I'm just doing my best to accurately deal with what we were given IN WRITTEN FORM. I can see that this is where we grads missed it in many ways. Most here are prone to think that we grads did nothing wrong and that all the bad came from someone else.
I see that when it comes to crooked handlebars, what most grads have in their heads of the PFAL teaching is NOT from the written record of PFAL but from the verbal traditions that grew up ove time, and that drifted far from PFAL.
******
Thanks, oldiesman!
I'm so glad to see that we can disagree on some things, yet you see that I am on track with the same Father and Son. I think many minds here are clouded with emotion. I admit that what I post is very much against culture and tradition, and that can bother people. I used to think that all PFAL grads were tough as nails when it came to tradition, but I can see many now have retreated into the comfort zone that world provides. And now, with posters finding the "ignore" feature, people like you and me can discuss our differences (AND agreements) here with less distraction.
***
I've wondered from the start of this new board how many would hit the ignore feature for me.
Actually, I think it's a more honest way for my critics to proceed, because at least half of what I say is ignored most of my critics anyway in their determined effort to merely discredit me.
I say to them (even though they can't hear me): good riddance. Plus, I can comment on what they say without then coming back after I'm done and re-opening a subject I'm content to leave as done.
Maybe this way I can have more peace and less distractions in posting, and the more open GreaseSpotters and visitors here will see less of the criticizing distractions to what I'm trying to get across. I've been getting pretty fed up with the same mindless criticisms appearing over and over no matter how many times I deal with them. I had to retreat to PTs for the last two months of the old board I was so unhappy with all the ragging on me.
But I wonder how many of will be tempted to undo the ignore feature on me when they see a hot discussion where I'm quoted in posts. It may be amusing. When Raf and Belle jump into the fray we'll all know they succumbed to the temptation! :D
******
Jbarrax,
You still got it wrong.
It is a fact that I "invade" a very small minority of threads here. I most often REFRAIN from posting when a topic hot to me is being discussed. A few others have seen this, but not you yet. Take notes and jot down numbers and you will see that your impression of me on many threads where these topics are being discussed is subjective on your part and inaccurate.
Your discourse on The Great Principle got my attention. I used to wrestle with this for years. I used to worry about a PFAL contradiction on this with the handwriting on the wall incident at Bellchazer's party. I'm not prepared to fully discuss it right now, but I have a ton of notes on it. Maybe some day we can, but it would have to be a discussion from within PFAL, not externally to it.
I'm sure you know of the principle I just stated. When Bible scholars don't believe that the scriptures are (or were) God's Word, when they are rank unbelievers, then many things are invisible to them. When they reason from outside the scriptures they are able to see contradictions, while when we look at them and reason meekly from within their authority we see things fit. The same holds for PFAL.
***
I will throw this out for consideration. If you have a pet, like a cat or a dog, you can talk to them. To a very limited degree they can "understand" short sentences and phrases, and their name, and a few other things. But if you wanted to have a deep conversation with them, if you wanted to REALLY talk to them and with them where they really got what deep things you were saying, you'd fail. You could NOT discuss with them the human condition and things deep in your heart. It's just not possible.
My impression of Dr's teaching on this Great Principle is that for those with no spirit and no spiritually prepared mind, for God to talk to them is like us talking to our pets. Sure, something gets communicated between pets and their owners but it's so constricted that to compare a dog's understanding of a deep conversation with us to that of a human's understanding is ludicrous.
Because I think within PFAL I don't see a contradiction there.
We can communicate on a very constricted level with animals, but we can't talk to them on OUR level.
God can "talk" to people with no spiritual mind but He can't talk to them on HIS level, which is what He craves to do.
You've been hanging out with PFAL rejectors for so long that you don't get much information like this. I've seen a general tendency in grads, both in the good old days and now too, to practice intellectual inbreeding. If you had more respectful conversations with me you could see a whole new world.
i'd put you on ignore if you were a giant of evil. but your just a little little little bitty bitty bitty midget of evil, too dumb to know how to talk about what your talking about. so you in your insanity you cannot even talk normally. you are one of the easy ones to pick out. just have to watch where we step or we might crush your little itty bitty
i'll just call you midget mike from now on so you know what i mean
... I will throw this out for consideration. If you have a pet, like a cat or a dog, you can talk to them. To a very limited degree they can "understand" short sentences and phrases, and their name, and a few other things. But if you wanted to have a deep conversation with them, if you wanted to REALLY talk to them and with them where they really got what deep things you were saying, you'd fail. You could NOT discuss with them the human condition and things deep in your heart. It's just not possible. ...
On the contrary, I think my cat understands everything I say, he just doesn't give a damn ... :lol:
God gave information to King Abimelech, a man who is not described in the Bible as a prophet or seer. He didn't "come into concretion" as VP asserted. He spoke to him in a DREAM. Which of Abimelech's five senses did God use? Sight? No, your eyes are closed when you dream. Sound? Touch? Taste? You get the idea. Dreams occur complete within the human MIND. The MIND that PFAL says is beyond the reach of God. This is just one clear example of how PFAL contradicts the Bible.
Because I think within PFAL I don't see a contradiction there.
We can communicate on a very constricted level with animals, but we can't talk to them on OUR level.
God can "talk" to people with no spiritual mind but He can't talk to them on HIS level, which is what He craves to do.
Hmmmmm. Is talking with folks On His Level the most important thing, or might it be getting the message across instead?
Your discourse on The Great Principle got my attention. I used to wrestle with this for years. I used to worry about a PFAL contradiction on this with the handwriting on the wall incident at Bellchazer's party. I'm not prepared to fully discuss it right now, but I have a ton of notes on it. Maybe some day we can, but it would have to be a discussion from within PFAL, not externally to it.
Same old dodge, Mike. You still haven't got the guts to face the fact that your cistern is broken.
I'm sure you know of the principle I just stated. When Bible scholars don't believe that the scriptures are (or were) God's Word, when they are rank unbelievers, then many things are invisible to them. When they reason from outside the scriptures they are able to see contradictions, while when we look at them and reason meekly from within their authority we see things fit. The same holds for PFAL.
Look bud. it was YOU who said, on this very thread, in your reply to TempleLady, that PFAL fits perfectly with the doctrines of the Bible. Now you want to change the subject and say that you can't compare PFAL to anything but itself. Another dodge.
I will throw this out for consideration. If you have a pet, like a cat or a dog, you can talk to them. To a very limited degree they can "understand" short sentences and phrases, and their name, and a few other things. But if you wanted to have a deep conversation with them, if you wanted to REALLY talk to them and with them where they really got what deep things you were saying, you'd fail. You could NOT discuss with them the human condition and things deep in your heart. It's just not possible. My impression of Dr's teaching on this Great Principle is that for those with no spirit and no spiritually prepared mind, for God to talk to them is like us talking to our pets. Sure, something gets communicated between pets and their owners but it's so constricted that to compare a dog's understanding of a deep conversation with us to that of a human's understanding is ludicrous.
