VPW's Source for the Law of Believing

[WordWolf]

Mike posted some stuff.

[WordWolf responds.]

========

"I'm weary with those who do not want to know the facts."

[So am I, but I read your posts ANYWAY.]

"It's worse than that, I'm weary with those who WANT to not know the facts NOR the truths about and in PFAL. "

[ Imagine how I feel, with 2 years of the same 5 posts in various forms.

Not only do I deal with someone who does not want to know facts nor truth,

but he's boring, too.]

"Nor can I any longer see any possible profit in wasting my time addressing willing mis-representers."

[ Not your problem. I'M the one that needs to consider what to do with a willing mis-representer.]

========

"Here is the beginning of the evidence. Below is page 11, the first page of the second chapter in the Orange Book with my commentary afterwards.

*******

Chapter Two

Availability, Receivability, Usability

In order to tap the resources of the power of God,

one must know first of all what is and what is not

available from God. There are some things that are

not available today; and if they are not available, we

can pray until we are exhausted and we still will not

receive an answer to our prayers. If we want to effectively

tap the resources for the more abundant life, we

must find out what is available to us, what God has

promised us. In the secular world we constantly apply

this principle. Take, for instance, this book which

you are reading. Could you have gotten it if it were

not available? Certainly not. Spiritually the same is

true. We must find out from God's Word what is

available.

As an example of availability, III John 2 tells us

what God desires of us.

**********

[Ok, that was the raw text. I shall give Mike the benefit of the doubt that this is an accurate

representation of the text and not check up behind him.

It is only AFTER this that we shall see the text that was just posted undergo

various transformations and the bait-and-switch.

Since I'm making that claim, I shall document it as we go along, and the casual reader is free

to review all of this and make up his/her own mind.

Which, of course, I heartily recommend.

(Fetch me my Sheliak.)]

======

"Now let's go through it sentence by sentence.

"In order to tap the resources of the power of God, one must know first of all what is and what is not available from God."

[ That was almost axiomatic.

It hardly accounts for ALL things, however. A young child may pray and get results,

and have no idea whether or not God will answer his prayer or even what God is

LIKELY to do.]

"Here, in this first sentence, the power behind the law is attributed to God: ...the power OF God... and ...available FROM God..."

[ No it's not. The word "law" has NOT appeared in this sentence. It speaks of "resources", "power",

"God", and "availability". Someone has ADDED A WORD to the word of vpw.

When you add to the word of vpw, do you still have the word of vpw?

"Here, in this first sentence, the operation of the law is limited to what is available. "

[No, the limitation is to "tap the resources of the power of God". No "law" was mentioned.

It was added by a "translator" in his "commentary." ]

"These are the two tid-bits dmiller said Dr NEVER taught on: that the law only works for what is available (God's promises) and God is the power behind it."

[ dmiller seems to be able to tell the difference between a sentence containing the word "law"

and a sentence missing the word "law". Someone else seems to miss this distinction. ]

***

"There are some things that are not available today; and if they are not available, we can pray until we are exhausted and we still will not receive an answer to our prayers."

[This is also almost axiomatic.]

"This refutes the impression dmiller said that he got from reading PFAL, that we can manipulate God."

[This section talked about one thing, and dmiller talked about another.

dmiller addressed the so-called "Law" of Believing. So far, we haven't seen a law OR

believing in this chapter.]

"It also established the law being limited to what is available, not just any old thing we want to believe for."

[We have seen 2 sentences, with ZERO occurrences of the words "law" or "believing".

The only thing we have established is that some people can't count to zero.]

***

"If we want to effectively tap the resources for the more abundant life, we must find out what is available to us, what God has promised us."

"Again, we are the limited ones, it works only for what is promised and on the "available list," and God is the one who is behind it. Here also I see more where I got my faucet analogy from: "tap the resources." "

***

[Actually, this interpretation limits God again. God will not do LESS than He promises,

but He may go BEYOND His promises, and provide what is NOT promised-in fact,

He may provide something we don't even IMAGINE is "available".]

"In the secular world we constantly apply this principle. Take, for instance, this book which you are reading. Could you have gotten it if it were not available? Certainly not."

[Ok, study this sentence for a moment. Look at what is says and what it does NOT say.

There is about to be a "test" of your ability to understand what you read.

"The law and the principles even work in the secular world, but the REALLY work in the spiritual. This is what I was talking about earlier in the thread about the anomalies spotted in the law. It doesn't seem to work as powerfully there with the competing forces."

[Let's skip the shoehorning in of the part-time law again, because we're going somewhere else...]

