I really don't have time to read your long posts, but I just wanted to wish you well. I hope you had a relaxing time at your local pub and ate some good food.
This post is to summarize my unconventional, unacceptable approach to PFAL ACs.
I have pasted below a bunch of the lines from clipboard copies of my posts from this evening above.
I'm not trying to prove my approach as correct, I'm merely announcing it as my established policy, and being specific in the details. I'm illustrating by example, how I've been handling Bible ACs for decades, AND how I've been recently learning to handle PFAL ACs. We all learned this whole approach in the class.
The way I handle PFAL ACs is to assume the "originals" were of God and therefore perfect, and that any ACs are due to any one of a list of many possible culprits.
If after a few hours of study, I still don't have an acceptable answer to an AC, then I file it away in my spiritual closet, and may return to it on another date to work it again. I'm willing to bet my life that they ALL fall into the "apparent" category if properly worked.
In fact, I believe many of you utilize the exact same approach when dealing with Bible ACs. ...........(Fight amongst yourselves.)
This summarizes my approach in general to ACs both Bible and PFAL, but there is one very huge specific that came up briefly in one of my posts this evening, and I want to bring it up again. It's the phrase "rush to judgement."
I could launch into an entire essay on this topic. I will soon, but not now.
The most important thing to do AFTER a searcher finally finds God's Word is to NOT get talked out of God's Word.
I've learned, first with the Bible, and lately with PFAL, that an unwise rush to judgement is to ALWAYS be resisted upon hearing or seeing an apparently CONCINVING argument against these two very familiar bodies of literature.
Both the PFAL writings and the common English versions of the Bible have proved themselves to me for years to be worthy of my devotion and time. The modern versions of the Bible had my total focus from 1971 to 1998, and I still fondly visit old friends there. Now I'm giving PFAL my primary focus. Both have earned that kind of magnitude of my attention. No single writer here on this thread can command that kind or respect from me, and there's not enough time left for any to try. That's why, in my mind PFAL is the rock, and these ACs are the roaring pounding surf. What a fun picture.
I am presented here with a PFAL AC conundrum at the beginning of the evening, and it is expected of me to drop my whole belief system, unless I could come up with the ultimate answer before everyone goes to bed? Hello? I sometimes allow ACs to sit unresolved and unexplained for DECADES! For me, anything less than a year's pondering is a RUSH TO JUDGEMENT.
Rafael, I sense your familiarity with court room scenes gives you an understanding of this when you wrote: "Mike, I left out an option. I basically said answer now or answer later, but don't give a half answer or long non-answer and expect us to be satisfied with it. I will be completely satisfied if you just say, "I'm not going to answer." "
Well, I'd like to say I'm invoking the Rafael Clause at this point. Thank you for recognizing the "rush to judgement" method as hazardous.
I'm just not going to answer the open questions, not in the ways people insist. I'm not here to line up with popular expectations.
I still want to write more on "rush to judgement" especially as it applies to how quickly everyone rushed to one splinter or stump and stuck there in 1986-7. In just one or two years... Don't get me started!...
Rafael, you also wrote: "My only complaint is when you come here and say "I;ve already answered many of these, But enough with the "I have the answers I'm just not posting them" nonsense."
Complaint heard. I did refrain from dropping in until the thread had lots of time to run its course. I'll admit my insistence on answering things my way may be abrasive. I'll try to smooth it later.
Rephrasing some of what I've wanted to convey here
is NOT: "I've already answered many of these"
but more along the lines of: "I've already learned HOW to handle many of these, and how to not get bogged down in questions and doubts."
I also wanted to convey that some were familiar to me, I have some unresolved thoughts written and unwritten, I have some facts, and some techniques yet unapplied. I was saying I was FAMILIAR with then. I was NOT saying I was in command of them... all... yet...
Here are a few of the summary pastes that didn't blend together to form some of the opening of this post. These items occurred in my posts, and all of this constitutes what I call data.
normal routine of focusing on what DOES fit from PFAL, which is massive.
The ACs are the exceptions, the FITs are the rule.
for PFAL ACs. These things take some time, but they shouldn't get primary time.
Let's look at the print record, NOT for proof of PFAL correctness, but to see more clearly the stated charge.
in the midst of all Dr's 5-senses ADMITTED confusion (which often well characterizes behind-the-scenes academia) God gave him a revelation
"Let's look at the print record, NOT for proof of PFAL correctness, but to see more clearly the stated charge. This brings us back..."
How DO you face Bible ACs of a huge magnitude like on a long list from a Google search?
many PFAL ACs stem from a GREAT familiarity with the tape record, and a VERY weak familiarity with the print record. This tape/book confusion is a very strong generators of misunderstandings.
I believe all these apparent contradictions in PFAL can easily be worked out by appreciative grads who COME BACK to this Word which we were taught in PFAL.
Mike, I hope you have a VErY large closet...you'll be soon running out of room. When the door will no longer close and it all come tumbling out on you, fear not. Consider it a matter of sudden enlightenment
"He's coming back as King of Kings and Lord of Lords... He's coming back as Lord, God, Almighty and heads are gonna roll!"
If the original PFAL was God-breathed, why did VP feel the need to update it in 1977? Oh, I know you're going to say that after he taught PFAL '77 he realized he couldn't improve on the first class... but lemme ask you this...
The "original" PFAL class was taught live. Jesus was God back then. Crosses were okay. The only reason VP put the class on film was because of the demand for it - not because it was "God-breathed"... and that's documented in TWI's history books... most recently Mrs. Wierwille's and Mrs. Owens' writings.
Could it be that PFAL '77 was just plain bad? Too much entertainment - too much audience participation - too many audio mistakes??(misprounonunced words, verbal slips, etc.)
It is still mind-boggling to me that anyone could think the word of such an incredibly flawed man could be straight from the mouth of God Almighty. I didn't even believe that when I was in TWI... mainly because of errors like the one I quoted above.
The books are full of them, too. Rafe has done a remarkable job in dissecting the blue book and has started on the green book (finished?).
The problem with you, Mike, is that you are totally closed-minded when it comes to VP. You will never admit he was wrong or evil because it will pull your belief-system right out from under you and you will be left feeling very empty. It has happened to many people here who never even got close to the degree of Wierwille worship you exhibit.