A nice try, but Weirwille didn't say that God can't discuss really deep things with natural men. What he said was--no, more to the point--what he WROTE was, "But God is spirit, and therefore, cannot speak to brain cells; God cannot speak to a person's mind." Furthermore, he said there is a "chasm between the natural man and God". Now a chasm is a breach that cannot be crossed. And the Bible makes it plain that God can reach across VP's mythical chasm and speak to whoever He wants to, whenever and however He wants to. Right after the so-called chasm was put in place, God had lengthy conversations with Adam and Eve and even with Cain, the first murderer. So again, VP's Great Principle is not based on biblical research. It's an erroneous theological construct. and it disproves your assertion that PFAL fits perfectly with the doctrines of the Bible.
Because I think within PFAL I don't see a contradiction there.
Of course you don't. That's because you're insane.
You've been hanging out with PFAL rejectors for so long that you don't get much information like this. I've seen a general tendency in grads, both in the good old days and now too, to practice intellectual inbreeding. If you had more respectful conversations with me you could see a whole new world.
Once again, you make assumptions about my personal life that are both unwarranted and incorrect. You have no knowledge whatsoever of whom I 'hang out with" and so your statement is presumptuous to say the least. Besides being presumptuous, it's dead wrong. Perhaps, you should go back and reread what's in your sacred book and --here's a novel idea--consider the possibility that just maybe we're right and your beliefs need to be adjusted to fit the truth.
I've wondered from the start of this new board how many would hit the ignore feature for me.
Actually, I think it's a more honest way for my critics to proceed, because at least half of what I say is ignored most of my critics anyway in their determined effort to merely discredit me.
I say to them (even though they can't hear me): good riddance.Plus, I can comment on what they say without then coming back after I'm done and re-opening a subject I'm content to leave as done.
Maybe this way I can have more peace and less distractions in posting, and the more open GreaseSpotters and visitors here will see less of the criticizing distractions to what I'm trying to get across. I've been getting pretty fed up with the same mindless criticisms appearing over and over no matter how many times I deal with them. I had to retreat to PTs for the last two months of the old board I was so unhappy with all the ragging on me.
But I wonder how many of will be tempted to undo the ignore feature on me when they see a hot discussion where I'm quoted in posts. It may be amusing. When Raf and Belle jump into the fray we'll all know they succumbed to the temptation!
Okay Now I've had enough.
Not of the discussions
Not of the disagreements
not of the diversity of opinion
BUT it has become clear that Mike suffers from a severe case of VPW/LCM wanna-be
In these paragraphs he has made it clear that his purpose at greasespot is to turn it into an on-line PFAL
I'm contacting PAW
(something I never do about other posters)
I am making the following proposal
Since the great strength of This site is the freedom to post as we will, discuss as we will, believe as we will
To oust Mike would go against the grain of what we believe.
THerefore I propose that a new Forum be created
TITLE "Learning the Truths about PFAL"
with the disclamer that the cafe staff neither supports or endorse the ideas presented there
There and only there will MIke be allowedd to post--to his hearts content.
Anyone can pop in to read or to comment
but Mike has the authority to make them leave HIS forum
THat way MIke can have his soapbox-declaim to his hearts content, amd have commerce with his fellow believers.
In addition to the obvious benefits to those who disagree with him--there would be a benefit to those who are on the fence about TWI, offshoots, PFAL. They could compare the two philosophies side be side--the freewheeling cafe and the controlled private dining area off the kitchen
I know you can't be having any fellowship with anyone but PFAL rejectors because ALL grads have rejected it except for a very small few who have come back. Some may SAY they haven't rejected it, but they have. They have all rejected looking at it the way The Teacher told them to look at it, by mastering it's written forms.
templelady,
You are practicing the same principles of LCM as you accuse me of. You just cant stand to see anyone EFFECTIVELY oppose the anti-PFAL stance you embrace.
Just for your information I have already discussed your idea with Pawtucket months ago and he is very positive about it. I have not brought it up much with him lately because I figured there's still a lot of move related work for him.
Tell me, would you ban me from all discussion on threads in your sight even though I have shown total restraint in only posting on a very small number of threads here for over two years now?
I saw your brand of itellectual inbreeding before in TWI and especially in the Corps. It looks like you brought that attitude with you.
You guys are so predisposed to get me wrong that you do it very well.
[So says the guy who always insists that we are deficient for disagreeing with him.
The rest of us actually CONSIDER whether opposing points of view may be correct.
But disagreements with Mike are "always" wrong. ]
WW, you are continually trying to make me the subject of discussion here.
[Actually, YOU were the one who was making the comparison, Senator.
You keep saying that we're wrong for viewing pfal in a rational approach, and not cowering in a
prostrate manner before your beliefs on the books.
The truth of the matter is that your approach was deficient. You acted in desperation and
lashed out frantically. This is NEVER a healthy approach.
You could have reached for the Koran, Book of Morman, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures,
the Bhaghavad-Gita, or Kingdom Come and had the same reaction-
"this book is the be-all and end-all. My anguish is over!"
Of course, since this was brought up, you want the subject changed as quickly as possible.
That is understandable, and even forgiveable.
I can see how you reached out in pain and suffering. I don't LIKE that you were hurting.
I like even LESS that you've slapped a band-aid on a festering wound, and the solution was
never found. I would not wish that on you or anyone else. ]
I could deal with it
[No you can't. You can only draw attention away from it and change the subject as quickly as
possible. ]
but why bother.
[REALLY dealing with it may bring you healing, that's why. ]
When I explain portions of my life it's to help those who want to know the deeper truths of PFAL, not to give the definitive, complete description of my life.
[And yet, it gives context to your conclusions and decisions, as would anyone's life. ]
I'm not going to bother to fine tune your understanding of me and my history. You'll just take it wrong in your determined effort to discredit what I say about PFAL.
["Take it wrong", of course, for Mike, means
"use direct quotes to draw conclusions I don't like."
Mike has a non-standard definition of "wrong".
BTW,
I think you've already discredited pfal quite nicely-I just recap your material so late arrivals
can be brought up to speed on the missing prologue. ]
Sometimes I will fine tune subjects regarding PFAL that you botch, though.
[In your opinion. The ones you skip are badly telegraphed, however.
Those you lack answers to get a song-and-dance about you not deigning to answer.
You may have outfoxed yourself.... ]
I regard PFAL as BOTH a set of keys to understand the riddles of the ancient scriptures AND revelation itself in written form.
[It is either figure OR ground.
Attempts to treat it as BOTH result in rendering it NEITHER.
That's why you can't even use pfal fully like it was DESIGNED to be used-
to understand Scripture or even figures of speech.
(I remember how badly you botched "condesencio" despite vpw spending a lot of time on it.) ]
You seem to think that God cannot engage in the process of giving us keys.
[I suppose I "seem" this way because it serves your posts for me to "seem" this way.]