[Ready? Read it AGAIN. Here comes the test...]

"Here also is a subtle hint from Dr that the Orange Book is from God and not from Dr."

[One of the "hidden messages" is imminent. Watch the handkerchief closely...]

"In the film class he uses a pen in this example, holding it in his hand as if writing with it, while here he uses the word "book." "

[ The film is supposedly non-canonical. Supposedly, only the printed pfal is divine...

But we're going somewhere else anyway...]

[That wasn't it. Here it comes...]

"What book? It's in the text: "...this book..."

He doesn't write "...a book..."

He doesn't write "...some book..."

He writes "...THIS book..." !!!"

[vpw addressed THE SECULAR WORLD.

That's where we have pens, papers, ink, and books.

He has a book in his hand.

It is not "spirit". It is a "book". It is made of paper, ink, and cardboard.

A book exists in THE SECULAR WORLD.

They can be found almost ANYWHERE in the US, in THE SECULAR WORLD.

God-rejectors, atheists, and agnostics have books.

Now, the quote again: ]

"In the secular world we constantly apply this principle. Take, for instance, this book which you are

reading. Could you have gotten it if it were not available? Certainly not."

[So, we have a "book". In the secular world, where books can be found, and are thus dealt with,

we interact with it-which is easy to understand. Thus, this was a simple analogy to illustrate how

we interact with the world around us-he singled out an item.

This was an easy item to use. You're reading a book. Someone discusses holding a book in

your hands. You have a ready example to draw from.

Could you get a book that is not available? Certainly not.

(Can you get a sandwich that is not available? Certainly not.) ]

"He's saying, in a most profoundly subtle way that this Orange Book was made available from God. Dr technically "penned" it, but God made it available."

[ No-the plain meaning of the text is that a ready analogy is being used.

Jesus used flowers, birds, and grass as examples. People encountered them everyday and interacted

with them. They were ready examples.

vpw has a ready example, and says he's using a SECULAR example-and invokes the Orange Book.

There are SACRED examples-of God.

There are SECULAR examples-of the world.

IF the Orange Book is supposedly Scripture,

THEN the rules of reading and understanding Scripture MUST be used to read them.

Biblical Research Principle 1a: "All Scripture explains itself in the verse right where it is written."

That sentence had a simple, straightforward meaning, with plain English words.

Ok,

let's suppose one is unclear as to whether or not the word "SECULAR" just MIGHT

CHANGE this sentence.

The word "secular" is a contrasting word-it OPPOSES the things of God, originating FROM God.

The 2 stone tables of the 10 Commandments were not SECULAR, they were from God.

But, let's suppose one needs IRONCLAD PROOF that this is what "SECULAR" means.

Let's look at the IRONCLAD PROOF.

According to page 147 of the Orange Book,

"85 to 90 per cent of the Word of God interprets itself in the verse."

That supports reading this sentence simply AS WRITTEN.

(IF the Orange Book is the Word of God, of course.)

page 199 is further relevant to proving the simple, direct understanding of this

sentence is correct.]

"If Scripture does not interpret itself in the verse or in the context, then the

interpretation is found in its previous usage.

In the first usage of a word, expression or idea, the explanation is usually

complete enough to carry through in all other references in the Bible.

If God ever changed the usage of a word or expression, He always explained it."

[

Therefore,

if one considers the Orange Book to be the Word of God,

the Orange Book's stated rules for understanding the Word of God MUST be used

in reading it.

Therefore,

if you want to know what the word "secular" means in chapter 2 of the Orange Book,

you must go to ITS FIRST USAGE.

pg-3 begins the INTRODUCTION of the book. In fact, the book BEGINS on this page.

And, on page 3, we see the FIRST USAGE of the word "secular".

]

"As I looked about me at communities where I had served and among the ministers with whom I

had worked, the abundant life was frequently not evident.

In contrast to these Christian

people, I could see that the

secular world of non-Christians

were manifesting a more abundant life than were members of the Church."

[So,

using the tools OF the Orange Book to understand the Orange Book,

the meaning of the word "secular" IN the Orange Book is

contrasted with Christian-it describes the opposite, the non-Christian.

(Read it again slowly. See?)

Therefore, the sentence]

"In the secular world we constantly apply this principle.

Take, for instance, this book you are reading.

Could you have gotten it if you were available? Certainly not."

[the meaning of the word "secular" must be "nonChristian" and "contrasted"

with "Christian".

So it may be understood identically as

"In the nonChristian world we constantly apply this principle.

