You wrote: “Regarding this "combative" issue... all I've ever done is ask...”
That’s not been my perception.
You’re a little more lucid with me now, but in the past you usually come on like gang busters with demands and jeers, and I have no trouble seeing what you are up to.
As a general rule of thumb it is good for you to remember to be polite.
I learned almost two decades ago to stand up to demands and jeers and all sorts of intimidation tactics many of the Corps leadership had resorted to. When you come on like some stereotypical Young Turk and try to interrupt, jeer, intimidate, bully, you should expect a dose of your own medicine right back in your face. I learned to stand up to bullying corpse leaders who were a lot tougher than you, so I’d suggest a slower, more integrated approach, because that's all I'll tolerate.
***
You wrote: “Regarding the "PFAL is God's Word reissued"... ummm why should I do that? __ YOU are the one that offered to explain it... are you backing out on that now?”
What difference is it to you if I type a fresh explanation
or if I refer you to a large bank of posts doing the same thing?
It takes effort for me to type it out fresh,
it takes effort for you to look them up.
I already exerted effort typing them out many times in the past,
so it’s YOUR TURN to put forth the effort.
***
You wrote: “ Regarding your current "teaching" on believing... Isn't God's word supposed to be simple?
You got me there!!!
I didn’t expect this thread to find so many elements.
It has gotten a little out of hand.
WHY DO YO ASK?
You didn’t find another Element to further complicate it, HAVE YOU?
I hope not...
***
You wrote: “I don't recall veepee (or anyone else) coming out with all of these "elements" that must be in place or operated to enjoy a "promise of God"...”
Yes, I know you don’t recall all that;
a LOT of people don’t recall all that.
That’s the whole point here,
to REMIND you that vpw DID teach us all that!
We’ve got documentation posted for most of the Elements, and the others will get theirs too.
Besides, I’m not talking about the simple situation of simply enjoying a promise of God.
I’m trying to get the whole law written down in an abbreviated, list form.
Complicated situations might call for a complicated mix of Elements employed.
Simple situations, like you mentioned, might call for a very simple mix of Elements employed.
***
You wrote: “...what happened to ‘works for saint and sinner alike’?”
Good point.
To a degree, I think a large part of the teaching behind that phrase was to help explain how the ungodly prosper. It’s my impression Dr ALSO taught that phrase help encourage us to try believing even when we’re out of fellowship. I(t was like an encouragement to help overcome self-condemnation, and an encouragement to get back in fellowship.
We’ll have to check the texts to see how this gets taught.
I know he teaches that the law would work better when we stay in fellowship with Father, and when we know the Word.
I know he teaches that it should work much better for God’s people.
***
Tom, I’d be against placing that phrase ‘works for saint and sinner alike’ on our Elements list in the sense I think some might get the WRONG impression that we can go out and sin a lot and expect it to not degrade our operation of the law of believing. THAT would be an abuse of this teaching, and I’m against it.
I do recognize that some in the past may have gone off this very cliff of error regarding the law of believing.
The Elements list is supposed to help us operate this law, so we should see something like a “Fellowship is the Secret.” How’s that sound? That’s like the positive side of that phrase about saint and sinner. I still give you credit for coming up with this one.
The Elements of the law of believing
1) Believing equals receiving.
2) Confession of belief yields receipt of confession.
3) Limiting our believing to the promises of God
4) Seeking to make our believing greater, like the centurion’s.
Concerning your attempt to cast me in a certain light... ever heard this before "Pot, meet Mr. Kettle... Kettle, meet Mr. Pot. Guess what? You're both black!"
Since I don't possess your ability to know what people are thinking, I'll leave it to 'the board' to figure out who the bully is in our 'relationship'...
As to the "PFAL is God's Word reissued"... again, YOU are the one that offered to put your explanation here in one place. If you're backing out on that's... OK... just be honest about it.
Also, you totally missed what I was saying about all of the elements... specifically element number 9 "Give God the glory"...
I wasn't suggesting adding another element, I was questioning why that was one of the elements.
When veepee taught this he always said "works for saint and sinner alike"...
If it works for the sinner, I don't think that "Give God the glory" is a requirement.
Now... I consider your statements of truth that I've quoted to be radical and frankly unbelievable (at the current time)...
I'm trying to give you a chance to 'win us all to your side'... wouldn't that be your goal as a "teacher"? To instruct and inform so that folks can make a decision?
I am just do not agree with you. Beliiving anything takes place in the heart. (Believe in your HEART that God raised him(JC) from the dead)
Yes it can become spiritual but it does not have to begin with steps. Else Jesus Christ himself would have laid out these steps to the twelve. God would have laid them out to Abraham. Heck, perhaps there would have been a book of Abraham laying it all out to all generations for all time.
One of the myths of twi was that all the world was wrong and the only right way to do things or understand things was the Way's way.(pun intended) Just when you thought you understood something - well you were wrong because it wasn't the latest understanding.
The class tried to break down the mechanics of believing so that it could be understood. It was never supposed to be a recipe and a rote thing to do. You believe things all the time - you don't go through all these steps - as does the rest of the world.
2) Confession of belief yields receipt of confession.
3) Limiting our believing to the promises of God
4) Seeking to make our believing greater, like the centurion’s.
5) Believing equals action.
6) Consider community believing.
7) Need not greed.
8) Manifestation faith/believing.
9) Give God the glory.
10) Fellowship is the Secret
Blinded by the *light* ~~~
Law is law, and believing is NO LAW.
Gravity is a law -- what goes up, comes down.
2 principles only -- up, and down, nothing else.
Mike --- you are like a dog *worrying a bone to death* on this one.
The more *elements* you find, prove (to me) that you are seeking validation to your pre-conceived ideas. Sorry bro -- all your verbal *mastifications* will end up with you chewing a dried up bone, and no meat. :)
You wrote: “The more *elements* you find, prove (to me) that you are seeking validation to your pre-conceived ideas.”
Well, I have a confession to make.
It may be apparent to some, but I still must confess to something.
I haven’t been finding these Elements at all; I’ve been aware of them for years.
I’ve been going through a mock discovery process of this list of 10 Elements to focus more interest on each item,
and spreading out the display of the list over days maximized the number of times people thought about it.
If I had just splashed the list of 10 Elements complete, then each item would only get minimal attention.
I wanted to show in great detail that Dr’s teaching of the law of believing is spread out all over the whole set of books. None of us EVER mastered it. It’s much more rich than we knew before.
Oh, yeah! That reminds me of another confession.