You seem to think that if there is a set of keys to the scriptures, those keys cannot be authoritative themselves.
[They can be authoritative as keys-authoritative tools.]
PFAL is God pointing out to us grads what's right and what's not in the scriptures antiquity has given to and translated for us, and much more.
[That is your opinion. ]
I'm amazed how dense an intelligent man like you can be,
["Dense", in this instance, meaning "understand Mike's position and disagree".
Mike uses a non-standard definition of "dense".]
but you are just determined to keep those blinders tightly in place.
["Blinders,", in this instance, means "maintaining the principles for understanding IN pfal,
and using them to evaluate-and reject-Mike's thesis."
Mike uses a non-standard definition of "blinders". ]
You're unable to get the heart of what I say because of your bias.
[Mike, I read you like a comic-book. I can even produce entire threads of Mike-speak without
you ever posting on them, if I feel like. I WOULD, too, if there was any reason to. ]
You are not seeking the truth, you are seeking to present yourself as an analyst of the truth.
[ When I encounter information, I ANALYZE it. Otherwise, when I find truth, I would be unable
to prove it is truth, and when I encounter error, I would be unable to tell it is not truth.
I don't seek to "present" myself as anything. That's YOUR bag. ]
Groucho,
I woke up this morning with a thought.
[ It spent quite some time pining in its loneliness. ]
Last night I had a sentence as I wrote my post to you, but was too tired to run with it so I deleted it from my word processor before I finally posted it all. But now I feel better about posting it.
[ Here it comes....]
I'll admit, this special person stuff is a bit on my frontier of knowledge, so bear with me. I am a little surprised, though, that this stuff isn't well known by others.
[We're almost there-we just need to get thru the disclaimer of "special knowledge"...]
Here's the line I deleted, but now feel better about. Jesus Christ was NOT one of those special people. He had to learn about God just like the rest of us normal people, from the scriptures.
[ For those who forgot, the "special people" Mike posited the existence of are these supergifted
people God can't get diddly done without. They are thus entitled to free passes and to get away with what
would land other people in jail-plagiarism, rape, etc-which are wrong, but if the felon is a
"special person", then it is regrettable but FORGIVEABLE.
Whereas any of US should be fired, prosecuted, and horsewhipped for that,
the "special people" are entitled to operate indefinitely as spokespeople for God because
they are "special people".
That's Mike's position. I'm sure he really resents me being so blatant about it, but that IS where he
was going with that.
Where he's going with it NOW I can't predict.
I'm suspecting we'll see a statement like
"weakness always brings down strength"
or something similar now-
since we're running on a similar track now.
(Private interpretation.) ]
I know this doesn't sit well with many.
[ You just made an audacious claim. Rather than just claim "this doesn't sit well with many",
how about giving people a reason to think you may actually be RIGHT and not just be
pulling this out of your donkey? Hey-if your "argument" makes sense, I might actually
agree-which would surprise the HECK out of me, but I reserve the right to agree when
ANYONE is talking sense. Was this just a bald assertion, or will you lay a foundation for
this position? I mean, you never laid a foundation for the PREVIOUS assertion-
that God NEEDS "special people" who get a blank check to sin while they serve God.
Without that, this statement is founded on sand even if it's correct. ]
The reason for this is our culture is so saturated with mental images of Jesus being God that we still think that way, even though we've purged ourselves of the sentence "Jesus is God" and become comfortable with the sentence "Jesus Christ is NOT God." This is another case of getting the wording correct, but not the idea. WW seems to be an expert at this.
[ Mischaracterizing me again, but what else is new?
Without frequent breaks to try to paint himself as superior to individuals or groups,
or repeating his commercial, Mike would be lost on what he wanted to say. ]
Jesus did not bring forth God's written Word, he obeyed it.
[ANYONE serving God MUST begin HERE-at OBEYING God. That's one difference between
the godly person and the religious person. ]
He loved it from an early age and learned to become it, especially when he finally got spirit at age 30. The scriptures were his guide. The special people I've been talking about had to bring it forth, from scratch.
[ So then,
are you saying that Jesus was an INFERIOR servant of our Heavenly Father because he didn't
pen Scripture? That his sinless walk was less impressive than that of someone who wrote some
books (by cutting-and-pasting from the books of others) while drinking, smoking and raping?
THIS IS A 'YES OR NO' QUESTION.
Anyone want to bet Mike will avoid it, then claim later that he answered it?
Or will he toss out an insult and pretend this isn't a legitimate question?
I'd bet the latter. ]
The kind of specialness I have been describing is related to the phrase I put in bold fonts from BTMS above where these special people were NOT schooled to revere the knowledge that comes via the 5-senses.
Somehow these people are disconnected from the extreme reliance on senses input and humanreasoning, and were able to accept God's point of view even when it clashed with the world surrounding them. Somehow they are willing to go along with God's direct revelation in spite of the usual biological and social inhibitions.
[ "The usual social inhibitions" being "felonies are wrong" and "biological inhibitions" being
"addiction to alcohol and tobacco are wrong", of course.
Since Mike never stops repeating his message, let us not lose sight of it when he pretends he's
not presenting it for a moment.... ]
How that works I don't know.
[ That was unusually candid.]
How John the Baptist got spirit in the womb, I don't know. How Baalam prophesied FOR Israel when he was being paid to prophesy against them I don't know. But then again, we don't need to know. All we need to do is read God's written Word, in spite of how much it goes against cultural grains, and learn to accept it.
[ Here comes the next point Mike was trying to sidle up to... ]
Here's how Dr described these special people who bring forth God's Word. This is from the The May/June 1983 issue of the Way Magazine in an article titled "Peace and Revelation" :
"Prophets have never been particularly popular. For example, Jesus Christ observed, as recorded in Matthew 13, “A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.” Prophets are men who dare never shrink from danger and men who hardly ever swim with the stream, the current of the times. Their path is seldom smooth or easy.
"The world never looks upon these men as being successful. They never win the competition as the most outstanding citizen of the community or the most popular one. But the true measure of a prophet’s success, class, is the measure of his faithfulness before God as God’s spokesman. A prophet’s success is never measured by how graciously his testimony of speaking God’s Word is received. He neither fears man nor seeks the praise of men. A prophet is a man of God who reverences and respects God first, last, only, and always. He seeks only God’s praise and blessing."
Like I said before, this is my frontier of knowledge. I've said what I know best in my best way. If anyone wants to pick it apart for contradictions, go for it. I won't bother listening to the criticism unless it's based on the written forms of PFAL, which I know few here are even close to accomplishing at this time. I'm thinking out lout here in these posts to help myself and to help those who want to know. Those who want to dwell on this area are wasting their time, but they won't be able to waste mine. I'm done with it until I learn more on it from God.
[ Ok, here's what I see without even reading carefully....
Mike made an assertion that Jesus Christ was NOT in the "special people" category he
invoked.