IMO, The thing about VP was that he was secretive and sly about his shortcomings - he had them covered by others. he blamed others for mistakes in HIS shoddy research. Ask anyone who was in the research department what happened if they discovered that something VP taught was wrong. The short answer is that they were told to make it fit - even if they knew it was bad research.
(Geek, 3Cents, OC??? Please re-tell some of your Research Dept. stories).
I know countless people have told you to wake-up, get a grip, get help, get on meds, and numerous other things that would probably benefit you in some way.
I think the fact is that no one can change your mind for you. You have to do it yourself. But I would suggest that you take a deep look into what you've based your entire belief system on - it's a cistern full of holes. Someday I hope you will see it.
Hope R. color>size>face>
That's it for me on the "Mike" stuff - it's a waste of my time and way too frustrating.
"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
The original notes are not God-breathed. The spoken class was not God-breathed. It's only the published book that's God-breathed. And not the published book on your shelf either. Only the original published book is the God-breathed Word. The one on your shelf has proofreaders oversights and errors that might result in apparent contradictions. Once we apply the principles of PFAL to the substance of PFAL, then we can get back to the original God-breathed PFAL.
My God, what a bunch of pseudo-faithful gibberish.
Rafael - Mike has boiled his method down to a few simple statements.
1. "I'm not trying to prove my approach as correct, I'm merely announcing it as my established policy."
Mike is not interested in re-examining his basic ideas in any form of dialogue or exchange. He is not here to discuss, he is here to announce. He has established his policy, and cannot presently be persuaded to change.
2. "The way I handle PFAL ACs is to assume the 'originals' were of God and therefore perfect."
There isn't anything wrong, in itself, with making assumptions. We all have to do it whenever we have to make a decision and we don't have complete information. Problems come when we don't recognize our assumptions, or when we fail to test them by gathering more information. Mike assumes that the "originals" of PFAL (whatever *that* means) were given to Wierwille by God, and are therefore "perfect".
You and I reject this assumption because we have found sufficient objective evidence to convince us that it is wrong. Mike is not willing to examine objective evidence that might invalidate his assumption. He does this by redefining such evidence as "*apparent* contradictions". He then attempts to control the language by making an acronym (acronyms have sounded pretty authoritative since the New Deal), "AC", and consistently using it, rather than accurate terminology.
3 "If after a few hours of study, I still don't have an acceptable answer to an AC, then I file it away in my spiritual closet, and may return to it on another date to work it again."
An "acceptable answer to an AC" is one that doesn't challenge his basic assumption, that there are no errors in PFAL.
"I file it away in my spiritual closet", a fanciful turn of phrase, meaning "I ignore it"
when put into plain language.
"...and may return..." This raises the possiblility that Mike may *never* revisit that particular "AC". Mike presents us with the possibility that he will ignore evidence for the rest of his life, if it is contrary to his basic assumption, that PFAL is perfect.
I can't fault Mike for wanting to return to the glory days of his experience with TWI. But you and I know that trying to "revive" PFAL just isn't going to do it. Mike is dooming himself. He is postponing the disappointment from which many of us here are already in the process of recovering.
Steve's post does a very good job of summinng up Mike's methods and position. Mike is not here to discuss and exchange he is here to anounce. Mike has made it pretty clear that he is not interested objective examination and dialog concerning PFAL. God knows he has had opportunity.
Mike, you have either ignored my posts, made excuses, or repsonded with little more than mindless blather and rambling twaddle. You have done the same with others.
Mike, with that being said, I will no longer waste my time attempting any kind of dialog with you.
This is ridiculous. I can just imagine someone's math class:
M: The Pythagorean Theorem is false, a subtle twisting of mathematics for evil purposes by unsuspecting orthodox mathematicians.
Z: Wow! Where'd you hear that?
M: Professor W wrote it in his math textbook.
Z: Did he prove it?
M: Certainly, he wrote it, and it took him forty years to come up with it.
Z: Um, no, I mean, did he give an example of why it was false?
M: Sure, Chapter 9, Problem 2: "If we llok at a triangle that has each side 6 feet long and apply Pythagoras' False Theorem, we find out that 6 squared plus 6 squared should equal the other side squared. Since 6 squared is 36, that would make Pythagoras' Theorem say that 36 + 36 = 36, when any fool can see that the answer is 72."
Z: Um, dude, Prof. W misspelled "look".
M: So? That was a proofreader error. Professor W's book is perfect as it was written ORIGINALLY, you see.
Z: So the Pythagorean theorem of a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is false?
M: Certainly. Irrefutably so. Professor W spent forty years writing it, and I spent five years reading it, so it is unquestionably true.
Z: Uhh...here's a triangle whose sides are 3, 4, and 5 feet long. 3 squared is 9, 4 squared is 16, and 5 squared is 25. Now the last time I looked, 9 + 16 = 25.
M: See, that's only an APPARENT contradiction, if you read Professor W's book FAITHFULLY and MASTER it, you'll see it is no contradiction at all.
Z: Huh? Here's another, with sides 5, 12, and 13 feet long. Are you going to tell me that 25 + 144 does not equal 169?
M: Only if 36 plus 36 doesn't equal 36! {laughs condescendingly}
Z: But 36 + 36 doesn't equal 36...
M: EXACTLY! See? That's just what Prof. W wrote!!! Praise Math!
Z: So you're telling me that 25 + 144 is not equal to 169, then.
M: It's as clear as the nose on your neck!
Z: You do realize that Pythagoras' Theorem only applies to right triangles, ones that have at least one 90-degree right angle in them?
M: I've heard that, yes.
Z: Then you see that Prof' W's example could not have been a right triangle? If all three sides are 6 feet long, then all interior angles are only 60 degrees. It's an equilateral triangle.
M: Doesn't matter. 36 + 36 never equals 36!
Z: Pythagoras never said it did!
M: Don't get hostile...here, read Professor W's glorious book again and you'll see he's right.
Z: Changing the subject, what's 69 - 44?
M: Uhhh...25.
Z: So that makes 25 + 44 + 100 = 69 + 100?