I was completely play acting, thespianating, about the growing richness of the law too.
I wanted to emphasize that too.
We can never get a big ego over operating the law of believing. For each and every situation in life God has to show us the proper mix of the elements to have that law work. God has to be intimately involved in the process.
Our part is to maximally familiarize our 5-senses brains with the printed paper PFAL writings.
That means just making friends with all the ideas in there, like the 10 Elements of the law of believing we all “discovered” here these past couple of days. There are many more ideas in there that are full of God's light.
You wrote: “As to the "PFAL is God's Word reissued"... again, YOU are the one that offered to put your explanation here in one place. If you're backing out on that's... OK... just be honest about it.”
No, not backing out, but not committing to a huge block of time either.
I got a question for you. What bugs you so about the word re-issue?
Is it the word “re-issue” itself, or the idea behind it that God would have some VERY special books brought into existence, much like the process He used 2000 years ago.
Instead of pressing me on the word “re-issue” why not press me on the grander idea behind it?
***
You wrote: “If it works for the sinner, I don't think that "Give God the glory" is a requirement.”
I don’t think of it as an absolute requirement, but as a factor.
And I think you read the wrong messages into what Dr means when he uses that phrase. As I said before Dr also taught that the sinner is hampered in their efficiency operating the law.
I see "Give God the glory" as a guard on the efficiency of operating the law. It’s an element to keep in mind (as much as possible) when operating the law.
***
Back to the “re-issue” issue.
I will say this. Twice doojable brought up the idea of there being a difference between the written ancient scriptures and a modern operation of the revelation manifestations that involved writing the revelation down.
Did you see those two comments by doojable, and then my responses?
Those two sections would be key to see. I think I can retrieve them, but I want to know if you were paying attention to my posting then.
See, Tom, the written revelation of PFAL never uses the word “re-issued” or anything like it. It’s a word of my own coinage, meant to communicate an idea. The idea is that God supervised the printing of PFAL to bless us grads very big.
***
You wrote: “I consider your statements of truth that I've quoted to be radical and frankly unbelievable (at the current time)...”
That’s understandable. I too consider them radical. I never thought I’d ever be thinking what I do now.
I too found them unbelievable, until I started seeing things line up as I returned to written PFAL.
It was only after some heavy exposure to the material that I could believe these things.
I can’t prove any of these things, I can only point to some of the things in the books that got my attention. If these same things get your attention to the point that you too return to the books and immerse your self in them, THEN, and ONLY THEN will you find them believable.
To some degree your 5-sense exposure to the books will give you great confirmation and validation, and to another degree God working with you as you do these things will give you great confirmation and validation.
I think if we engage in polite discourse, a lot of ground can be covered, but a genuine return to the books is absolutely necessary to see the whole picture and to see it big.
You wrote: “The class tried to break down the mechanics of believing so that it could be understood. It was never supposed to be a recipe and a rote thing to do.”
No, that again was the TVTs that made things “a recipe and a rote thing to do.”
I’m trying to show from the texts that it was FAR from a recipe. Trust me.
I’m showing that the law of believing is a huge deal with many Elements.
Our TVTs only scratched the surface of the many, many Elements of that law in PFAL.
I was play acting about the mounting complexities. I knew along they would accrue.
The law of believing is far from a formula and more like a forest of many varied trees. Lots of variety.
Picking the right blend of Elements for any given situation cannot be done by formula because there are too many different situations, and the formula would be far to complex to use.
It’s a spiritual art, working with these many elements, like pigments.
My collection of Elements could never lead to a useable formula. The number of elements is still rising, it’s a chaotic situation if we try to nail it down to a formula. God has his part in the artistic expression of our handling of these Elements in each and every differing situation.
***
Our responsibility is to simply have a deep familiarity with as many elements of this law of believing as possible. This gives us something God can work with when it’s time to operate the law of believing.
All of our misadventures with believing and the abusive TVT doctrines that grew up were due to simplistic handling of this law. People were constantly forgetting or being unaware of Elements crucial to some situation they found themselves in.
You wrote just immediately above: "All of our misadventures with believing and the abusive TVT doctrines that grew up were due to simplistic handling of this law. People were constantly forgetting or being unaware of Elements crucial to some situation they found themselves in."
I agree and would add:
All of the seemingly valid criticisms of Dr's teaching on this law of believing were due to simplistic understanding of this law by both the critics and the hearers.
Critics are constantly forgetting (or were never aware of) Elements crucial to the whole picture of this law.
Instead of pressing me on the word “re-issue” why not press me on the grander idea behind it
ummm... I don't think I 'pressed" you on the word reissue. YOU decided that was the focus the sentence not me. I'm questioning the whole sentence "PFAL is God's Word reissued". As of now, I don't buy it (nor do I think others) show us how that works. It's YOUR premise. Explain it.
No, not backing out, but not committing to a huge block of time either.
ummm... then why did you make the offer?
I see "Give God the glory" as a guard on the efficiency of operating the law. It’s an element to keep in mind (as much as possible) when operating the law.
ummm... I thought your whole premise in this little excercise of yours was that these elements needed to be 'in play' for the 'law of believing' to work. I keep forgetting that this whole little excercise is 'your opinion' so I guess it's all up to you anyway.
See, Tom, the written revelation of PFAL never uses the word “re-issued” or anything like it. It’s a word of my own coinage, meant to communicate an idea. The idea is that God supervised the printing of PFAL to bless us grads very big.
ummm... you're assuming that "PFAL is written revelation"... is that what you would like for me to use instead of "PFAL is God's Word reissued"? Of course, this too is your opinion since we've had 'testimony' from folks on these boards that that was in fact not the case.
I can’t prove any of these things, I can only point to some of the things in the books that got my attention.
ummm... FINALLY... they are your OPINIONS then... I don't really know about all of the others on these boards but, if you had stated things that way in the beginning instead of presenting them as "The Truth" I don't think they would have had as many problems with you as they have... I know that's what's always baffled me... that you've presented these OPINIONS (or if you want to call them IDEAS) of yours as "The Truth".
I think if we engage in polite discourse, a lot of ground can be covered, but a genuine return to the books is absolutely necessary to see the whole picture and to see it big.
ummm... yes, I agree, politeness is much preferred. Thank you for being polite.
Now... reading your two posts immediately precding this one I'm confused (again)... wasn't the whole pretext of this little excercise of yours to show what elements must be present to 'operate the law of believing'... it seems that now you're saying that, at times, any or all of these elements could be involved... which is a lot different than the path I thought we started down when you referred to them at different times as "elements of/to/for the law of believing"...