Mike then said that vpw was talking about these "special people" and provided a quote from vpw.
vpw said he was talking about PROPHETS.
The quotation included Jesus' comments in Matthew 13 about prophets-
which Jesus said when referring to HIMSELF.
Jesus was getting a bad reception around where he himself grew up, and said
"A prophet is not without honour,
except in his own country,
and in his own house."
That's not an isolated statement, either.
Matthew 11:9 and Luke 7:26 quotes Jesus saying that he is a prophet AND MORE than a prophet.
Therefore, according to all 3 accounts, Jesus was a prophet (and more.)
vpw said he was speaking of prophets.
Mike said this quote-about prophets- referred to Mike's "special people".
If that is true, then prophets are Mike's "special people".
It that is true, then Jesus is one of Mike's "special people."
Therefore,
Mike has produced ANOTHER internal contradiction,
since he STARTED this discussion by saying Jesus was NOT one of Mike's "special people".
Mike needs to spend some more time on whatever he was working on here.
(Which it sounds like he was PLANNING on doing,)
but, as we see, he should either use a proof-reader for doctrinal problems
or at least wait until he's checked it more closely for errors,
before exposing it to the public.
Of course, it's not uncommon for Mike to blame me or someone else for the weaknesses
in his "argument", which means I would not be surprised when Mike fails to thank me for
a 5-second proofread that exposed one major error.
(That wasn't even a real proofread as I normally do them, but I'm not in the mood now.
Hmmmmm. Is talking with folks On His Level the most important thing, or might it be getting the message across instead?
Hi dmiller,
Getting a 5-senses message across is all He can do most of the time, but what He REALLY WANTS, what God ultimately and intimately wants is fellowship on His level, which is spiritual. This is foolishness to a Christian with a natural man's mind which can't comprehend spiritual matters.
While there was a hefty 5-senses message in PFAL to us when were young spiritually, the ultimate message is spiritual. Both are simultaneously in PFAL. There are many places in there where the 5-senses message is somewhat fitting to the 5-senses reality we experience, but not totally. This is the reason we "bought it" at first, because we could see the 5-senses correlation, but then later rejected it when we saw discrepancies.
All along God set up PFAL to work for us totally in the spiritual realm, which he knew would become available today.
To look NOW at the Great Principle from the 5-senses is outside God's plan. Back then we could see that there was some kind of barrier to communication between God and man and it somewhat fit. Now we should look at that Great Principle and see that it is SPIRITUAL communication on GOD'S level that is impossible without man having spirit.
***
Remember when Dr taught us about I Cor. 12:3b which reads in the KJV as: "...and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."?
This verse looks just as "bogus" as Jbarrax thinks Dr's Great Principle is.
I can get a parrot to say "Jesus is the Lord" by feeding him crackers.
I can get a spiritless man to say "Jesus is the Lord" by offering him money.
Why did Paul say it that way? For the same reason Dr states the Great Principle the way he does. Paul was saying no man can REALLY say "Jesus is the Lord" unless he has spirit to understand what he is saying. Paul was talking spiritually. No man can SPIRITUALLY say "Jesus is the Lord" but by holy spirit.
This is one of the most crucial things to know about PFAL. Oddly enough, didn't someone just say the word "ubiquitous" on this thread? Getting this natural/factual separated from the spiritual/divine is ubiquitously taught in PFAL, yet, because we still had natural man minds then (and most still do) we were blind to it. If we come back to PFAL with meekness and start mastering it then God can start showing us what he REALLY had Dr teach in those books and magazine articles.
***
I'm not surprised that my explanation doesn't fit with your cat situation. ;) It was only an analogy I offered and it has to break down SOMEWHERE!
You might look at CSBP the same way as this Great Principle. Five senses wise, there is SOME correlation between giving and receiving back abundance. I've seen the principle of tithing held forth in lots of self-help books and "How to Make Million$" types of books, and it's there because GENERALLY it works. But look at that same law SPIRITUALLY and it always works. Ditto for the Law of Believing.
When we learn to see PFAL with spiritual eyes then we will see much farther than ever before.
I expect to be taken as foolish or even insane by those grads who refuse to see it this way. The Word guarantees that the natural man's mind will think that way. Feeding that mind God-breathed soul food will solve their problem. Since you can't find real God-breathed writings anywhere since their loss in the first century (only man-breathed attempts to reconstruct them) God had to step in in 1942 and fix this dilemma for us.
You are practicing the same principles of LCM as you accuse me of. You just cant stand to see anyone oppose the anti-PFAL stance you embrace.
NO I'm not
If I were following the LCM policies the following would have been done
1) you woudl be immediately "marked and avoided" from these forums forever
2) a search would then be made through all posts to see who had ever agreed with or supported even one of your points.
3) all those found in this search would also be immediately marked and avoided from this forum forever
Instead the TL policy says
1) keep MIke as an intergral part of the GS family
2) give MIke a special spot where he can contunue to post his Ideololgy, and discuss it
3) Let whosoever will come and go freely to Mikes room discussing as they will, free of interference.
Tell me, would you ban me from all discussion on threads in your sight
YOU would be allowed to post on threads , howewver , if you wished to discuss the doctrinal aspect of the thread -you would post a new thread in your Forum with a link to to said thread in the forum you posted. ON the surface this seems discriminatory--But in fact, it is to provide you with the the relief from the situation you were complaining about below
Maybe this way I can have more peace and less distractions in posting, and the more open GreaseSpotters and visitors here will see less of the criticizing distractions to what I'm trying to get across.
Hmmmmm. Is talking with folks On His Level the most important thing, or might it be getting the message across instead?
dmiller,
I wanted to come back to this.
The most important things in the immediate is one thing, but ultimately it can be quite different.
There were times when very little was available and protection was the immediate need.
But God's ultimate plan is to have GREAT fellowship with us and that is being able to commune spiritually, to communicate spiritually. When I talk about us entering into the new administration, this is what I mean. Once the PFAL writings were completed the steps to be taken towards spiritually understanding those writings became the most important thing.
***
Also, please pay very close attention to the sentence I bold fonted regarding I Cor. 12:3b in the previous post I did addressed to you. I reprinted it inpurple. Understanding that verse and Dr's teaching on it is one of the most important things I've ever posted here. I'd also highly recommend reviewing Dr's teaching on that verse in RHST.
I know that it doesn't look all that big a deal now, but it has GREAT meaning and application later.
Seeing as my name has been mentioned(by Templeladys' wife) here is my reply..I still believe that PFAL was/is great truths and light revealed from Gods' Word (regardless of who and how it came to pass) after all, most people here truly believed it at one time or another..
I believe that some of it definitely was 'inspirational' but not necessarily all of it.
That puts me at odds with Mike on probably that one issue.
Having said that, I also believe that some of the 'detractors' from it are only trying to come up with excuses for not believing it, whilst others are downright envious at having 'reassigned' themselves to other churches KNOWING that their church would not have a bar of it..not because of any wrong doctrine it promulgates but because their church is too 'set' in their own.