M: You're trying to trick me. Professor W wrote that there would be some who would deceive the enlightened ones.
Z: Do you believe everything you read?
M: Only if it's that book by Professor W, that's the only one that the brain of Isaac Newton communicated to him across time via painstaking research in his bathtub with a rubber duck.
Z: Isaac Newton....right.
M: Are you trying to tell me you know more about mathematics than the great Isaac Newton?
Z: Isaac Newton knew what 25 + 144 is, I'll bet.
M: Professor W never recorded what Isaac Newton thought 25 + 144 was, so we cannot guess.
Z: Sheesh....okay, what's 9 + 16 then?
M: Uhhh...25.
Z: So if 9 is 3 squared, and 16 is 4 squared, and 25 is 5 squared, then 3 squared plus 4 squared equals 5 squared, right?
M: You just don't understand math like Professor W did.
You'll accept nothing less than me looking at what you consider completed research into PFAL ACs, and me reacting by throwing up my hands and declaring PFAL a fraud.
You demand nothing less than me saying “I’m stymied on this point, and there are SO many other points I’m stymied on, that I now must give up. I must have been wrong in my expectations that God was involved in producing the PFAL writings.” Is this is how I must perform in this GS religion to win approval by the elders?
Nothing less than me agreeing that the evidence you all have amassed on this thread (and elsewhere) is convincing will maintain the wide open ears you all have extended me so far? I hardly think of them as wide open to begin with.
Nothing less than my untangling one of these knots can convince you that I am even worthy to stay speak and be heard. How many knots would I be REQUIRED of fixing before youwould consider renouncing your current views?
Just suppose that on some fortuitous evening, I really DID conclusively answer even just ONE of your ACs, so conclusively that everyone says sheepishly in their best Emily Latella voices: “Oh! That’s different. Never mind.”
Just suppose that one of these ACs vanishes in its own vapours, what WOULD really happen? Would this thread shut down, due to the expectation that all the other ACs would fall?
I think NOT! I think there would be only a very momentary reshuffling of the deck, and the trounced AC would be quickly forgotten as all scramble all the more to find several replacement ACs. Soon the semi-official GS belief system would be repaired.
In Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” he documents how group behavior like what I’m predicting is the norm. This is the book where “paradigm” was coined, sort of. In Kuhn’s scenario, your paradigm is too well invested in for you to toss it out, especially for only one AC loss.
Of course, you all can apply Kuhn’s paradigm on how paradigms work to me as well, and you are.
I’m demonstrating for those appreciative grads (few though they are) that they need not succumb to the pressure of the mob to rush to judgement, and they need not focus on apparent problems that are characteristically dredged up by those who want to not believe the heart or the details of what is written.
I think I’ve demonstrated that this swimming against the stream is possible and even recommended. I see great value in conserving what earned my respect over a lengthy critical examination period. I see great value in cherishing what seemed to work very well for a large disparate group of people for a good ten years, ESPECIALLY when the alternative offered to replace PFAL is nothing but a hodge-podge of quickly thrown together personal opinions.
I see the PFAL writings as withstanding these onslaughts. When the casual critics are gone or too tired to cry out, these writings will still be around demanding that SOMEBODY get serious about systematically mastering them.
Part of my system of mastering PFAL is to occasionally consider and look fairly deep into selected ACs. I refuse, however, to get bogged down in this kind of activity. I think it’s unreasonable for anyone to expect that I am willing to get my head turned and renounce my well thought through policies, simply because a few have spotted what they think are fatal snags. You all are just as dead set against having YOUR heads turned by me. I don’t get all huffy about it, so why should you? (smilie face here)
**********************************************
As the "official" minority voice on this thread,
I urge consideration of my demonstrated alternative method
for HOW to handle PFAL ACs, as well as handling Bible ACs.
[This message was edited by Mike on January 17, 2003 at 9:50.]
Re:"Wierwille made mistakes in his research. This is not opinion, this is demonstrable fact."
Oh?? I think that "fact" isn't apparent to Mike. How can you say such a thing when you take up for the inerrancy of the Bible? The Bible would have you believe that at least two (if not more of the kosher animals) of every living creature lived in an ark the lenght of a football field and then scatered to the high winds to re-populate the world after it landed.
I guess that means bacteria, too. The anaerobic bacteria would have made it but the facultative and aerobic ones would have died in a deluge. Oh Zix.. it's just hogwash and if you get honest with yourself, you know it.
And yet you all want to jump on Mike for his beliefs. Fact of the matter is that many of us had our best times while serving in that cult known as TWI. We made great friendships and had what we thought was inside spiritual awareness that all other Christians lacked.
Who can blame Mike for wanting that back in his life again? You probably go poking holes in Mormons' beliefs as well. You may laugh at how ludicrous it is for them to believe that the American Indians are really the lost tribes of Israel but THEY take it seriously.
In time, my learned friend, I'm convinced you'll eventually see the folly of your own selected religious beliefs. Then... I think you may be more tolerant of what others believe.
If I chose to engage you on your religious beliefs, then I can't cry foul when you start pointing out inconsistencies in my own. Like I said, if you want to start an "Actual errors in the Bible" thread, be my guest.
Meek Master Mike,
CUE THE VIOLINS!
You still haven't made a single point, so I'm not going to respond to anything you wrote. 619 words without expressing a single relevant thought. Nice job.
You've got a good point. I'll just shut up and let the discussion of the errors in this belief system get hashed. I guess it serves Mike right for trying to defend it on THIS forum.
Not long ago, there was a very active thread in the doctrinal section about agnosticism. I forgot the exact name, but it had pages and pages of replies.
If I replied ONCE, it's more than I can remember. I just chose not to participate in that conversation.
How would the people on that thread have felt if I parachuted in and declared them to be wrong, but then refused, with a GREAT number of words, to answer a single one of your doubts about the Bible?
So I stayed off the thread. Nothing personal. No arguments. You respect me. I respect you. C'est la vie.
Mike has presented a viewpoint that has implications. If PFAL is what he says it is (the God-breathed Word), then PFAL must fit with PFAL's definition of the God-breathed Word. This thread takes that view and puts it to the test. No one is forcing Mike to participate. If he wants to ignore it, that's just dandy with me. Just as no one forced me to partcipate in "The agnostic table in the corner" (I just remembered the name).