Further, you said you were "seeking PFAL grads who studied the books and can help me [Mike] collect the elements that make up the law of believing"....
And finally, you said "The Law of Believing is, most properly expressed, would be the set of ALL [Mike's caps] elements that go into the makeup of this law."
That's why I'm a little confused. If you're now saying that saying some elements are present... or all elements must be present... which is it?
The more complicated this all gets the more scared-er I get! ( I know the right phrase - thought we needed some humor here.)
Mike this just seems wrong. to complicated something that is so simple is just not right. I'm changing the topic - or at least postponing it because there is a big impasse here.
When I learnedlogic I was taught the classic way to put for a point was a syllogism. basically:
If ( fact) and ( fact) therefore(conclusion)
I believe that this is what Tom S is asking for. You keep wanting to start with a premise that only you see as fact. Can we all back up and get to proving that premise?
This is how the class was laid out. When Dr taught 4 crucified he started with the known and made a conclusion - by laying it out. I don't really know if you have done that yet. Those 22 points aren't it because they still call for a willing supension of disbelief. That is the hurdle you really have. If you can't start with something known and then build to a conclusion we can't follow you where you want us to go. Forget about a cart pulling a horse - you now have a cart trying to DRAG a horse that is dug in and backing up. This is why you encounter the fight - IMHO
so can we start again? No games, just conversation. The games come across as manipulative tricks and they get tiresome and annoying. I for one don't like being toyed with - had enough of that to last a lifetime.
BTW from what I see of that list above - there is no reason why all those can't be put into play at the same time - well ok, the unbeliever doesn't get in fellowship and doesn't give God the glory. BUT....
Everyone believes something all the time. What we believe shapes who we are.
The reason ( I believe) we for breaking things down was
1.to point out how we believe so that we could transfer that to the Word (much like the way speaking was broken down in sesson 12 - you don't sit down and go through all the "steps" of speaking, fo you?)
2. to keep people from being frustrated in trying to believe for what wasn't possible -
I now feel that God only instructs us to believe the Word. The phrase"believe for" is never used in the Bible (to my knowledge) so that was a wrong doctrine from the beginning. IMHO So we Believe God and take Him at his Word. We worship Him and praise Him - we get the benefits of being in a big family with a lot of spritual help.
A lot of the logic I use was spelled out in that lengthy post I put on your “Ok once and for all” thread. Did you ever get to read that lengthy post of mine? I know it was terribly long. It was 6 weeks in the making as I was writing in my head during the holidays, when I had no time to post.
Then I repeated the logic again before I did the 22 “thus saith” statements. Did you see that there? It looks like you missed it, and I think Tom Strange missed that too. I may go back and look for it.
***
Just a quick repeat of that logic:
The 22 “thus saith the lord” statements do NOT prove that Dr was speaking for the lord, just that he DID INDEED claim it. You don’t have to by my premise to see that Dr DID CLAIM to have authority for God that was VERY special, 2000 years special, an authority that has not been around since the first century.
I was only trying to prove that Dr DID claim it, not that the claim was correct.
***
Many posters assert that I am misreading and distorting what Dr says in PFAL, and that he did NOT claim to have special authority. My 22 “thus saith” statements prove that it is THEY who have not properly absorbed PFAL’s message regarding these claims.
Likewise, my list of 10 Elements of the law of believing prove that my posting critics have not properly absorbed PFAL’s message regarding the DETAILS in the way PFAL presents the law of believing.
In general, I often point out other things regarding many, many topics in PFAL that they either forgot or that slipped past them unawares decades ago.
I have proved in many ways here that there are many things in PFAL that grads have missed and that’s why Dr told us to master it.
I have proved that PFAL cannot be blamed for failing us when it is us who have failed to properly absorb all that is in PFAL.
What I have NOT proved is that Dr’s claims to this VERY special authority are true.
Still, however, I have shown that Dr went way out on a limb in making these claims, so there is no gray area he can occupy. Either Dr is that man God selected to bring teach His Word like it had not been known since the first century OR he was a very dangerous charlatan.
***
So, how do the claims of PFAL being God-breathed be verified or proved?
NOT by reading and dissecting my posts, but by opening up the PFAL books again and immersing yourself in the material, meekly mastering it. That’s the only way that can be proved.
Do you remember any of these logic pieces from that lengthy post now?
***
Tom Strange,
Does this post help you with any of the answers you want? I just haven’t had time to work on your recent post above yet.
***
Doojable, when we see the 10 Elements to the law of believing it only LOOKS complicated at first. If we had truly mastered PFAL long ago, each entry on that list would look like an old friend as the list grew. If we had previously mastered all those elements then the law’s 10 elements listed would not look like a difficult thing to flow with.
It’s because that list of 10 elements is so NEW to so many grads here that it looks complicated.
Spending much time with all these elements will give us a flow and a familiarity that makes applying them, in the right mix for each different situation in life, an art, and an art that we can always look to God for inspiration as we blend the mix of elements that particular situation calls for.
I said: “No, not backing out, but not committing to a huge block of time either.”
You responded with: “...then why did you make the offer?”
Simple: I offered to commit a SMALL block of time.”
***
I had written: “I see ‘Give God the glory’ as a guard on the efficiency of operating the law. It’s an element to keep in mind (as much as possible) when operating the law.”
You responded with: “...I thought your whole premise in this little excercise of yours was that these elements needed to be 'in play' for the 'law of believing' to work.”
As I wrote to doojable above, some situations call for heavy use of some elements , some light.
For instance, if I set out to operate the law in an area where I have lots of practice, success, and have built up a lot of 5-senses skills, then for that situation I may need to beef up my awareness of “Give God the glory” as I act on my believing so that I don’t overly rely on my own abilities to get me through.
In another situation I may completely lack any skills or experience, so giving God the glory as things progress is easy as pie, and I need not beef up my awareness of that element of the law of believing.
***
You wrote: “...you're assuming that "PFAL is written revelation"... is that what you would like for me to use instead of "PFAL is God's Word reissued"? Of course, this too is your opinion since we've had 'testimony' from folks on these boards that that was in fact not the case.”
I can only remember one such folk, and he backed off from discussing it with me. I’ve explained in some detail why I am able to discount their testimony, and if they show their face(s) I will bring out a lot more of those details.
Instead of you jumping up and down as to what my position is, why not use the terminology of Dr’s to advertise it? “Mike believes that God audibly said to Dr in 1942 that He’d teach him His Word like it had not been known since the first century if he’d teach it to others.”