I started out with your position of believing in only the partial inspiration of PFAL. What put me over the top was my obedience to Dr's Last/Lost Teaching. When I put aside all of my secular reading material and carefully read only PFAL texts for a while I was astounded. It also helped having a teacher who had done the same several years before me.
I NEVER would have believed what I do now if it weren't for all that I saw in the text that I had forgotten or that had slipped by me unawares.
That puts me at odds with Mike on probably that one issue.
Umm, Allan, that IS Mike's one issue.
I have no problem with your position. In fact, we could probably have a healthy and respectful discussion on the topics covered in those books. We may not always agree, but that's fine.
just a suggestion, but take a look at how many phrases and terms that are not used in the scriptures. and also how many terms and phrases have been changed in meaning to "fit" with those terms and phrases.
also how much of it turns a person away from the Christ within and has you looking at reference books and people instead of what God has already done INside you.
there are so many things that turn a persons search away from the reality of what God has brought to pass within. and regained the freedom to cultivate the garden of God which is the mind.
sure we learn from outside sources, but that is NOT the primary source of faith, joy, peace and love. it comes from within. and spiritual understanding will come from that Christ within, not by "outside sources.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
34
21
67
Popular Days
Oct 4
54
Oct 3
47
Oct 5
26
Oct 6
26
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 15 posts
Raf 34 posts
WordWolf 21 posts
Mike 67 posts
Popular Days
Oct 4 2005
54 posts
Oct 3 2005
47 posts
Oct 5 2005
26 posts
Oct 6 2005
26 posts
Popular Posts
What The Hey
Mark 11:22,23: ------------ And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God. For verily I saith unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into
What The Hey
The law of believing has nothing to do with "mind power". It doesn't have anything to do with: "believing in the promises of God and His willingness to perform them" either, although for the Christia
Mike
outin88,
I'm just doing my best to accurately deal with what we were given IN WRITTEN FORM. I can see that this is where we grads missed it in many ways. Most here are prone to think that we grads did nothing wrong and that all the bad came from someone else.
I see that when it comes to crooked handlebars, what most grads have in their heads of the PFAL teaching is NOT from the written record of PFAL but from the verbal traditions that grew up ove time, and that drifted far from PFAL.
******
Thanks, oldiesman!
I'm so glad to see that we can disagree on some things, yet you see that I am on track with the same Father and Son. I think many minds here are clouded with emotion. I admit that what I post is very much against culture and tradition, and that can bother people. I used to think that all PFAL grads were tough as nails when it came to tradition, but I can see many now have retreated into the comfort zone that world provides. And now, with posters finding the "ignore" feature, people like you and me can discuss our differences (AND agreements) here with less distraction.
***
I've wondered from the start of this new board how many would hit the ignore feature for me.
Actually, I think it's a more honest way for my critics to proceed, because at least half of what I say is ignored most of my critics anyway in their determined effort to merely discredit me.
I say to them (even though they can't hear me): good riddance. Plus, I can comment on what they say without then coming back after I'm done and re-opening a subject I'm content to leave as done.
Maybe this way I can have more peace and less distractions in posting, and the more open GreaseSpotters and visitors here will see less of the criticizing distractions to what I'm trying to get across. I've been getting pretty fed up with the same mindless criticisms appearing over and over no matter how many times I deal with them. I had to retreat to PTs for the last two months of the old board I was so unhappy with all the ragging on me.
But I wonder how many of will be tempted to undo the ignore feature on me when they see a hot discussion where I'm quoted in posts. It may be amusing. When Raf and Belle jump into the fray we'll all know they succumbed to the temptation! :D
******
Jbarrax,
You still got it wrong.
It is a fact that I "invade" a very small minority of threads here. I most often REFRAIN from posting when a topic hot to me is being discussed. A few others have seen this, but not you yet. Take notes and jot down numbers and you will see that your impression of me on many threads where these topics are being discussed is subjective on your part and inaccurate.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Jbarrax,
Your discourse on The Great Principle got my attention. I used to wrestle with this for years. I used to worry about a PFAL contradiction on this with the handwriting on the wall incident at Bellchazer's party. I'm not prepared to fully discuss it right now, but I have a ton of notes on it. Maybe some day we can, but it would have to be a discussion from within PFAL, not externally to it.
I'm sure you know of the principle I just stated. When Bible scholars don't believe that the scriptures are (or were) God's Word, when they are rank unbelievers, then many things are invisible to them. When they reason from outside the scriptures they are able to see contradictions, while when we look at them and reason meekly from within their authority we see things fit. The same holds for PFAL.
***
I will throw this out for consideration. If you have a pet, like a cat or a dog, you can talk to them. To a very limited degree they can "understand" short sentences and phrases, and their name, and a few other things. But if you wanted to have a deep conversation with them, if you wanted to REALLY talk to them and with them where they really got what deep things you were saying, you'd fail. You could NOT discuss with them the human condition and things deep in your heart. It's just not possible.
My impression of Dr's teaching on this Great Principle is that for those with no spirit and no spiritually prepared mind, for God to talk to them is like us talking to our pets. Sure, something gets communicated between pets and their owners but it's so constricted that to compare a dog's understanding of a deep conversation with us to that of a human's understanding is ludicrous.
Because I think within PFAL I don't see a contradiction there.
We can communicate on a very constricted level with animals, but we can't talk to them on OUR level.
God can "talk" to people with no spiritual mind but He can't talk to them on HIS level, which is what He craves to do.
You've been hanging out with PFAL rejectors for so long that you don't get much information like this. I've seen a general tendency in grads, both in the good old days and now too, to practice intellectual inbreeding. If you had more respectful conversations with me you could see a whole new world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
i'd put you on ignore if you were a giant of evil. but your just a little little little bitty bitty bitty midget of evil, too dumb to know how to talk about what your talking about. so you in your insanity you cannot even talk normally. you are one of the easy ones to pick out. just have to watch where we step or we might crush your little itty bitty
i'll just call you midget mike from now on so you know what i mean
B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hmmmmm. Is talking with folks On His Level the most important thing, or might it be getting the message across instead?
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Oldies,
It's like they say; Dogs have owners. Cats have staff.
B)
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Same old dodge, Mike. You still haven't got the guts to face the fact that your cistern is broken.
Look bud. it was YOU who said, on this very thread, in your reply to TempleLady, that PFAL fits perfectly with the doctrines of the Bible. Now you want to change the subject and say that you can't compare PFAL to anything but itself. Another dodge.A nice try, but Weirwille didn't say that God can't discuss really deep things with natural men. What he said was--no, more to the point--what he WROTE was, "But God is spirit, and therefore, cannot speak to brain cells; God cannot speak to a person's mind." Furthermore, he said there is a "chasm between the natural man and God". Now a chasm is a breach that cannot be crossed. And the Bible makes it plain that God can reach across VP's mythical chasm and speak to whoever He wants to, whenever and however He wants to. Right after the so-called chasm was put in place, God had lengthy conversations with Adam and Eve and even with Cain, the first murderer. So again, VP's Great Principle is not based on biblical research. It's an erroneous theological construct. and it disproves your assertion that PFAL fits perfectly with the doctrines of the Bible.