Take for instance, this book you are reading.

Could you have gotten it if you were available? Certainly not."

Therefore, the BOOK is referred to as CONTRASTED with that which is

directly from God.

This is even simpler to understand when one does not STOP BEFORE THE

NEXT SENTENCE when seeking to understand.

(Why don't they ever read the next verse?)

The next sentence reads]

"Spiritually the same is true."

[Why did he need to mention that "the same" is true "spiritually"?

Because he was speaking of SECULAR matters when he spoke of the Orange Book,

and said that the principles he just discussed about the Orange Book don't ONLY

apply to the SECULAR (nonChristian) world, but ALSO refer to the SPIRITUAL.

Reread all that.

Did I, or did I not, document EVERY principle I applied

DIRECTLY from the Orange Book?]

============

"I agree it looks so subtle that I could have read all this portion into it and the subtle message is mine alone and not Dr's."

[Well, using the principles outlined in the Orange Book, the subtle message was EXCLUDED.

The example was from the VERY FIRST PAGE of the Orange Book.

Could you not even "master" the VERY FIRST PAGE?]

"I wondered that too at first, until I saw about hundred more spots like this that lined up the same way.

[Rather than "wonder", I recommend utilizing the principles OF PFAL to read PFAL, rather than

relying on techniques external to it.

This was NOT a hard section to "interpret" that way. I did it just now in my spare time.

After a supposed 7 years of this, you couldn't even match my "spare time" effort.

Based on how badly you FAILED to use the PRINCIPLES of the Orange Book to INTERPRET the

Orange Book in this case,

I think it would be unwise to think you demonstrated any LESS a failure when you "saw" these

"about hundred more spots".]

"We weren't able to accept this years ago,

[ It would have been just as incorrect an "interpretation" in 1971 as it is in 2005. ]

"so God had Dr put it into the record in ways we wouldn't see it nor object to it back then."

[ Unsupported dogma based on the mangling of the aforementioned sentence.]

"As a result we unknowingly helped him distribute the books around the globe."

[A handful of copies were tightly restricted and only released to pfal grads.

If it was God's idea to distribute the books "around the globe",

the God did a lousy job of bringing His idea into fruition.

Less than 200,000 people ever SAW a copy of this book.

The total world population is 6,420,102,722.

That's 6 BILLION, 420 MILLION, 102 THOUSAND, 722.

(Courtesy of www.internetworldstats.com)

If every person was to have a copy,

the production would have needed to be-

doubled? tripled? No-

multiplied by OVER 32,100 TIMES.]

***

"Spiritually the same is true."

Two realms in which the law can be applied. The spiritual is dominant.

***

"We must find out from God's Word what is available. As an example of availability, III John 2 tells us what God desires for us."

We are the limited ones, and we don't manipulate God. We must find out FROM GOD'S WORD what is available. The promises in God's Word make up the available list.

*******

So, that's just one page of the orange book, and it looks pretty proved already. There's TONS more. This is a spiritual drama we're in.

[ Well, I agree about the "drama" part...]

There are HUGE forces at work to hide this stuff,

[ "Forces" like "reading comprehension" and "applying the Orange Book"...]

..just like Dr's last teaching was lost. Do you know about that one?

[ Here comes the SAME commercial we ALWAYS get!

Don't you get annoyed when your tv show has the SAME commercial at EVERY commercial

break? Doesn't it get tiresome for you? ]

"I'm not talking about "The Hope" but the one he did two weeks later and was lost by and/or on all top leadership, that's ALL top leadership."

["The Joy of Serving." That's the sermon where he said

"Serving is great! The best thing you can serve people is pfal, my class!

Get better with it and serve it to people!

All other Christians have nothing to offer people!"

Well, that's the "short-form". Feel free to read it for yourself-it adds up to the same thing. ]

"I'm very upset with the whole collection of posters at this time, and for many reasons."

[ One reason is: we can read the Orange Book with comprehension,

and see that Mike's "hidden messages" exist only for Mike

(and anyone else abandoning the meaning of the text for the "hidden" system.)

Another reason is: We already survived one Gnostic cult, and precious few of us are

so gullible or desperate that we want ANOTHER.

Frankly, if that's what I wanted, I could make a BETTER one than we're being offered. ]

"I feel very much like ending all my posting,"

[ If we promise to miss you, will you go away?]

"...as I pointed out to you yesterday by PM that we are not to cast our pearls before swine."

[Whatever.

"When Jesus was before Pilate he refused to defend himself."

[Jesus was required to DIE.