I can guess why you don’t want to use a sentence like that. It has less shock value to your intended audience. Am I right. I suspect that you want to smear me, not understand me. The drive you’ve exhibited to me for years (somewhat excepted now) is one of a smear artist, not a searching student. I will not be at all surprised it after this round of interrogation you revert right back to a simple minded paste-up smear campaign. I’d love to see you prove this expectation wrong.
***
I had written: “I can’t prove any of these things, I can only point to some of the things in the books that got my attention.”
You responded with: “...FINALLY... they are your OPINIONS then... I don't really know about all of the others on these boards but, if you had stated things that way in the beginning instead of presenting them as "The Truth" I don't think they would have had as many problems with you as they have... I know that's what's always baffled me... that you've presented these OPINIONS (or if you want to call them IDEAS) of yours as "The Truth".”
No, not finally...
If you watched all my posts (which is a huge job even I have difficulty with) you’d have seen that this is not the first time at all that I have admitted that some of what I post is opinion, and some is truth I have verified myself. I try to prove some things, and merely point to other things, but I’ve been open about the differences. I think you may have either missed these admissions or they sailed right past you as you looked mostly for smear material.
***
You wrote: “...yes, I agree, politeness is much preferred. Thank you for being polite.”
I will try to change my attitude toward you. I’d also ask you to soften your approach a little, and lessen you demand list. Working on one thing at a time is often much better than hitting me with a large list.
***
You wrote: “Now... reading your two posts immediately precding this one I'm confused (again)... wasn't the whole pretext of this little excercise of yours to show what elements must be present to 'operate the law of believing'... it seems that now you're saying that, at times, any or all of these elements could be involved... which is a lot different than the path I thought we started down when you referred to them at different times as "elements of/to/for the law of believing"...”
As I said above to you and further above to doojable, each situation demands strongly on some elements, not so strong on others.
***
You wrote: “Further, you said you were "seeking PFAL grads who studied the books and can help me [Mike] collect the elements that make up the law of believing"....”
That was when I was going through my mock discovery process. It was a ploy to keep attention and to introduce each element one at a time, instead of flashing all then at once. I was calling for those grad posters here who claimed to have done a lot of PFAL study in the past to participate in the “discovery” process. I wanted them to scratch their heads and see if they could come up with any elements themselves.
***
I had written: “The Law of Believing is, most properly expressed, would be the set of ALL elements that go into the makeup of this law.”
You responded with: “That's why I'm a little confused. If you're now saying that saying some elements are present... or all elements must be present... which is it?”
Here I’m talking about the PROPER EXPRESSION of the law, not the proper application of it.
The proper expression of the law would include all elements. We need to study all of the elements in our PFAL mastery, but a particular situation may only call for our heavy attention on one or two elements.
Likewise, before anyone could expect to properly criticize Dr’s teaching of the law, ALL the elements must be brought into that mix.
Study and criticizing PFAL require all elements.
Everyday situations may only call for some of the elements.
I believe that this is what Tom S is asking for. You keep wanting to start with a premise that only you see as fact. Can we all back up and get to proving that premise?
This is how the class was laid out. When Dr taught 4 crucified he started with the known and made a conclusion - by laying it out. I don't really know if you have done that yet. Those 22 points aren't it because they still call for a willing supension of disbelief. That is the hurdle you really have. If you can't start with something known and then build to a conclusion we can't follow you where you want us to go. Forget about a cart pulling a horse - you now have a cart trying to DRAG a horse that is dug in and backing up. This is why you encounter the fight - IMHO
Instead of you jumping up and down as to what my position is, why not use the terminology of Dr’s to advertise it? “Mike believes that God audibly said to Dr in 1942 that He’d teach him His Word like it had not been known since the first century if he’d teach it to others.”
Because that's a lot different than "PFAL is God's Word reissued". Nowhere in that statement does it say that PFAL replaces the Bible and is God's Word reissued. That statement is a simple deal that God allegedly made with veepee.
I can guess why you don’t want to use a sentence like that. It has less shock value to your intended audience. Am I right.
No, you're not.
I suspect that you want to smear me, not understand me. The drive you’ve exhibited to me for years (somewhat excepted now) is one of a smear artist, not a searching student. I will not be at all surprised it after this round of interrogation you revert right back to a simple minded paste-up smear campaign. I’d love to see you prove this expectation wrong.
How can I "smear" you if all I'm doing is quoting your words? Asking you to explain them? How is that a "smear". No, it is simply a "where/how did you come up with that?" type of thing.
If you watched all my posts (which is a huge job even I have difficulty with) you’d have seen that this is not the first time at all that I have admitted that some of what I post is opinion, and some is truth I have verified myself. I try to prove some things, and merely point to other things, but I’ve been open about the differences. I think you may have either missed these admissions or they sailed right past you as you looked mostly for smear material.
These things (the few that I keep asking you about) are things you have presented as "truth that I [Mike] have verified myself." That's why I keep asking you about them. If they're just your opinions how hard is it to just answer "that's just my opinion"?
The proper expression of the law would include all elements. We need to study all of the elements in our PFAL mastery, but a particular situation may only call for our heavy attention on one or two elements.
Likewise, before anyone could expect to properly criticize Dr’s teaching of the law, ALL the elements must be brought into that mix.
Study and criticizing PFAL require all elements.
Everyday situations may only call for some of the elements.
And these are your OPINIONS right?
And regarding your post addressed to Dooj...
I have proved in many ways here that there are many things in PFAL that grads have missed and that’s why Dr told us to master it.
Mike, what you have 'proved' is that you have come to different conclusions/opinions than the rest of us here.
I have proved that PFAL cannot be blamed for failing us when it is us who have failed to properly absorb all that is in PFAL.
What I have NOT proved is that Dr’s claims to this VERY special authority are true.
Yet you accept that as a fact, the truth, and expect us to as well.
Still, however, I have shown that Dr went way out on a limb in making these claims, so there is no gray area he can occupy. Either Dr is that man God selected to bring teach His Word like it had not been known since the first century OR he was a very dangerous charlatan.
It is very apparent that you believe the former while I am convinced of the latter.
The 22 “thus saith the lord” statements do NOT prove that Dr was speaking for the lord, just that he DID INDEED claim it. You don’t have to by my premise to see that Dr DID CLAIM to have authority for God that was VERY special, 2000 years special, an authority that has not been around since the first century.
I was only trying to prove that Dr DID claim it, not that the claim was correct.