But Mike comes in here, mocking the magnitude of the errors we point out while promoting the divine inspiration of a book that declares with confidence that ONE PREPOSITION out of place disqualifies a book's claim to divine inspiration (PFAL, p. 104, first sentence).
Maybe the 10 items listed on my opening post don't rise to the level of "dispensationalism v. covenant theology." But they're a whole HAIL of a lot more significant than a misplaced preposition.
So again, I apologize if I got cocky, but I hope you really do see my point.
---
Meek Master Mike: the word count was from your original post, before you edited. I won't do a recount. I'm from Florida. We stop counting after a while.
Good grief, Sudo, using your logic, I should "tolerate" those people who still think human sacrifice is a good idea, too. Tolerance and acceptance are not synonymous. You tolerate a screaming child on an airplane, but it's not something you'd necessarily approve of or encourage.
I would have an easier time accepting Mike's beliefs if he could at least back up what he's saying with the thought process that led up to it, and had any sort of credible defense for the process under challenge. I'm not asking for irrefutable proof of his entire belief system, just for validation of some of the points that are verifiable. It's like trinitarians--at least they can point to verses like "my Lord and my God" to show where they're coming from, even though their conclusion is debatable. Ditto with the Friday-Sunday "three days and three nights" bit.
Mike has reduced his claim now to just the PFAL Foundational book as being God-breathed, not the IC or the AdvC, so he's not entirely immovable. Yet, he still refuses to entertain the possibility that anything in the orange book is a factual error. I'm not talking about differences of opinion or interpretation questions, I'm talking Rafael's "actual" factual errors. Wierwille says illegitimate Jewish boys were bar mitzvah-ed at twelve. Hope finds a Jewish text that shows Wierwille's statement to be extremely unlikely, if not impossible. Mike cannot produce anything to bolster Wierwille's claim except his own belief that the orange book was God-breathed, yet it is certainly a point that is not open to interpretation. If it's right, there should be something other record to at least support the claim, even if his other supporting text were debatable too.
As for the Noah account you bring up, you're building a straw man to attack. You don't even know what I believe about it, but you throw it in my face as if it were some sort of smoking gun of my hypocrisy.
Frankly, I think it's hypocritical for you to be intolerant of my beliefs while at the same time accusing me of intolerance!
Re:"As for the Noah account you bring up, you're building a straw man to attack. You don't even know what I believe about it.."
Well... maybe so, Zix. I guess I just assumed you were one of those Biblical inerrancy types. But knowing your grasp of scientific knowledge, I should have given you the benefit of the doubt. But hey! What about the Earth being only 6000 years old with an "appearance" of being much older?? You go along with that? Seems I remember you were a Creationist but if I'm wrong about this too.. well.. dang. Please excuse me.. but heck if I can remember one fundamentalist's beliefs from another's.
One fundie wants to believe the Fred Flintstone idea of our having lived and walked in the tracks of dinosaurs but yet another ascribes that the earth is only a few thousand years old in the first place. You'll kindly forgive me for forgetting which kind YOU are. Hee-hee!
“Yet, he still refuses to entertain the possibility that anything in the orange book is a factual error. I'm not talking about differences of opinion or interpretation questions, I'm talking Rafael's "actual" factual errors.”
The one thing I’m commenting on is your use of the word “factual.”
In my present state of non-mastery level understanding the PFAL writings, I know there’s a distinction made between facts and truths.
In the Green book p.34 Dr writes “...every word I have written to you is true.”
At this point in my present state of non-mastery level understanding the PFAL writings, I do not quite know if the PFAL writings are factually accurate on every point. Years ago I put a lot of time on assessing its accuracy and it passed my tests with a B+ to and A- grade. Maybe soon Ill understand this better, but as for now it’s part of the frontier of my knowledge. I’m not particularly interested in this particular area at the present time.
What I’ve keyed in lately are the spiritual truths available to us who spent a lot of time absorbing the basic 5-senses message in a positive and thorough manner.
If your exposure to PFAL and its application to everyday life occurred after 1985, the year Dr died, I can’t blame you one bit for refusing my offer to look for these truths God and Dr buried in the print.
My offer is to those older grads who once did see these bursts of “straight prophesy” abounding all over, not just from Dr, but from everyone and any one.
In those good old days the mystery was exemplified by hippies and rednecks embracing each other as one body, jocks and nerds working on the same team. We let that agape love slip, but I have some good news TO THESE CERTAIN OLD GRADS, it’s not too late to do it right.
To those who were in leadership positions in 1985, I say the good news is that God has unearthed Dr’s Last/Lost Teaching, and there are grads scattered all around the country, NOT JUST ME, who are working these PFAL writings again.
As we more older, more appreciative PFAL grads finally obey Dr’s final instructions to master the collaterals again, and we come back to this Word we were taught, we will then be much better able to correct the damage we collectively did to grads who never had a chance to know Dr and see his grand successes.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
208
62
95
53
Popular Days
Jan 3
56
Jan 28
53
Jan 17
52
Jan 27
46
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 208 posts
Jbarrax 62 posts
Zixar 95 posts
Mike 53 posts
Popular Days
Jan 3 2003
56 posts
Jan 28 2003
53 posts
Jan 17 2003
52 posts
Jan 27 2003
46 posts
Popular Posts
Raf
Clear as the difference between all with a distinction and all without distinction. See, to those unaware of the circumstances that brought about this thread, I look like I'm nitpicking to prove Wier
Raf
I'm not talking about errors that are subject to interpretation. Whether you believe the dead are alive now, for example, really depends on your worldview and your interpretation of scripture. Whether
Larry P2
And let's not forget the one about "All the women in the Kingdom belong to the King." Which proves that he was a lecherous piece of sh!t communicating his desire for a steady stream of young, gullibl
Steve Lortz
I'm turning in for the night.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Hi Mike:
I really don't have time to read your long posts, but I just wanted to wish you well. I hope you had a relaxing time at your local pub and ate some good food.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi, I've come back well rested. I thought I'd try and summarize some of what comprised my responses of the evening.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
This post is to summarize my unconventional, unacceptable approach to PFAL ACs.