When Paul was before Agrippa he spoke God's Word to Agrippa.

(No, it was neither Felix NOR Festus who said "almost I believe"...)

"This thread is more of a battle of egos than a fight for truth,"

[ I presented my case directly, logically, and working PURELY from the Orange Book

to show that Mikean doctrine about the Orange Book not only violates the principles

dictated IN the Orange Book,

but they fail to let the Orange Book interpret itself.

That's what would be done in a "fight for truth".

I went straight for the evidence, and spared little time for name-calling.]

"and I don't need to win a trivial ego pi$$ing contest."

[A hungry fox noticed a juicy bunch of grapes growing high on a grapevine. He leaped. He snapped.

Drooling, he jumped to reach them but, try as he might, he could not obtain the tasty prize.

Disappointed by the fruitless efforts he'd made to get the grapes that day, he said, with a shrug,

to comfort himself, "Oh, they were probably sour grapes anyway!"]

"I know that many don't have the books to check out the evidence I say is in there. There is a CD with all of Dr's books on it that many posters have. I've seen them offer it to others at times, but not now because I am involved. What is going on there is more about me than anything else.

[ I heartily agree. Mike does not seek to absorb the accurate contents of the Orange Book.

Both his approach, and his posts, are about HIM.

The Orange Book is a MEANS to an END.

It could be ANY set of books. ]

"I refuse to post the full proofs."

[Possibly because being spanked with a paddle does not result in being shown in the most

favourable light, and this IS about appearances for Mike.]

"I'd prefer that you do not post this information. I want to work only with you on it, and I'd prefer you only work with me on it."

[ Isolating someone from other sources of information and using that isolation to facilitate

indoctrination is an old tool.

If an adult chooses to agree to such a silly rule for dealing with you,

they deserve what they get.]

"The other posters are good at manipulating opinion of the uninformed."

[ By posting the contents of the Orange Book, applying the principles OF the Orange Book,

and otherwise seeking the truth...]

"You have forgotten much, or it slipped by you unawares way back then. You are very uninformed."

[Go ahead, butter up your prospective candidates....]

"There are many posters with the Orange Book, yet none are posting what's in there. If they had any desire for truth SOMEONE would open it up and immediately see the evidence."

[ We explained why many times before.

I demonstrated an example of posting it in this post.

EVERYONE can see the evidence.]

============

[That's enough fun for now.

I reserve the right to come back later and address the rest of the post. ]

============

Edited October 11, 2005 by WordWolf

[Raf]

Masterful.

Wierwille called the PFAL book a secular item.

Priceless.

[Raf]

WordWolf, tell the truth...

You enjoyed that.

[WordWolf]

"You're d*ed right!"

[Belle]

Even though I have chosen to ignore Mike's posts, I have to admit I enjoyed reading it, WordWolf. :D

[templelady]

MIke,

I was courteous enough to respond to your PM messages,

I heard you out

I explained clearly that I have no desire or need to return to PFAL

I find it disengenuous of you post your responses to my replies without citing my half of the conversation.

FOr the record you contacted me--

I do not mind that you contacted me--

But you should have contacted me about publishing the whole of that correspondence --which you did not do

I would have given permission for you to post to your hearts content

But only giving part of the story is what gets you into trouble here on GS--

I would suggest that in the future you think first --post second

[Mike]

templelady,

I've responded in a PM.

[Tom Strange]

Mike said (a while ago):

Most of my activity here at GreaseSpot is to point out the history, the accurate history of what happened ...

yes there was a lot more blah blah blah there...

no Mike, most of your activity here at GS is to allow yourself to hear your head rattle...

...oh... I've been meaning to ask... aren't you pretty ticked off that you can't go back and edit and re-edit your posts now? ...it used to be so convenient for you to change your posts so they'd fit your current argument/thesis... now it's NOT AVAILABLE!!!!

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[Mike]

No, Tom. I never felt a need to resort to that.

How did such an idea even occur to you?

I detect a sense of desparation in many jeering posters.

It's obvious WW is desparate to nullify and obfuscate my points with pointy headedness.

Why do I rate such attention and time?

I must be hitting home some points that the goons who hound me are too nervous to allow unopposed.

I am patient to wait for the Lord's judgment.

It's coming soon to a theatre near you!

Edited October 12, 2005 by Mike

[Tom Strange]

[Raf]

Aye, Chihuahua?

Is this the movie pictionary thread?

[def59]

No, Tom. I never felt a need to resort to that.

How did such an idea even occur to you?

I detect a sense of desparation in many jeering posters.