Mike, but you have claimed many times before that it was, in fact 'correct' and the truth. You have often presented the "thus saith the Lord" statements as the 'backup' for one of your stances.
Look at that post to dooj. It's filled with you claiming that you 'know' things... and that the ONLY reason we don't know them is because we haven't studied and mastered PFAL... and that if we had, we would know them...
Of course, that's just your OPINION, even though it was stated as FACT.
Dooj said:
I believe that this is what Tom S is asking for. You keep wanting to start with a premise that only you see as fact. Can we all back up and get to proving that premise?
That's the crux of the biscuit.
Have a nice afternoon...maybe spend some time watching the "Andy Griffith Show" marathon on TVLand. It'll do your heart good.
You echoed her comment of: “Those 22 points aren't it because they still call for a willing supension of disbelief.”
Do you now see that the 22 points do NOT call for any suspension of disbelief WHEN it’s known that they are only supposed to show that we forgot how strongly Dr claimed to have authority from God.
Now as to the VALIDITY of the claims, sure that’s a HUGE bite to swallow.
That the claims were made I can prove, but the validity of the claims I cannot prove, not on a computer screen. I can prove it to myself, by immersing myself in the books and meekly mastering the material. You can too.
***
Now, here’s another point to keep clear. It should not require a prior belief in the PFAL writings being God-breathed to come back to them and meekly master them. That would be a vicious cycle if I stood for that.
Coming back to PFAL and meekly mastering the material only requires a few things like a remembrance of seeing long ago that PFAL was SOMEWHAT of God. With that kind of memory, AND seeing from my posts that there is a lot of material within written PFAL that was forgotten or that had slipped by unawares decades ago. It would also be important for such a returning grad to NOT have their head cluttered with a huge number of soap operas of how things went wrong. That kind of focus on gossip and rumors could disqualify many posters here from being able to come back to PFAL and meekly mastering it.
I’ve tossed out one other motivation to meekly master PFAL here before: that since ALL the top leaders totally ignored Dr’s final instructions to master written PFAL and failed to even tell most other grads about that last teaching, and had been operating this refusal to follow Dr’s advice for almost ten years prior to 1985, then it might be interesting to do the opposite of what Craig, Geer, JAL, and all the others did. They all refused to master written PFAL, so what will happen when someone DOES master it? This could conceivably motivate some grads to open the books. It did me.
Now, here’s another point to keep clear. It should not require a prior belief in the PFAL writings being God-breathed to come back to them and meekly master them.
Mike, why on earth would anyone want to invest the time and energy to 'master PFAL' if they didn't think that?
You quoted me thusly: “Now, here’s another point to keep clear. It should not require a prior belief in the PFAL writings being God-breathed to come back to them and meekly master them.”
You responded with: “Mike, why on earth would anyone want to invest the time and energy to 'master PFAL' if they didn't think that?”
My answer to your question here is immediately after the line you just quoted.
Here it is again, the quoted line and the answer to your question:
Now, here’s another point to keep clear. It should not require a prior belief in the PFAL writings being God-breathed to come back to them and meekly master them. That would be a vicious cycle if I stood for that.
Coming back to PFAL and meekly mastering the material only requires a few things like a remembrance of seeing long ago that PFAL was SOMEWHAT of God. With that kind of memory, AND seeing from my posts that there is a lot of material within written PFAL that was forgotten or that had slipped by unawares decades ago. It would also be important for such a returning grad to NOT have their head cluttered with a huge number of soap operas of how things went wrong. That kind of focus on gossip and rumors could disqualify many posters here from being able to come back to PFAL and meekly mastering it.
I’ve tossed out one other motivation to meekly master PFAL here before: that since ALL the top leaders totally ignored Dr’s final instructions to master written PFAL and failed to even tell most other grads about that last teaching, and had been operating this refusal to follow Dr’s advice for almost ten years prior to 1985, then it might be interesting to do the opposite of what Craig, Geer, JAL, and all the others did. They all refused to master written PFAL, so what will happen when someone DOES master it? This could conceivably motivate some grads to open the books. It did me.
***
I suggested to you: “Instead of you jumping up and down as to what my position is, why not use the terminology of Dr’s to advertise it? ‘Mike believes that God audibly said to Dr in 1942 that He’d teach him His Word like it had not been known since the first century if he’d teach it to others.’”
You responded with: “Because that's a lot different than "PFAL is God's Word reissued". Nowhere in that statement does it say that PFAL replaces the Bible and is God's Word reissued. That statement is a simple deal that God allegedly made with veepee.”
Yes, but it DOES express the IDEA of Dr claiming to have an authority that’s 2000 years unique. You just claimed to not be so interested in the mere words “reissued” and “replaced” but now you are interested in them.
Had you seen my distancing myself from the bald use of the word “replaced” last year with ChattyKathy? Did you see the many qualifications I put on it? I wish you had.
If you DID see those qualifications, why are they so absent now from your quoting me?
I have qualifications and reservations for the word “reissued” too, but I never see that included in your synopsis of my position. Your abbreviation of my position by focusing on those words distorts my position, and fail to summarize it.
***
You wrote: “How can I "smear" you if all I'm doing is quoting your words? Asking you to explain them? How is that a "smear". No, it is simply a "where/how did you come up with that?" type of thing.”
Are you unfamiliar with the distorting power of lifting quoted words out of their context?
You claim that “all I'm doing is quoting your words.” That is not the whole story. You’re lifting words that I carefully placed in a context to arouse attention, stripping them of their context, and alone those words can look pretty wild.
You are hiding the essence what you are doing by saying “all I'm doing is quoting your words.” You’re doing much more than that. you’re distorting my words by the way you selectively truncate my quotes.
***
You wrote: “These things (the few that I keep asking you about) are things you have presented as "truth that I [Mike] have verified myself." That's why I keep asking you about them. If they're just your opinions how hard is it to just answer "that's just my opinion"?”
Because I don’t think they are MERELY my opinion. The reason I adopted them as my opinion is because I see their truth. It should be obvious to you that many things are my opinion simply because I state them. I shouldn’t have to constantly state “that’s my opinion” when I want to strongly state something. It waters down the statement if I always include that. Maybe that’s what you want, to see me uncertain, or to see my statements as wimpy opinions. I am certain that these things are true and that’s WHY I adopt them as my opinion.
***
I wrote: “The proper expression of the law would include all elements. We need to study all of the elements in our PFAL mastery, but a particular situation may only call for our heavy attention on one or two elements. __ Likewise, before anyone could expect to properly criticize Dr’s teaching of the law, ALL the elements must be brought into that mix. __ Study and criticizing PFAL require all elements. __ Everyday situations may only call for some of the elements.