I have pasted below a bunch of the lines from clipboard copies of my posts from this evening above.
I'm not trying to prove my approach as correct, I'm merely announcing it as my established policy, and being specific in the details. I'm illustrating by example, how I've been handling Bible ACs for decades, AND how I've been recently learning to handle PFAL ACs. We all learned this whole approach in the class.
The way I handle PFAL ACs is to assume the "originals" were of God and therefore perfect, and that any ACs are due to any one of a list of many possible culprits.
If after a few hours of study, I still don't have an acceptable answer to an AC, then I file it away in my spiritual closet, and may return to it on another date to work it again. I'm willing to bet my life that they ALL fall into the "apparent" category if properly worked.
In fact, I believe many of you utilize the exact same approach when dealing with Bible ACs. ...........(Fight amongst yourselves.)
*****************************************************************
This summarizes my approach in general to ACs both Bible and PFAL, but there is one very huge specific that came up briefly in one of my posts this evening, and I want to bring it up again. It's the phrase "rush to judgement."
I could launch into an entire essay on this topic. I will soon, but not now.
The most important thing to do AFTER a searcher finally finds God's Word is to NOT get talked out of God's Word.
I've learned, first with the Bible, and lately with PFAL, that an unwise rush to judgement is to ALWAYS be resisted upon hearing or seeing an apparently CONCINVING argument against these two very familiar bodies of literature.
Both the PFAL writings and the common English versions of the Bible have proved themselves to me for years to be worthy of my devotion and time. The modern versions of the Bible had my total focus from 1971 to 1998, and I still fondly visit old friends there. Now I'm giving PFAL my primary focus. Both have earned that kind of magnitude of my attention. No single writer here on this thread can command that kind or respect from me, and there's not enough time left for any to try. That's why, in my mind PFAL is the rock, and these ACs are the roaring pounding surf. What a fun picture.
I am presented here with a PFAL AC conundrum at the beginning of the evening, and it is expected of me to drop my whole belief system, unless I could come up with the ultimate answer before everyone goes to bed? Hello? I sometimes allow ACs to sit unresolved and unexplained for DECADES! For me, anything less than a year's pondering is a RUSH TO JUDGEMENT.
Rafael, I sense your familiarity with court room scenes gives you an understanding of this when you wrote: "Mike, I left out an option. I basically said answer now or answer later, but don't give a half answer or long non-answer and expect us to be satisfied with it. I will be completely satisfied if you just say, "I'm not going to answer." "
Well, I'd like to say I'm invoking the Rafael Clause at this point. Thank you for recognizing the "rush to judgement" method as hazardous.
I'm just not going to answer the open questions, not in the ways people insist. I'm not here to line up with popular expectations.
I still want to write more on "rush to judgement" especially as it applies to how quickly everyone rushed to one splinter or stump and stuck there in 1986-7. In just one or two years... Don't get me started!...
Rafael, you also wrote: "My only complaint is when you come here and say "I;ve already answered many of these, But enough with the "I have the answers I'm just not posting them" nonsense."
Complaint heard. I did refrain from dropping in until the thread had lots of time to run its course. I'll admit my insistence on answering things my way may be abrasive. I'll try to smooth it later.
Rephrasing some of what I've wanted to convey here
is NOT: "I've already answered many of these"
but more along the lines of: "I've already learned HOW to handle many of these, and how to not get bogged down in questions and doubts."
I also wanted to convey that some were familiar to me, I have some unresolved thoughts written and unwritten, I have some facts, and some techniques yet unapplied. I was saying I was FAMILIAR with then. I was NOT saying I was in command of them... all... yet...
*******************************************************************
Here are a few of the summary pastes that didn't blend together to form some of the opening of this post. These items occurred in my posts, and all of this constitutes what I call data.
normal routine of focusing on what DOES fit from PFAL, which is massive.
The ACs are the exceptions, the FITs are the rule.
for PFAL ACs. These things take some time, but they shouldn't get primary time.
Let's look at the print record, NOT for proof of PFAL correctness, but to see more clearly the stated charge.
in the midst of all Dr's 5-senses ADMITTED confusion (which often well characterizes behind-the-scenes academia) God gave him a revelation
"Let's look at the print record, NOT for proof of PFAL correctness, but to see more clearly the stated charge. This brings us back..."
How DO you face Bible ACs of a huge magnitude like on a long list from a Google search?
many PFAL ACs stem from a GREAT familiarity with the tape record, and a VERY weak familiarity with the print record. This tape/book confusion is a very strong generators of misunderstandings.
I believe all these apparent contradictions in PFAL can easily be worked out by appreciative grads who COME BACK to this Word which we were taught in PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Once again, Mike has successfully written
another lengthy post, with complete disregard
for addressing any errors of PFAL, while
maintaining he doesn't have time to address
even one in a small post.
I suspect he didn't actually READ Rafael's post
about Jesus at age 12. If he did, it sure
didn't sink in.
------------------------------
"I said to her 'baby, ain't you got no shame?'
She just looked at me
Uncomprehendingly
Like cows at a passing train."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Mike, I hope you have a VErY large closet...you'll be soon running out of room. When the door will no longer close and it all come tumbling out on you, fear not. Consider it a matter of sudden enlightenment
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mike, I'm not going to answer any more of your points until you actually make one.
The Living Epistles Society
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
From the PFAL Class:
"He's coming back as King of Kings and Lord of Lords... He's coming back as Lord, God, Almighty and heads are gonna roll!"
If the original PFAL was God-breathed, why did VP feel the need to update it in 1977? Oh, I know you're going to say that after he taught PFAL '77 he realized he couldn't improve on the first class... but lemme ask you this...
The "original" PFAL class was taught live. Jesus was God back then. Crosses were okay. The only reason VP put the class on film was because of the demand for it - not because it was "God-breathed"... and that's documented in TWI's history books... most recently Mrs. Wierwille's and Mrs. Owens' writings.
Could it be that PFAL '77 was just plain bad? Too much entertainment - too much audience participation - too many audio mistakes??(misprounonunced words, verbal slips, etc.)
