, is some version of "Doctor said", or "Doctor wrote". Everything you have written so far refers back to VP Wierwille as the authority. You have repeatedly used circular logic. That's why we think you can't see that. You're doing it again Mike: Wierwille's teachings cannot be in a grey area between good and evil because Wierwille said so.This is a logical fallacy: that because something is not 100% one thing, it therefore must be 100% another. (logic experts, feel free to supply the correct name).
I saw Way people use this fallacy over the years: "Do you think I'm totally f---ed up?", one might ask, or "Do you think I'm possessed?" When you would answer no (maybe the person was just wrong, or simply mistaken), the person would conclude that they were right...end of discussion.
Oakspear
...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Mike,
I got a question for you, if you could find it in your heart to answer a question from this poor infidel. (I've noticed that you haven't answered any of my questions before. I mean, what is it, my breath?
)
Weren't you the guy who, 3-4 years ago, posted on the Trancenet message board about some Corps-like program that you wanted to set up, and you invited folks on Trancenet to take part and join that Corps-like program? And I 'highly suggested' to you that the Trancenet boards weren't exactly the place to go recruiting for your 'Corps' program, because many of the folks there were still smarting from the abuse that they endured under TWI, and that they might turn some of that frustration on you, in no uncertain terms?
And you got that kind of response back then, didn't you? In spades!
So maybe that should be a bit of a clue for you as to the success (or lack of same) that you'll get here, ... doncha think?
Anyway, let me know what your answer is to that, as I hope I haven't offended you too terribly by my questions before.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Ethelbert wrote:
Oh really? If it has not already been said, "everyone" is not picking on Mike personally, but his ideas and and methods are definitely being challenged - and rightly so.
I might also point out that absolutely no one has interfered with Mike's right to speak in this forum - He has spoken freely without hindrance or obstruction.
And by the same token everyone else has the right to express their ideas as well - even if it means challenging, criticizing or rejecting what another has presented. Let's not mistake criticism of someone's ideas with sarcasm that is intended to wound someone personally.
I agree that Mike's ideas are unpopular, but even more than that, no matter how well-intended, these ideas spit in the face of what many here believe to be true and factual. Do we not have the right to challenge, criticize, reject or even ridicule these ideas?
Ethelbert, who are you to tell "everyone" what they need to do?
BTW, Welcome to Greasespot
Goey
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Dear mj412,
I’d like to answer you better, but it’s a little difficult. You place me at a slight disadvantage. Could you please tell me you name, or the name you used when we communicated by e-mail? I’ve written to, and had lots of replies from almost a hundred people these past 5 years, so please don’t be offended that I don’t recognize who you are. I mean no offense.
I have done lots and lots of reading here at GreaseSpot lately, and some details blur in my memory, so correct me if I’m wrong. Didn’t you say on some other post that you are, or were in college, and in New York? I know Yew York is a pretty big state, but do you by any chance know a girl named Sandy who lives there?
The reason I ask is because I was corresponding with her some time ago and she stopped answering my e-mails. I feel very concerned about her because she told me things were pretty rough spiritually at her college. That’s why I thought you might know her, because she went to college in New York too, and that kinds increases the odds that you might know her.
She contacted me one day out of the blue. We never knew each other prior to this or had any contact whatsoever, so she introduced herself to me by e-mail. That’s another thing you two have in common, a computer.
It turned out that she had done a Google search on Dr. Wierwille and came up with that old post (now erased) of mine on www.eph320.com about Dr’s Last/Lost Teaching. Her first letter was very abrupt and short. She simply asked about the teaching without any explanation at all. I sensed she was hurting (she later confirmed it) and prayed before I replied.
Anyway, she was pretty upset, so it took a few letters to calm her down a little. I tried my best to let her know I wasn’t going to hurt her like the CES people on her campus that were bugging her, so she said. I think there might have also been another splinter group involved or even that biggest of them, the twi-2 stump.
I told her more about Dr’s last teaching and how it blessed me. She said she had a lot of his books and liked them. We corresponded for a few months and she seemed blessed. I kept on praying for her, sent her my phone number, and thought I had made a new friend.
Then all of a sudden she stopped e-mailing back. I sent one or two short letters (real short, one paragraph, not like my posts) asking her if she was all right, but I heard nothing back. By this time I had finally leaned a few things about wisdom (still more to go though) and figured I’d better back off.
(Sorry alfakat, I had not learned this lesson when I kept sending you stuff, ignoring your silence. I never meant to be a spammer. Can you find it in your heart to forgive me?)
So, mj412, the reason I asked you if you knew Sandy is because I’m still praying for her. It hurt my heart many times, how confusing all this ministry stuff is, so I really know how she feels.
There were quite a few times these past 17 or so years that I stayed up all night in bed, unable to sleep, because I was so distressed with the ministry meltdown, and how the adversary had confused us all so much, and how we were all so mean to each other. I had tears, real drippy, wet-my-collar tears on more than one occasion about all this stuff.
So, I really know how she felt as she explained to me how nasty everyone was to her. I really try my best to love my family, and I regarded Sandy as my sister. I only hope she found peace, so I keep praying.