You asked: “And these are your OPINIONS right?”
Why do you insist I water them down with “there are only my mere opinions” ?
I think these particular statements are almost self evident.
They SHOULD be your opinions too!
***
You wrote: “Mike, what you have 'proved' is that you have come to different conclusions/opinions than the rest of us here.”
Not merely that, but I’ve also proved that there are many things in written PFAL that you all have either forgotten or that slipped past you unawares. I post quotes that were forgotten or that never were absorbed often here.
***
I had written: "What I have NOT proved is that Dr’s claims to this VERY special authority are true."
You wrote in response: "Yet you accept that as a fact, the truth, and expect us to as well.”
No!
NOT TRUE!
I don't expect you to accept that as truth.
Over and over I’ve pointed out, even more than once on this page, that I cannot prove “that Dr’s claims to this VERY special authority are true.”
Yes, I do accept this as fact. But I do NOT expect you to accept it as well. Not on my word, anyway. It's ONLY by opening up the books a lot and meekly mastering the material that you can accept such a thing.
I painted the word “only” in red in my post to doojable above. I’ll repeat it here:
How can the claims of PFAL being God-breathed be verified or proved? By opening up the PFAL books again and immersing yourself in the material, meekly mastering it. That’s the only way that can be proved. I cannot prove it, and I don’t try to prove it.
***
I wrote: “Still, however, I have shown that Dr went way out on a limb in making these claims, so there is no gray area he can occupy. Either Dr is that man God selected to bring teach His Word like it had not been known since the first century OR he was a very dangerous charlatan.”
You responded with: “It is very apparent that you believe the former while I am convinced of the latter.”
Yes, this is apparent. It’s also apparent that there is a lot more information that needs to go into this decision, and that information can ONLY come by opening up the books a lot. If you are convinced of the latter, it’s because you have immersed yourself in the soap operas, the gossip, the rumors. Immerse yourself in the books and you’ll see a different picture emerge.
***
You wrote: “Mike, but you have claimed many times before that it was, in fact 'correct' and the truth. You have often presented the "thus saith the Lord" statements as the 'backup' for one of your stances.”
I have tried over and over again to point out that Dr claiming such does not make it true.
I have tried over and over again to point out that most people forgot that he claimed such.
I have tried over and over again to point out that the proof of his claims can only come from a great familiarity with the written record.
***
You wrote: “Of course, that's just your OPINION, even though it was stated as FACT.”
You act as if both can’t be true.
If something is fact and you happen to believe it, then you opinion is also fact.
Do you think that opinions are always wrong, or can never in principle, be proved to also be fact? There are those who think this way, that there is no absolute truths and all is mere opinion. Is this your stand, that no one can get their opinions lined up with absolute truth because there IS NO absolute truth?
***
Dooj said: “I believe that this is what Tom S is asking for. You keep wanting to start with a premise that only you see as fact. Can we all back up and get to proving that premise?”
You commented: “That's the crux of the biscuit.”
Proving that premise takes immersing yourself in written PFAL. It ain’t coming from me. I proved it for myself by immersing myself in written PFAL. Come on in! The water’s fine!
I believe that this is what Tom S is asking for. You keep wanting to start with a premise that only you see as fact. Can we all back up and get to proving that premise?
What I am agreeing with, is her premise that you are not coming from a *known* conclusion, but are rather coming from a perspective that only you hold.
Now -- everyone is entitled to their opinion (you, me, and every last somebody), but the way you have laid out these things you have been saying requires that we think like you. Dooj made a valid comment about starting with the known, and moving on from there to prove a point.
You haven't done that. And yes -- I did read your post to her.
I've said it before, and now I'll say it again ~~~ you are grasping at straws.
You have a knack for picking and choosing words,
and then say *this proves* docvic was speaking for God.
Sorry ~~~ I don't buy it. :)
Start with a known entity, and go from there. Not something you have conjectured.
The known entity is that PFAL once worked well for us and we saw that it was from God.
Not knowing that will pretty much prevent a grad from following my argument and from opening up the books a lot. I can’t reach any grads here who either did not experience PFAL being good and from God or who have forgotten it and are determined to keep it forgotten.
You're still looking for some proof from me that PFAL is God-breathed. The proof comes from God when people immerse themselves in PFAL.
All I can argue is that we missed a lot of what’s in there. I can point out and quote some of what is missing from grads memory and perception of what is in PFAL.
You said: "The known entity is that PFAL once worked well for us and we saw that it was from God. "
Speak for yourself, please. I knew tons of "researchers and teachers" when I was in TWI, and am surrounded by ex-ways since leaving. I don't know anyone who thought that PFAL was error free, or contradiction free. Then or now.
There were always "problems." Doctrinal as well as practical. Anybody I know/knew who was a thinking human was aware of this fact. Sure, many, myself included believed that PFAL, for the most part, was a pretty good bible class. But that is different that what you are saying.
Now I'm alot older and wiser, as are most others in my little corner of the world. Going backwards, and embracing a class that for all practical purposes is not "available" any more, is not a route that I want to pursue in my efforts to be a follower of Jesus Christ.
If you want to go there, fine. I'm sure you've got plenty of company. But obviously most of us who have posted here, are not interested in "mastering PFAL." Been there, done that, found it lacking, as have most of us here, especially us who were corps bees.
Others claim to have mastered PFAL and not come to the same conclusions as you have nor have they seen these truths that you have seen. Your response to them is that they have in fact not mastered PFAL or they would have seen them.
With all due respect, this is all just one long continuous circle jerk. I mean, one post you say they're conclusions you've reached, one post you say they're truths you've proven, other posts you say they're opinions based on truths that only you see because only you have mastered PFAL to the degree it takes to "see" these truths.
You wrote: "How can I "smear" you if all I'm doing is quoting your words? Asking you to explain them? How is that a "smear". No, it is simply a "where/how did you come up with that?" type of thing."
Are you unfamiliar with the distorting power of lifting quoted words out of their context?
Yes I am. I've watched you do it for years concerning PFAL. All I have done Mike is take a few simple statements that you have made, that stand on their own and express the context they were taken from, and ask you whether or not they are TRUTH or OPINION. There's no need to muddy the argument with "can't they be both", no one disputes that indeed they can, by TRUTH or OPINION I am asking you to differentiate between TRUTH = God's Word and OPINION = Mike's word.