It is still mind-boggling to me that anyone could think the word of such an incredibly flawed man could be straight from the mouth of God Almighty. I didn't even believe that when I was in TWI... mainly because of errors like the one I quoted above.
The books are full of them, too. Rafe has done a remarkable job in dissecting the blue book and has started on the green book (finished?).
The problem with you, Mike, is that you are totally closed-minded when it comes to VP. You will never admit he was wrong or evil because it will pull your belief-system right out from under you and you will be left feeling very empty. It has happened to many people here who never even got close to the degree of Wierwille worship you exhibit.
IMO, The thing about VP was that he was secretive and sly about his shortcomings - he had them covered by others. he blamed others for mistakes in HIS shoddy research. Ask anyone who was in the research department what happened if they discovered that something VP taught was wrong. The short answer is that they were told to make it fit - even if they knew it was bad research.
(Geek, 3Cents, OC??? Please re-tell some of your Research Dept. stories).
I know countless people have told you to wake-up, get a grip, get help, get on meds, and numerous other things that would probably benefit you in some way.
I think the fact is that no one can change your mind for you. You have to do it yourself. But I would suggest that you take a deep look into what you've based your entire belief system on - it's a cistern full of holes. Someday I hope you will see it.
Hope R. color>size>face>
That's it for me on the "Mike" stuff - it's a waste of my time and way too frustrating.
"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
Life, what is it but a dream? - Lewis Carroll
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oh, but Hope, didn't you know?
The original notes are not God-breathed. The spoken class was not God-breathed. It's only the published book that's God-breathed. And not the published book on your shelf either. Only the original published book is the God-breathed Word. The one on your shelf has proofreaders oversights and errors that might result in apparent contradictions. Once we apply the principles of PFAL to the substance of PFAL, then we can get back to the original God-breathed PFAL.
My God, what a bunch of pseudo-faithful gibberish.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Rafael - Mike has boiled his method down to a few simple statements.
1. "I'm not trying to prove my approach as correct, I'm merely announcing it as my established policy."
Mike is not interested in re-examining his basic ideas in any form of dialogue or exchange. He is not here to discuss, he is here to announce. He has established his policy, and cannot presently be persuaded to change.
2. "The way I handle PFAL ACs is to assume the 'originals' were of God and therefore perfect."
There isn't anything wrong, in itself, with making assumptions. We all have to do it whenever we have to make a decision and we don't have complete information. Problems come when we don't recognize our assumptions, or when we fail to test them by gathering more information. Mike assumes that the "originals" of PFAL (whatever *that* means) were given to Wierwille by God, and are therefore "perfect".
You and I reject this assumption because we have found sufficient objective evidence to convince us that it is wrong. Mike is not willing to examine objective evidence that might invalidate his assumption. He does this by redefining such evidence as "*apparent* contradictions". He then attempts to control the language by making an acronym (acronyms have sounded pretty authoritative since the New Deal), "AC", and consistently using it, rather than accurate terminology.
3 "If after a few hours of study, I still don't have an acceptable answer to an AC, then I file it away in my spiritual closet, and may return to it on another date to work it again."
An "acceptable answer to an AC" is one that doesn't challenge his basic assumption, that there are no errors in PFAL.
"I file it away in my spiritual closet", a fanciful turn of phrase, meaning "I ignore it"
when put into plain language.
"...and may return..." This raises the possiblility that Mike may *never* revisit that particular "AC". Mike presents us with the possibility that he will ignore evidence for the rest of his life, if it is contrary to his basic assumption, that PFAL is perfect.
I can't fault Mike for wanting to return to the glory days of his experience with TWI. But you and I know that trying to "revive" PFAL just isn't going to do it. Mike is dooming himself. He is postponing the disappointment from which many of us here are already in the process of recovering.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
I have seen enough now.
Steve's post does a very good job of summinng up Mike's methods and position. Mike is not here to discuss and exchange he is here to anounce. Mike has made it pretty clear that he is not interested objective examination and dialog concerning PFAL. God knows he has had opportunity.
Mike, you have either ignored my posts, made excuses, or repsonded with little more than mindless blather and rambling twaddle. You have done the same with others.
Mike, with that being said, I will no longer waste my time attempting any kind of dialog with you.
Count Me Out
Goey
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
This is ridiculous. I can just imagine someone's math class:
M: The Pythagorean Theorem is false, a subtle twisting of mathematics for evil purposes by unsuspecting orthodox mathematicians.
Z: Wow! Where'd you hear that?
M: Professor W wrote it in his math textbook.
Z: Did he prove it?
M: Certainly, he wrote it, and it took him forty years to come up with it.
Z: Um, no, I mean, did he give an example of why it was false?
M: Sure, Chapter 9, Problem 2: "If we llok at a triangle that has each side 6 feet long and apply Pythagoras' False Theorem, we find out that 6 squared plus 6 squared should equal the other side squared. Since 6 squared is 36, that would make Pythagoras' Theorem say that 36 + 36 = 36, when any fool can see that the answer is 72."
Z: Um, dude, Prof. W misspelled "look".
M: So? That was a proofreader error. Professor W's book is perfect as it was written ORIGINALLY, you see.
Z: So the Pythagorean theorem of a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is false?
M: Certainly. Irrefutably so. Professor W spent forty years writing it, and I spent five years reading it, so it is unquestionably true.
Z: Uhh...here's a triangle whose sides are 3, 4, and 5 feet long. 3 squared is 9, 4 squared is 16, and 5 squared is 25. Now the last time I looked, 9 + 16 = 25.
M: See, that's only an APPARENT contradiction, if you read Professor W's book FAITHFULLY and MASTER it, you'll see it is no contradiction at all.
Z: Huh? Here's another, with sides 5, 12, and 13 feet long. Are you going to tell me that 25 + 144 does not equal 169?
M: Only if 36 plus 36 doesn't equal 36! {laughs condescendingly}
Z: But 36 + 36 doesn't equal 36...
M: EXACTLY! See? That's just what Prof. W wrote!!! Praise Math!
Z: So you're telling me that 25 + 144 is not equal to 169, then.
M: It's as clear as the nose on your neck!