Mj412, even if you don’t know Sandy now, if you should meet her in the future, could you please ask her to e-mail me, or at least pass a message on to me by way of you? I just want to know that she is ok. I am doing my best to see her healed, but a little feedback would help.
Thanks for Understanding,
Mike
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Dear GarthP2000,
A few posts above you wrote:
“I got a question for you, if you could find it in your heart to answer a question from this poor infidel. (I've noticed that you haven't answered any of my questions before. I mean, what is it, my breath? )â€
Please don’t be offended. It’s not you, it’s me.
I’m swamped with work right now, but that will end soon. I work a very physically demanding job for an old hippie like me, and when I get home I’m usually bushed. Then after reading through all the posts that I want to answer RIGHT NOW gets my head spinning.
Most of my free time these days is either sleeping, reading or writing. Please be patient, and eventually I’ll get to almost everyone, except the crazies, and even a few of them I can relate to being an arch Firesign Theatre fan(atic).
I keep posting that I’m super busy like this, but maybe you missed it. I’ve got a pile of e-mails from GreaseSpotters backlogged, and there are so many posts I really need to answer. Some of these e-mail and post replies require a hour or more, because I want to be careful and thorough. I really do care about all you out there, and my heart is to answer much more than I can just now. I keep trying my best though. I have to pick and choose who needs what the most. You can pray for me that I get these kind of judgement calls right.
Then you wrote:
“Weren't you the guy who, 3-4 years ago, posted on the Trancenet message board about some Corps-like program that you wanted to set up, and you invited folks on Trancenet to take part and join that Corps-like program? And I 'highly suggested' to you that the Trancenet boards weren't exactly the place to go recruiting for your 'Corps' program, because many of the folks there were still smarting from the abuse that they endured under TWI, and that they might turn some of that frustration on you, in no uncertain terms?â€
No. Whew! That was an easy answer.
((((pssssssst! Mike! This is your ego speaking. That response was waaaaaaaaay too short. Do something to beef it up, get real detailed and thorough, several long paragraphs, give the guy much more than he asked for. This way you’ll impress him and maybe he’ll start sending you abundant sharing. You could get rich on this sucker. You could even retire! How many window cleaners do you know that can retire? Come on the guy is asking for it. You... er... uh I mean... I can do it. Hit him with both barrels blazing, lots of big 50 cent words. Don’t worry, he’ll never look them up. Listen to me, I’m you ego, I call the shots around here. Don’t you trust me? Look at all I’ve done for me....... hey! Wha.. What the???... no.... NO! DON'T SAY ONLY T-H-A-T!!!!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhnnnnggg;;;::,,,.. . . . . ))))
No. Sorry, Garth. I never went to Transchat and intensely disliked the Corps program and the way they behaved, both innie and outie, after 1986.
Agape,
Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Mike,
One thing I can say about ya, ... I love your wierd sense of humor!!
:D--> Firesign Theatre fan! Cool! That's right on up there in my book, right along with Monty Python, Bloom County, and Zonker!
Now where do I mail my $$$$ .... Jeeezz, I almost got 'brainwashed' for a minute there!!
Anywho, I can relate to trying to get everything done all at once. And even if I don't agree with hardly anything you say here, I do appreciate you being polite and all.
But overall, perhaps the reason that Raf and the others are saying the things that they are to you isn't because of bitterness, unbelief in God's Word, or any other ungodly reason, but from an honest and thinking position that they have arrived at and that you might learn a thing or three from. Just like we can learn from you.
Just as long as God is the final determining source, and not any man or organization, trinitarian or unitarian, Democratic or Republican. (Altho, I hafta draw the line at Reform Party hacks. I had enough of them with seeing Pat Buchanan and Co.
:D--> )
Peace!
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Dear Mr. E. W. Bullinger,
Thank you for speaking up for me. I tried to find your e-mail address but you kept it private. I did volunteer for all this, and knew from a distance that it would get tough, but once in it I noticed it was a lot tougher than expected.
I’m thankful, though, that in spite of the mindless heckling, some thoughtful conversations do take place at times. You can pray for me, and better yet, e-mail me. I’d love to trade notes with you on mastering the collateral’s, and techniques that yield the most fruit, and such. Once those books are open and the contents become the main topic for an extended time, things start resembling the good old days.. er uh.. I mean the good old days FOR ME and lots of grads before the Eighties, especially back in the early Seventies.
That’s the NINETEEN Seventies I’m talking about. Say, I didn’t mean anything by “good old days,†and to tell you the truth, I get a little sensitive about the word “old†these days myself. You seem to be doing pretty well for someone who’s been around for a while.
By the way, my teacher was a big fan of yours. I think you’d really appreciate how God taught him to go even beyond your material. You were a great comfort to him when people thought HE was crazy about the 4 crucified with Christ, and a ton of other things. You comforted me in a different way, but it was comforting just the same.
Please e-mail me. It’s really cool to see such a mature gentleman such as yourself using a computer. My great, great grandfather, if he were alive today, probably would stayed as far away as possible from new fangled things. Have you ever rode in a jet plane?
Agape,
Mike
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.