I wrote:"Still, however, I have shown that Dr went way out on a limb in making these claims, so there is no gray area he can occupy. Either Dr is that man God selected to bring teach His Word like it had not been known since the first century OR he was a very dangerous charlatan."
You responded with: "It is very apparent that you believe the former while I am convinced of the latter."
Yes, this is apparent. It's also apparent that there is a lot more information that needs to go into this decision, and that information can ONLY come by opening up the books a lot. If you are convinced of the latter, it's because you have immersed yourself in the soap operas, the gossip, the rumors. Immerse yourself in the books and you'll see a different picture emerge.
And I contend that the only way you have come up with these "truths" and conclusions is because you have immersed yourself in PFAL and ignored REALITY. Why did God give you five senses if he didn't want you to be aware of what happened around you? You cannot ignore the character of the man who is delivering the message. For us to believe all of the things you want us to believe, we have to believe that all of the things that veepee said were true. And that's just something I'm not going to do nor do I think will others.
Just like ex10 and so many others have pointed out. PFAL was a nice little Bible class. Many signs, miracles and wonders occurred because of the love of God operating in people's hearts, not because of PFAL.
Finally, Mike, please, just so we all know where you're coming from, which of these statements are your OPINION and which are GOD'S TRUTH? If it's God's Truth and also happens to be your opinion, please categorize it as God's Truth.
"PFAL is 'God's Word reissued'."
This means "we don't need any versions of the Bible anymore, only PFAL."
"PFAL is the Word of God, that the Holy Spirit has provided us with His Word in written form in PFAL, and it (PFAL) carries all the authority of God Almighty."
"Christ is currently learning from PFAL and will be teaching from PFAL materials when he returns."
"Betraying Dr's revelations is betraying God."
"You just need to feed that Christ inside with the pure Word of PFAL."
"Studying PFAL will defeat death."
I'm not trying to "bully" or "smear" you (to use your words). I'm simply trying to clarify your stance on these statements that you've made in the past regarding PFAL, God and Christ. Each statement accurately reflects the context of the passage it was taken from… and besides that, how could context change any of them? They're pretty simple, forthright statements.
Please categorize them for me (us) and please try to do so by just typing the words "opinion" or "God's truth" next to them instead of trying to lay a bunch of double speak and verbiage on us.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
89
149
306
85
Popular Days
Feb 10
62
Feb 20
61
Feb 11
46
Mar 2
45
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 89 posts
CM 149 posts
Mike 306 posts
Tom Strange 85 posts
Popular Days
Feb 10 2006
62 posts
Feb 20 2006
61 posts
Feb 11 2006
46 posts
Mar 2 2006
45 posts
Posted Images
Mike
Tom,,
You wrote: “Regarding this "combative" issue... all I've ever done is ask...”
That’s not been my perception.
You’re a little more lucid with me now, but in the past you usually come on like gang busters with demands and jeers, and I have no trouble seeing what you are up to.
As a general rule of thumb it is good for you to remember to be polite.
I learned almost two decades ago to stand up to demands and jeers and all sorts of intimidation tactics many of the Corps leadership had resorted to. When you come on like some stereotypical Young Turk and try to interrupt, jeer, intimidate, bully, you should expect a dose of your own medicine right back in your face. I learned to stand up to bullying corpse leaders who were a lot tougher than you, so I’d suggest a slower, more integrated approach, because that's all I'll tolerate.
***
You wrote: “Regarding the "PFAL is God's Word reissued"... ummm why should I do that? __ YOU are the one that offered to explain it... are you backing out on that now?”
What difference is it to you if I type a fresh explanation
or if I refer you to a large bank of posts doing the same thing?
It takes effort for me to type it out fresh,
it takes effort for you to look them up.
I already exerted effort typing them out many times in the past,
so it’s YOUR TURN to put forth the effort.
***
You wrote: “ Regarding your current "teaching" on believing... Isn't God's word supposed to be simple?
You got me there!!!
I didn’t expect this thread to find so many elements.
It has gotten a little out of hand.
WHY DO YO ASK?
You didn’t find another Element to further complicate it, HAVE YOU?
I hope not...
***
You wrote: “I don't recall veepee (or anyone else) coming out with all of these "elements" that must be in place or operated to enjoy a "promise of God"...”
Yes, I know you don’t recall all that;
a LOT of people don’t recall all that.
That’s the whole point here,
to REMIND you that vpw DID teach us all that!
We’ve got documentation posted for most of the Elements, and the others will get theirs too.
Besides, I’m not talking about the simple situation of simply enjoying a promise of God.
I’m trying to get the whole law written down in an abbreviated, list form.
Complicated situations might call for a complicated mix of Elements employed.
Simple situations, like you mentioned, might call for a very simple mix of Elements employed.
***
You wrote: “...what happened to ‘works for saint and sinner alike’?”
Good point.
To a degree, I think a large part of the teaching behind that phrase was to help explain how the ungodly prosper. It’s my impression Dr ALSO taught that phrase help encourage us to try believing even when we’re out of fellowship. I(t was like an encouragement to help overcome self-condemnation, and an encouragement to get back in fellowship.
We’ll have to check the texts to see how this gets taught.
I know he teaches that the law would work better when we stay in fellowship with Father, and when we know the Word.
I know he teaches that it should work much better for God’s people.
***
Tom, I’d be against placing that phrase ‘works for saint and sinner alike’ on our Elements list in the sense I think some might get the WRONG impression that we can go out and sin a lot and expect it to not degrade our operation of the law of believing. THAT would be an abuse of this teaching, and I’m against it.
I do recognize that some in the past may have gone off this very cliff of error regarding the law of believing.
The Elements list is supposed to help us operate this law, so we should see something like a “Fellowship is the Secret.” How’s that sound? That’s like the positive side of that phrase about saint and sinner. I still give you credit for coming up with this one.
The Elements of the law of believing
1) Believing equals receiving.
2) Confession of belief yields receipt of confession.
3) Limiting our believing to the promises of God
4) Seeking to make our believing greater, like the centurion’s.
5) Believing equals action.
6) Consider community believing.
7) Need not greed.
8) Manifestation faith/believing.
9) Give God the glory.
10) Fellowship is the Secret
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Mike,
Concerning your attempt to cast me in a certain light... ever heard this before "Pot, meet Mr. Kettle... Kettle, meet Mr. Pot. Guess what? You're both black!"
Since I don't possess your ability to know what people are thinking, I'll leave it to 'the board' to figure out who the bully is in our 'relationship'...
As to the "PFAL is God's Word reissued"... again, YOU are the one that offered to put your explanation here in one place. If you're backing out on that's... OK... just be honest about it.