Z: You do realize that Pythagoras' Theorem only applies to right triangles, ones that have at least one 90-degree right angle in them?
M: I've heard that, yes.
Z: Then you see that Prof' W's example could not have been a right triangle? If all three sides are 6 feet long, then all interior angles are only 60 degrees. It's an equilateral triangle.
M: Doesn't matter. 36 + 36 never equals 36!
Z: Pythagoras never said it did!
M: Don't get hostile...here, read Professor W's glorious book again and you'll see he's right.
Z: Changing the subject, what's 69 - 44?
M: Uhhh...25.
Z: So that makes 25 + 44 + 100 = 69 + 100?
M: You're trying to trick me. Professor W wrote that there would be some who would deceive the enlightened ones.
Z: Do you believe everything you read?
M: Only if it's that book by Professor W, that's the only one that the brain of Isaac Newton communicated to him across time via painstaking research in his bathtub with a rubber duck.
Z: Isaac Newton....right.
M: Are you trying to tell me you know more about mathematics than the great Isaac Newton?
Z: Isaac Newton knew what 25 + 144 is, I'll bet.
M: Professor W never recorded what Isaac Newton thought 25 + 144 was, so we cannot guess.
Z: Sheesh....okay, what's 9 + 16 then?
M: Uhhh...25.
Z: So if 9 is 3 squared, and 16 is 4 squared, and 25 is 5 squared, then 3 squared plus 4 squared equals 5 squared, right?
M: You just don't understand math like Professor W did.
Z: I certainly hope not, thank God...
M: Thank who?
Z: Never mind...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
So let me get this straight.
You'll accept nothing less than me looking at what you consider completed research into PFAL ACs, and me reacting by throwing up my hands and declaring PFAL a fraud.
You demand nothing less than me saying “I’m stymied on this point, and there are SO many other points I’m stymied on, that I now must give up. I must have been wrong in my expectations that God was involved in producing the PFAL writings.” Is this is how I must perform in this GS religion to win approval by the elders?
Nothing less than me agreeing that the evidence you all have amassed on this thread (and elsewhere) is convincing will maintain the wide open ears you all have extended me so far? I hardly think of them as wide open to begin with.
Nothing less than my untangling one of these knots can convince you that I am even worthy to stay speak and be heard. How many knots would I be REQUIRED of fixing before youwould consider renouncing your current views?
Just suppose that on some fortuitous evening, I really DID conclusively answer even just ONE of your ACs, so conclusively that everyone says sheepishly in their best Emily Latella voices: “Oh! That’s different. Never mind.”
Just suppose that one of these ACs vanishes in its own vapours, what WOULD really happen? Would this thread shut down, due to the expectation that all the other ACs would fall?
I think NOT! I think there would be only a very momentary reshuffling of the deck, and the trounced AC would be quickly forgotten as all scramble all the more to find several replacement ACs. Soon the semi-official GS belief system would be repaired.
In Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” he documents how group behavior like what I’m predicting is the norm. This is the book where “paradigm” was coined, sort of. In Kuhn’s scenario, your paradigm is too well invested in for you to toss it out, especially for only one AC loss.
Of course, you all can apply Kuhn’s paradigm on how paradigms work to me as well, and you are.
I’m demonstrating for those appreciative grads (few though they are) that they need not succumb to the pressure of the mob to rush to judgement, and they need not focus on apparent problems that are characteristically dredged up by those who want to not believe the heart or the details of what is written.
I think I’ve demonstrated that this swimming against the stream is possible and even recommended. I see great value in conserving what earned my respect over a lengthy critical examination period. I see great value in cherishing what seemed to work very well for a large disparate group of people for a good ten years, ESPECIALLY when the alternative offered to replace PFAL is nothing but a hodge-podge of quickly thrown together personal opinions.
I see the PFAL writings as withstanding these onslaughts. When the casual critics are gone or too tired to cry out, these writings will still be around demanding that SOMEBODY get serious about systematically mastering them.
Part of my system of mastering PFAL is to occasionally consider and look fairly deep into selected ACs. I refuse, however, to get bogged down in this kind of activity. I think it’s unreasonable for anyone to expect that I am willing to get my head turned and renounce my well thought through policies, simply because a few have spotted what they think are fatal snags. You all are just as dead set against having YOUR heads turned by me. I don’t get all huffy about it, so why should you? (smilie face here)
**********************************************
As the "official" minority voice on this thread,
I urge consideration of my demonstrated alternative method
for HOW to handle PFAL ACs, as well as handling Bible ACs.
[This message was edited by Mike on January 17, 2003 at 9:50.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Zix,
Re:"Wierwille made mistakes in his research. This is not opinion, this is demonstrable fact."
Oh?? I think that "fact" isn't apparent to Mike. How can you say such a thing when you take up for the inerrancy of the Bible? The Bible would have you believe that at least two (if not more of the kosher animals) of every living creature lived in an ark the lenght of a football field and then scatered to the high winds to re-populate the world after it landed.
I guess that means bacteria, too. The anaerobic bacteria would have made it but the facultative and aerobic ones would have died in a deluge. Oh Zix.. it's just hogwash and if you get honest with yourself, you know it.
And yet you all want to jump on Mike for his beliefs. Fact of the matter is that many of us had our best times while serving in that cult known as TWI. We made great friendships and had what we thought was inside spiritual awareness that all other Christians lacked.
Who can blame Mike for wanting that back in his life again? You probably go poking holes in Mormons' beliefs as well. You may laugh at how ludicrous it is for them to believe that the American Indians are really the lost tribes of Israel but THEY take it seriously.
In time, my learned friend, I'm convinced you'll eventually see the folly of your own selected religious beliefs. Then... I think you may be more tolerant of what others believe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Sudo,
If I chose to engage you on your religious beliefs, then I can't cry foul when you start pointing out inconsistencies in my own. Like I said, if you want to start an "Actual errors in the Bible" thread, be my guest.
Meek Master Mike,
CUE THE VIOLINS!
You still haven't made a single point, so I'm not going to respond to anything you wrote. 619 words without expressing a single relevant thought. Nice job.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Nice count.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Rafael,
You've got a good point. I'll just shut up and let the discussion of the errors in this belief system get hashed. I guess it serves Mike right for trying to defend it on THIS forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I hope I didn't sound snippy, Sudo.