Of course you don't. That's because you're insane.Once again, you make assumptions about my personal life that are both unwarranted and incorrect. You have no knowledge whatsoever of whom I 'hang out with" and so your statement is presumptuous to say the least. Besides being presumptuous, it's dead wrong. Perhaps, you should go back and reread what's in your sacred book and --here's a novel idea--consider the possibility that just maybe we're right and your beliefs need to be adjusted to fit the truth.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Okay Now I've had enough.
Not of the discussions
Not of the disagreements
not of the diversity of opinion
BUT it has become clear that Mike suffers from a severe case of VPW/LCM wanna-be
In these paragraphs he has made it clear that his purpose at greasespot is to turn it into an on-line PFAL
I'm contacting PAW
(something I never do about other posters)
I am making the following proposal
Since the great strength of This site is the freedom to post as we will, discuss as we will, believe as we will
To oust Mike would go against the grain of what we believe.
THerefore I propose that a new Forum be created
TITLE "Learning the Truths about PFAL"
with the disclamer that the cafe staff neither supports or endorse the ideas presented there
There and only there will MIke be allowedd to post--to his hearts content.
Anyone can pop in to read or to comment
but Mike has the authority to make them leave HIS forum
THat way MIke can have his soapbox-declaim to his hearts content, amd have commerce with his fellow believers.
In addition to the obvious benefits to those who disagree with him--there would be a benefit to those who are on the fence about TWI, offshoots, PFAL. They could compare the two philosophies side be side--the freewheeling cafe and the controlled private dining area off the kitchen
I see this as a win win for all
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Can you have Paw send Alan down there with him?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
:D
Now there are some novel new ideas! It could double as a Greasespot version of "hell".. or a "time-out room"..
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Mo and All,
May I suggest the following: that if you don't like reading Mike, use your ignore or down arrow buttons.
Nobody is forcing anyone to view Mike's posts.
Also, a wise person once said "do not feed the monster."
Meaning...the more you respond, the more you encourage.
This was said about my posts a long time ago and it goes for my posts as well, as well as anybody's posts some are not in agreement with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Jbarrax,
I know you can't be having any fellowship with anyone but PFAL rejectors because ALL grads have rejected it except for a very small few who have come back. Some may SAY they haven't rejected it, but they have. They have all rejected looking at it the way The Teacher told them to look at it, by mastering it's written forms.
templelady,
You are practicing the same principles of LCM as you accuse me of. You just cant stand to see anyone EFFECTIVELY oppose the anti-PFAL stance you embrace.
Just for your information I have already discussed your idea with Pawtucket months ago and he is very positive about it. I have not brought it up much with him lately because I figured there's still a lot of move related work for him.
Tell me, would you ban me from all discussion on threads in your sight even though I have shown total restraint in only posting on a very small number of threads here for over two years now?
I saw your brand of itellectual inbreeding before in TWI and especially in the Corps. It looks like you brought that attitude with you.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You guys are so predisposed to get me wrong that you do it very well.
[So says the guy who always insists that we are deficient for disagreeing with him.
The rest of us actually CONSIDER whether opposing points of view may be correct.
But disagreements with Mike are "always" wrong. ]
WW, you are continually trying to make me the subject of discussion here.
[Actually, YOU were the one who was making the comparison, Senator.
You keep saying that we're wrong for viewing pfal in a rational approach, and not cowering in a
prostrate manner before your beliefs on the books.
The truth of the matter is that your approach was deficient. You acted in desperation and
lashed out frantically. This is NEVER a healthy approach.
You could have reached for the Koran, Book of Morman, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures,
the Bhaghavad-Gita, or Kingdom Come and had the same reaction-
"this book is the be-all and end-all. My anguish is over!"
Of course, since this was brought up, you want the subject changed as quickly as possible.
That is understandable, and even forgiveable.
I can see how you reached out in pain and suffering. I don't LIKE that you were hurting.
I like even LESS that you've slapped a band-aid on a festering wound, and the solution was
never found. I would not wish that on you or anyone else. ]
I could deal with it
[No you can't. You can only draw attention away from it and change the subject as quickly as
possible. ]
but why bother.
[REALLY dealing with it may bring you healing, that's why. ]
When I explain portions of my life it's to help those who want to know the deeper truths of PFAL, not to give the definitive, complete description of my life.
[And yet, it gives context to your conclusions and decisions, as would anyone's life. ]
I'm not going to bother to fine tune your understanding of me and my history. You'll just take it wrong in your determined effort to discredit what I say about PFAL.
["Take it wrong", of course, for Mike, means
"use direct quotes to draw conclusions I don't like."
Mike has a non-standard definition of "wrong".
BTW,
I think you've already discredited pfal quite nicely-I just recap your material so late arrivals
can be brought up to speed on the missing prologue. ]
Sometimes I will fine tune subjects regarding PFAL that you botch, though.
[In your opinion. The ones you skip are badly telegraphed, however.
Those you lack answers to get a song-and-dance about you not deigning to answer.
You may have outfoxed yourself.... ]
I regard PFAL as BOTH a set of keys to understand the riddles of the ancient scriptures AND revelation itself in written form.
[It is either figure OR ground.
Attempts to treat it as BOTH result in rendering it NEITHER.
That's why you can't even use pfal fully like it was DESIGNED to be used-
to understand Scripture or even figures of speech.
(I remember how badly you botched "condesencio" despite vpw spending a lot of time on it.) ]
You seem to think that God cannot engage in the process of giving us keys.
[I suppose I "seem" this way because it serves your posts for me to "seem" this way.]
You seem to think that if there is a set of keys to the scriptures, those keys cannot be authoritative themselves.
[They can be authoritative as keys-authoritative tools.]
PFAL is God pointing out to us grads what's right and what's not in the scriptures antiquity has given to and translated for us, and much more.
[That is your opinion. ]
I'm amazed how dense an intelligent man like you can be,
["Dense", in this instance, meaning "understand Mike's position and disagree".
Mike uses a non-standard definition of "dense".]
but you are just determined to keep those blinders tightly in place.
["Blinders,", in this instance, means "maintaining the principles for understanding IN pfal,
and using them to evaluate-and reject-Mike's thesis."
Mike uses a non-standard definition of "blinders". ]
You're unable to get the heart of what I say because of your bias.
[Mike, I read you like a comic-book. I can even produce entire threads of Mike-speak without
you ever posting on them, if I feel like. I WOULD, too, if there was any reason to. ]
You are not seeking the truth, you are seeking to present yourself as an analyst of the truth.