It's obvious WW is desparate to nullify and obfuscate my points with pointy headedness.

Why do I rate such attention and time?

I must be hitting home some points that the goons who hound me are too nervous to allow unopposed.

I am patient to wait for the Lord's judgment.

It's coming soon to a theatre near you!

Name-calling will really validate your point.

That's not desperation, its exasperation.

The hitting sound you hear is the dull thud of heads slamming into walls as postrs realise you will never give an honest answer to any question.

[Raf]

Pointy-headedness beats sycophantic idolatry any day.

Actually, pointy-headedness is apparently Mike's way of saying "careful analysis of the facts and truth as they relate to what I actually wrote."

[WordWolf]

Mike:

"I detect a sense of desparation in many jeering posters.

It's obvious WW is desparate to nullify and obfuscate my points with pointy headedness.

Why do I rate such attention and time?

I must be hitting home some points that the goons who hound me are too nervous to allow unopposed."

====

Mike always "detects desperation" when he's peeled like grape.

It's almost like a blinking neon sign that he can only respond by throwing insults

or retreating.

The double-appearance of the word "desperation/desparate" establishes this. :D

The invocation of "high-faluting" words is an attempt to cover his deficiencies

with enough syllables.

"See, I know long words. I must be smart. Since I'm smart, I must be right."

Finally,

the quick succession of insults-

goons, hound, nervous-

exist to salve his own shaken self-esteem,

bruised from being shellacked like a wooden chair.

====

In other words,

WordWolf says

"I do believe I've hit a nerve.

Since I'm on a roll, I'll whack it again."

Edited October 12, 2005 by WordWolf

[Belle]

If Mike would spend half of his time actually answering questions instead of attacking people;

looking up "big words" to use on www.dictionary.com and

defending why he can't/won't/shouldn't/wouldn't take the time to answer the questions,

people might actually take him seriously.

And, "NO", I do not want a private message from Mike. I have his posts (along with Allan's posts) blocked, so all I can see is that he's still playing the same old game he's always played. All this despite his threats (promises?) to move along to someplace that would actually appreciate him (wherever that may be).

[Jbarrax]

Aye, Chihuahua?

Is this the movie pictionary thread?

LOL

[dmiller]

I am patient to wait for the Lord's judgment.

It's coming soon to a theatre near you!

Now this is a statement I can agree with! :)

David

[dmiller]

I detect a sense of desparation in many jeering posters.

Yea. Well, I guess I can go along with the *jeering posters* aspect (by the way I AM NOT ONE OF THEM), but I don't see how you can either rationalize or validate the

*sense of desparation* aspect. Really, I can't.

Mike -- you've been here longer than I have, and have dealt with all of this before (obviously), so if you are saying *desparation*, it seems to me you are going into denial that no one is going along with what you are saying. Well -- after 2 or so years of being on the board here, wouldn't you think that all opposition is not coming from desparation, but rather from learning gathered from other areas of life?

And to be honest -- THERE ARE OTHER AREAS OF LIFE. Docvic offered some good stuff but that hardly suggests that his works were *god-breathed* and that all other works were not. By the way -- have you read Raf's dissertaion on THE BLUE BOOK?

If you haven't, I suggest you give it a look. But given the way you have steadfastly refused to acknowledge that any one of the many *commentators* on the observations in your posts have anything legitimate to say, I doubt if you would give that a *look see* either.

Raf is THE most objective poster on this site. He approaches the tree, sees the fruit up there, and shakes the tree, and watches the fruit fall. Some of it is solid, and survives the fall, while some is rotten and splatts when it hits solid ground. He then gives an objective report on which fruit rolls, and which fruit splatts.

Now --- if you can't see that, then I think the word *desparation* is a ball that is in your court, not this one.

Like I have always said -- I don't jeer you, I'm willing to listen (I don't always agree, but I listen), and I am not desparate by a long shot. Nor are others here desparate either. Perhaps others won't give you the time of day (like I and some others here will), but you owe answers to all that ask about that which you have broached as a subject, without engaging in secretive conclave via pm (like you did with myself and 20 some other folks on the old site).

If you can do this, folks might listen. And that is what you're are looking for, right??

(sigh)

David

Edited October 13, 2005 by dmiller

[WordWolf]

Bumping this thread- someone asked about it...

[Grumpy]

Wow, a bit like watching a train wreck.

(Pssst, don't insult our intelligence by claiming that the real problem is we don't know what's in those pages. I know what's in them all to well, thank you)

If you want to read about the "train wreck", read the post this refers to.