Not long ago, there was a very active thread in the doctrinal section about agnosticism. I forgot the exact name, but it had pages and pages of replies.
If I replied ONCE, it's more than I can remember. I just chose not to participate in that conversation.
How would the people on that thread have felt if I parachuted in and declared them to be wrong, but then refused, with a GREAT number of words, to answer a single one of your doubts about the Bible?
So I stayed off the thread. Nothing personal. No arguments. You respect me. I respect you. C'est la vie.
Mike has presented a viewpoint that has implications. If PFAL is what he says it is (the God-breathed Word), then PFAL must fit with PFAL's definition of the God-breathed Word. This thread takes that view and puts it to the test. No one is forcing Mike to participate. If he wants to ignore it, that's just dandy with me. Just as no one forced me to partcipate in "The agnostic table in the corner" (I just remembered the name).
But Mike comes in here, mocking the magnitude of the errors we point out while promoting the divine inspiration of a book that declares with confidence that ONE PREPOSITION out of place disqualifies a book's claim to divine inspiration (PFAL, p. 104, first sentence).
Maybe the 10 items listed on my opening post don't rise to the level of "dispensationalism v. covenant theology." But they're a whole HAIL of a lot more significant than a misplaced preposition.
So again, I apologize if I got cocky, but I hope you really do see my point.
---
Meek Master Mike: the word count was from your original post, before you edited. I won't do a recount. I'm from Florida. We stop counting after a while.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Too shay.
As the "official" minority voice here, I'll back off and let the discussion continue.
Thank you for allowing me to say my piece here.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It's an open forum. I neither allow nor forbid your participation. You choose to participate. You choose to withdraw (or decline from participating).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Good grief, Sudo, using your logic, I should "tolerate" those people who still think human sacrifice is a good idea, too. Tolerance and acceptance are not synonymous. You tolerate a screaming child on an airplane, but it's not something you'd necessarily approve of or encourage.
I would have an easier time accepting Mike's beliefs if he could at least back up what he's saying with the thought process that led up to it, and had any sort of credible defense for the process under challenge. I'm not asking for irrefutable proof of his entire belief system, just for validation of some of the points that are verifiable. It's like trinitarians--at least they can point to verses like "my Lord and my God" to show where they're coming from, even though their conclusion is debatable. Ditto with the Friday-Sunday "three days and three nights" bit.
Mike has reduced his claim now to just the PFAL Foundational book as being God-breathed, not the IC or the AdvC, so he's not entirely immovable. Yet, he still refuses to entertain the possibility that anything in the orange book is a factual error. I'm not talking about differences of opinion or interpretation questions, I'm talking Rafael's "actual" factual errors. Wierwille says illegitimate Jewish boys were bar mitzvah-ed at twelve. Hope finds a Jewish text that shows Wierwille's statement to be extremely unlikely, if not impossible. Mike cannot produce anything to bolster Wierwille's claim except his own belief that the orange book was God-breathed, yet it is certainly a point that is not open to interpretation. If it's right, there should be something other record to at least support the claim, even if his other supporting text were debatable too.
As for the Noah account you bring up, you're building a straw man to attack. You don't even know what I believe about it, but you throw it in my face as if it were some sort of smoking gun of my hypocrisy.
Frankly, I think it's hypocritical for you to be intolerant of my beliefs while at the same time accusing me of intolerance!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Zix,
Re:"As for the Noah account you bring up, you're building a straw man to attack. You don't even know what I believe about it.."
Well... maybe so, Zix. I guess I just assumed you were one of those Biblical inerrancy types. But knowing your grasp of scientific knowledge, I should have given you the benefit of the doubt. But hey! What about the Earth being only 6000 years old with an "appearance" of being much older?? You go along with that? Seems I remember you were a Creationist but if I'm wrong about this too.. well.. dang. Please excuse me.. but heck if I can remember one fundamentalist's beliefs from another's.
One fundie wants to believe the Fred Flintstone idea of our having lived and walked in the tracks of dinosaurs but yet another ascribes that the earth is only a few thousand years old in the first place. You'll kindly forgive me for forgetting which kind YOU are. Hee-hee!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Zixar,
Something you said caught my eye. You wrote:
“Yet, he still refuses to entertain the possibility that anything in the orange book is a factual error. I'm not talking about differences of opinion or interpretation questions, I'm talking Rafael's "actual" factual errors.”
The one thing I’m commenting on is your use of the word “factual.”
In my present state of non-mastery level understanding the PFAL writings, I know there’s a distinction made between facts and truths.
In the Green book p.34 Dr writes “...every word I have written to you is true.”
At this point in my present state of non-mastery level understanding the PFAL writings, I do not quite know if the PFAL writings are factually accurate on every point. Years ago I put a lot of time on assessing its accuracy and it passed my tests with a B+ to and A- grade. Maybe soon Ill understand this better, but as for now it’s part of the frontier of my knowledge. I’m not particularly interested in this particular area at the present time.
What I’ve keyed in lately are the spiritual truths available to us who spent a lot of time absorbing the basic 5-senses message in a positive and thorough manner.
If your exposure to PFAL and its application to everyday life occurred after 1985, the year Dr died, I can’t blame you one bit for refusing my offer to look for these truths God and Dr buried in the print.
My offer is to those older grads who once did see these bursts of “straight prophesy” abounding all over, not just from Dr, but from everyone and any one.
In those good old days the mystery was exemplified by hippies and rednecks embracing each other as one body, jocks and nerds working on the same team. We let that agape love slip, but I have some good news TO THESE CERTAIN OLD GRADS, it’s not too late to do it right.
To those who were in leadership positions in 1985, I say the good news is that God has unearthed Dr’s Last/Lost Teaching, and there are grads scattered all around the country, NOT JUST ME, who are working these PFAL writings again.
As we more older, more appreciative PFAL grads finally obey Dr’s final instructions to master the collaterals again, and we come back to this Word we were taught, we will then be much better able to correct the damage we collectively did to grads who never had a chance to know Dr and see his grand successes.
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.