[ When I encounter information, I ANALYZE it. Otherwise, when I find truth, I would be unable
to prove it is truth, and when I encounter error, I would be unable to tell it is not truth.
I don't seek to "present" myself as anything. That's YOUR bag. ]
Groucho,
I woke up this morning with a thought.
[ It spent quite some time pining in its loneliness. ]
Last night I had a sentence as I wrote my post to you, but was too tired to run with it so I deleted it from my word processor before I finally posted it all. But now I feel better about posting it.
[ Here it comes....]
I'll admit, this special person stuff is a bit on my frontier of knowledge, so bear with me. I am a little surprised, though, that this stuff isn't well known by others.
[We're almost there-we just need to get thru the disclaimer of "special knowledge"...]
Here's the line I deleted, but now feel better about. Jesus Christ was NOT one of those special people. He had to learn about God just like the rest of us normal people, from the scriptures.
[ For those who forgot, the "special people" Mike posited the existence of are these supergifted
people God can't get diddly done without. They are thus entitled to free passes and to get away with what
would land other people in jail-plagiarism, rape, etc-which are wrong, but if the felon is a
"special person", then it is regrettable but FORGIVEABLE.
Whereas any of US should be fired, prosecuted, and horsewhipped for that,
the "special people" are entitled to operate indefinitely as spokespeople for God because
they are "special people".
That's Mike's position. I'm sure he really resents me being so blatant about it, but that IS where he
was going with that.
Where he's going with it NOW I can't predict.
I'm suspecting we'll see a statement like
"weakness always brings down strength"
or something similar now-
since we're running on a similar track now.
(Private interpretation.) ]
I know this doesn't sit well with many.
[ You just made an audacious claim. Rather than just claim "this doesn't sit well with many",
how about giving people a reason to think you may actually be RIGHT and not just be
pulling this out of your donkey? Hey-if your "argument" makes sense, I might actually
agree-which would surprise the HECK out of me, but I reserve the right to agree when
ANYONE is talking sense. Was this just a bald assertion, or will you lay a foundation for
this position? I mean, you never laid a foundation for the PREVIOUS assertion-
that God NEEDS "special people" who get a blank check to sin while they serve God.
Without that, this statement is founded on sand even if it's correct. ]
The reason for this is our culture is so saturated with mental images of Jesus being God that we still think that way, even though we've purged ourselves of the sentence "Jesus is God" and become comfortable with the sentence "Jesus Christ is NOT God." This is another case of getting the wording correct, but not the idea. WW seems to be an expert at this.
[ Mischaracterizing me again, but what else is new?
Without frequent breaks to try to paint himself as superior to individuals or groups,
or repeating his commercial, Mike would be lost on what he wanted to say. ]
Jesus did not bring forth God's written Word, he obeyed it.
[ANYONE serving God MUST begin HERE-at OBEYING God. That's one difference between
the godly person and the religious person. ]
He loved it from an early age and learned to become it, especially when he finally got spirit at age 30. The scriptures were his guide. The special people I've been talking about had to bring it forth, from scratch.
[ So then,
are you saying that Jesus was an INFERIOR servant of our Heavenly Father because he didn't
pen Scripture? That his sinless walk was less impressive than that of someone who wrote some
books (by cutting-and-pasting from the books of others) while drinking, smoking and raping?
THIS IS A 'YES OR NO' QUESTION.
Anyone want to bet Mike will avoid it, then claim later that he answered it?
Or will he toss out an insult and pretend this isn't a legitimate question?
I'd bet the latter. ]
The kind of specialness I have been describing is related to the phrase I put in bold fonts from BTMS above where these special people were NOT schooled to revere the knowledge that comes via the 5-senses.
Somehow these people are disconnected from the extreme reliance on senses input and human reasoning, and were able to accept God's point of view even when it clashed with the world surrounding them. Somehow they are willing to go along with God's direct revelation in spite of the usual biological and social inhibitions.
[ "The usual social inhibitions" being "felonies are wrong" and "biological inhibitions" being
"addiction to alcohol and tobacco are wrong", of course.
Since Mike never stops repeating his message, let us not lose sight of it when he pretends he's
not presenting it for a moment.... ]
How that works I don't know.
[ That was unusually candid.]
How John the Baptist got spirit in the womb, I don't know. How Baalam prophesied FOR Israel when he was being paid to prophesy against them I don't know. But then again, we don't need to know. All we need to do is read God's written Word, in spite of how much it goes against cultural grains, and learn to accept it.
[ Here comes the next point Mike was trying to sidle up to... ]
Here's how Dr described these special people who bring forth God's Word. This is from the The May/June 1983 issue of the Way Magazine in an article titled "Peace and Revelation" :
"Prophets have never been particularly popular. For example, Jesus Christ observed, as recorded in Matthew 13, “A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.” Prophets are men who dare never shrink from danger and men who hardly ever swim with the stream, the current of the times. Their path is seldom smooth or easy.
"The world never looks upon these men as being successful. They never win the competition as the most outstanding citizen of the community or the most popular one. But the true measure of a prophet’s success, class, is the measure of his faithfulness before God as God’s spokesman. A prophet’s success is never measured by how graciously his testimony of speaking God’s Word is received. He neither fears man nor seeks the praise of men. A prophet is a man of God who reverences and respects God first, last, only, and always. He seeks only God’s praise and blessing."
Like I said before, this is my frontier of knowledge. I've said what I know best in my best way. If anyone wants to pick it apart for contradictions, go for it. I won't bother listening to the criticism unless it's based on the written forms of PFAL, which I know few here are even close to accomplishing at this time. I'm thinking out lout here in these posts to help myself and to help those who want to know. Those who want to dwell on this area are wasting their time, but they won't be able to waste mine. I'm done with it until I learn more on it from God.
[ Ok, here's what I see without even reading carefully....
Mike made an assertion that Jesus Christ was NOT in the "special people" category he
invoked.
Mike then said that vpw was talking about these "special people" and provided a quote from vpw.
vpw said he was talking about PROPHETS.
The quotation included Jesus' comments in Matthew 13 about prophets-
which Jesus said when referring to HIMSELF.
Jesus was getting a bad reception around where he himself grew up, and said
"A prophet is not without honour,
except in his own country,
and in his own house."
That's not an isolated statement, either.
Matthew 11:9 and Luke 7:26 quotes Jesus saying that he is a prophet AND MORE than a prophet.
Therefore, according to all 3 accounts, Jesus was a prophet (and more.)
vpw said he was speaking of prophets.
Mike said this quote-about prophets- referred to Mike's "special people".
If that is true, then prophets are Mike's "special people".
It that is true, then Jesus is one of Mike's "special people."
Therefore,
Mike has produced ANOTHER internal contradiction,
since he STARTED this discussion by saying Jesus was NOT one of Mike's "special people".
Mike needs to spend some more time on whatever he was working on here.
(Which it sounds like he was PLANNING on doing,)
but, as we see, he should either use a proof-reader for doctrinal problems
or at least wait until he's checked it more closely for errors,
before exposing it to the public.
Of course, it's not uncommon for Mike to blame me or someone else for the weaknesses
in his "argument", which means I would not be surprised when Mike fails to thank me for
a 5-second proofread that exposed one major error.
(That wasn't even a real proofread as I normally do them, but I'm not in the mood now.
Maybe tomorrow.)]
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi dmiller,
Getting a 5-senses message across is all He can do most of the time, but what He REALLY WANTS, what God ultimately and intimately wants is fellowship on His level, which is spiritual. This is foolishness to a Christian with a natural man's mind which can't comprehend spiritual matters.
While there was a hefty 5-senses message in PFAL to us when were young spiritually, the ultimate message is spiritual. Both are simultaneously in PFAL. There are many places in there where the 5-senses message is somewhat fitting to the 5-senses reality we experience, but not totally. This is the reason we "bought it" at first, because we could see the 5-senses correlation, but then later rejected it when we saw discrepancies.
All along God set up PFAL to work for us totally in the spiritual realm, which he knew would become available today.
To look NOW at the Great Principle from the 5-senses is outside God's plan. Back then we could see that there was some kind of barrier to communication between God and man and it somewhat fit. Now we should look at that Great Principle and see that it is SPIRITUAL communication on GOD'S level that is impossible without man having spirit.
***
Remember when Dr taught us about I Cor. 12:3b which reads in the KJV as: "...and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."?
This verse looks just as "bogus" as Jbarrax thinks Dr's Great Principle is.
I can get a parrot to say "Jesus is the Lord" by feeding him crackers.
I can get a spiritless man to say "Jesus is the Lord" by offering him money.
Why did Paul say it that way? For the same reason Dr states the Great Principle the way he does. Paul was saying no man can REALLY say "Jesus is the Lord" unless he has spirit to understand what he is saying. Paul was talking spiritually. No man can SPIRITUALLY say "Jesus is the Lord" but by holy spirit.
This is one of the most crucial things to know about PFAL. Oddly enough, didn't someone just say the word "ubiquitous" on this thread? Getting this natural/factual separated from the spiritual/divine is ubiquitously taught in PFAL, yet, because we still had natural man minds then (and most still do) we were blind to it. If we come back to PFAL with meekness and start mastering it then God can start showing us what he REALLY had Dr teach in those books and magazine articles.
***
I'm not surprised that my explanation doesn't fit with your cat situation. ;) It was only an analogy I offered and it has to break down SOMEWHERE!
You might look at CSBP the same way as this Great Principle. Five senses wise, there is SOME correlation between giving and receiving back abundance. I've seen the principle of tithing held forth in lots of self-help books and "How to Make Million$" types of books, and it's there because GENERALLY it works. But look at that same law SPIRITUALLY and it always works. Ditto for the Law of Believing.
When we learn to see PFAL with spiritual eyes then we will see much farther than ever before.
I expect to be taken as foolish or even insane by those grads who refuse to see it this way. The Word guarantees that the natural man's mind will think that way. Feeding that mind God-breathed soul food will solve their problem. Since you can't find real God-breathed writings anywhere since their loss in the first century (only man-breathed attempts to reconstruct them) God had to step in in 1942 and fix this dilemma for us.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Two too many capital T's
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
With WordWolf around, the ignore feature is useless on me. B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
If I were following the LCM policies the following would have been done
1) you woudl be immediately "marked and avoided" from these forums forever
2) a search would then be made through all posts to see who had ever agreed with or supported even one of your points.
3) all those found in this search would also be immediately marked and avoided from this forum forever
Instead the TL policy says
1) keep MIke as an intergral part of the GS family
2) give MIke a special spot where he can contunue to post his Ideololgy, and discuss it
3) Let whosoever will come and go freely to Mikes room discussing as they will, free of interference.
YOU would be allowed to post on threads , howewver , if you wished to discuss the doctrinal aspect of the thread -you would post a new thread in your Forum with a link to to said thread in the forum you posted. ON the surface this seems discriminatory--But in fact, it is to provide you with the the relief from the situation you were complaining about below
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Sometimes I read one poster's tone into another's and it looks like I did that with you, templelady.
I apologize.
Like I said, this idea of yours is somewhat in the works already. I can only take so much of these battles myself.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
I wanted to come back to this.
The most important things in the immediate is one thing, but ultimately it can be quite different.
There were times when very little was available and protection was the immediate need.
But God's ultimate plan is to have GREAT fellowship with us and that is being able to commune spiritually, to communicate spiritually. When I talk about us entering into the new administration, this is what I mean. Once the PFAL writings were completed the steps to be taken towards spiritually understanding those writings became the most important thing.
***
Also, please pay very close attention to the sentence I bold fonted regarding I Cor. 12:3b in the previous post I did addressed to you. I reprinted it in purple. Understanding that verse and Dr's teaching on it is one of the most important things I've ever posted here. I'd also highly recommend reviewing Dr's teaching on that verse in RHST.
I know that it doesn't look all that big a deal now, but it has GREAT meaning and application later.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Seeing as my name has been mentioned(by Templeladys' wife) here is my reply..I still believe that PFAL was/is great truths and light revealed from Gods' Word (regardless of who and how it came to pass) after all, most people here truly believed it at one time or another..
I believe that some of it definitely was 'inspirational' but not necessarily all of it.
That puts me at odds with Mike on probably that one issue.
Having said that, I also believe that some of the 'detractors' from it are only trying to come up with excuses for not believing it, whilst others are downright envious at having 'reassigned' themselves to other churches KNOWING that their church would not have a bar of it..not because of any wrong doctrine it promulgates but because their church is too 'set' in their own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi Allan,
I started out with your position of believing in only the partial inspiration of PFAL. What put me over the top was my obedience to Dr's Last/Lost Teaching. When I put aside all of my secular reading material and carefully read only PFAL texts for a while I was astounded. It also helped having a teacher who had done the same several years before me.
I NEVER would have believed what I do now if it weren't for all that I saw in the text that I had forgotten or that had slipped by me unawares.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Umm, Allan, that IS Mike's one issue.
I have no problem with your position. In fact, we could probably have a healthy and respectful discussion on the topics covered in those books. We may not always agree, but that's fine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
just a suggestion, but take a look at how many phrases and terms that are not used in the scriptures. and also how many terms and phrases have been changed in meaning to "fit" with those terms and phrases.
also how much of it turns a person away from the Christ within and has you looking at reference books and people instead of what God has already done INside you.
there are so many things that turn a persons search away from the reality of what God has brought to pass within. and regained the freedom to cultivate the garden of God which is the mind.
sure we learn from outside sources, but that is NOT the primary source of faith, joy, peace and love. it comes from within. and spiritual understanding will come from that Christ within, not by "outside sources.
so, anyways just a suggestion....
obedience to some man? or obedience to God
who knows how to let you know..
peace
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
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.