Also, you totally missed what I was saying about all of the elements... specifically element number 9 "Give God the glory"...
I wasn't suggesting adding another element, I was questioning why that was one of the elements.
When veepee taught this he always said "works for saint and sinner alike"...
If it works for the sinner, I don't think that "Give God the glory" is a requirement.
Now... I consider your statements of truth that I've quoted to be radical and frankly unbelievable (at the current time)...
I'm trying to give you a chance to 'win us all to your side'... wouldn't that be your goal as a "teacher"? To instruct and inform so that folks can make a decision?
Just wondering...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Mike.
I am just do not agree with you. Beliiving anything takes place in the heart. (Believe in your HEART that God raised him(JC) from the dead)
Yes it can become spiritual but it does not have to begin with steps. Else Jesus Christ himself would have laid out these steps to the twelve. God would have laid them out to Abraham. Heck, perhaps there would have been a book of Abraham laying it all out to all generations for all time.
One of the myths of twi was that all the world was wrong and the only right way to do things or understand things was the Way's way.(pun intended) Just when you thought you understood something - well you were wrong because it wasn't the latest understanding.
The class tried to break down the mechanics of believing so that it could be understood. It was never supposed to be a recipe and a rote thing to do. You believe things all the time - you don't go through all these steps - as does the rest of the world.
I gotta' go I'll be back next week.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
doojable
your post reminds me of believing without seeing
you just know it in your heart
when all the brain twister people leave you alone
and you can really think for yourself then things can be seen and believed
easy to be entreated
such is wisdom and understanding
to leave behind the roar and tangles of
many who claim to "know"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Those are a couple of good posts there...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
The Elements of the law of believing
1) Believing equals receiving.
2) Confession of belief yields receipt of confession.
3) Limiting our believing to the promises of God
4) Seeking to make our believing greater, like the centurion’s.
5) Believing equals action.
6) Consider community believing.
7) Need not greed.
8) Manifestation faith/believing.
9) Give God the glory.
10) Fellowship is the Secret
Blinded by the *light* ~~~
Law is law, and believing is NO LAW.
Gravity is a law -- what goes up, comes down.
2 principles only -- up, and down, nothing else.
Mike --- you are like a dog *worrying a bone to death* on this one.
The more *elements* you find, prove (to me) that you are seeking validation to your pre-conceived ideas. Sorry bro -- all your verbal *mastifications* will end up with you chewing a dried up bone, and no meat. :)
Of course -- just my IMHO -- as usual
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
You wrote: “The more *elements* you find, prove (to me) that you are seeking validation to your pre-conceived ideas.”
Well, I have a confession to make.
It may be apparent to some, but I still must confess to something.
I haven’t been finding these Elements at all; I’ve been aware of them for years.
I’ve been going through a mock discovery process of this list of 10 Elements to focus more interest on each item,
and spreading out the display of the list over days maximized the number of times people thought about it.
If I had just splashed the list of 10 Elements complete, then each item would only get minimal attention.
I wanted to show in great detail that Dr’s teaching of the law of believing is spread out all over the whole set of books. None of us EVER mastered it. It’s much more rich than we knew before.
Oh, yeah! That reminds me of another confession.
I was completely play acting, thespianating, about the growing richness of the law too.
I wanted to emphasize that too.
We can never get a big ego over operating the law of believing. For each and every situation in life God has to show us the proper mix of the elements to have that law work. God has to be intimately involved in the process.
Our part is to maximally familiarize our 5-senses brains with the printed paper PFAL writings.
That means just making friends with all the ideas in there, like the 10 Elements of the law of believing we all “discovered” here these past couple of days. There are many more ideas in there that are full of God's light.
.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom,
You wrote: “As to the "PFAL is God's Word reissued"... again, YOU are the one that offered to put your explanation here in one place. If you're backing out on that's... OK... just be honest about it.”
No, not backing out, but not committing to a huge block of time either.
I got a question for you. What bugs you so about the word re-issue?
Is it the word “re-issue” itself, or the idea behind it that God would have some VERY special books brought into existence, much like the process He used 2000 years ago.
Instead of pressing me on the word “re-issue” why not press me on the grander idea behind it?
***
You wrote: “If it works for the sinner, I don't think that "Give God the glory" is a requirement.”
I don’t think of it as an absolute requirement, but as a factor.
And I think you read the wrong messages into what Dr means when he uses that phrase. As I said before Dr also taught that the sinner is hampered in their efficiency operating the law.
I see "Give God the glory" as a guard on the efficiency of operating the law. It’s an element to keep in mind (as much as possible) when operating the law.
***
Back to the “re-issue” issue.
I will say this. Twice doojable brought up the idea of there being a difference between the written ancient scriptures and a modern operation of the revelation manifestations that involved writing the revelation down.
Did you see those two comments by doojable, and then my responses?
Those two sections would be key to see. I think I can retrieve them, but I want to know if you were paying attention to my posting then.
See, Tom, the written revelation of PFAL never uses the word “re-issued” or anything like it. It’s a word of my own coinage, meant to communicate an idea. The idea is that God supervised the printing of PFAL to bless us grads very big.
***
You wrote: “I consider your statements of truth that I've quoted to be radical and frankly unbelievable (at the current time)...”
That’s understandable. I too consider them radical. I never thought I’d ever be thinking what I do now.
I too found them unbelievable, until I started seeing things line up as I returned to written PFAL.
It was only after some heavy exposure to the material that I could believe these things.
I can’t prove any of these things, I can only point to some of the things in the books that got my attention. If these same things get your attention to the point that you too return to the books and immerse your self in them, THEN, and ONLY THEN will you find them believable.
To some degree your 5-sense exposure to the books will give you great confirmation and validation, and to another degree God working with you as you do these things will give you great confirmation and validation.
I think if we engage in polite discourse, a lot of ground can be covered, but a genuine return to the books is absolutely necessary to see the whole picture and to see it big.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
doojable,
You wrote: “The class tried to break down the mechanics of believing so that it could be understood. It was never supposed to be a recipe and a rote thing to do.”
No, that again was the TVTs that made things “a recipe and a rote thing to do.”
I’m trying to show from the texts that it was FAR from a recipe. Trust me.
I’m showing that the law of believing is a huge deal with many Elements.
Our TVTs only scratched the surface of the many, many Elements of that law in PFAL.
I was play acting about the mounting complexities. I knew along they would accrue.
The law of believing is far from a formula and more like a forest of many varied trees. Lots of variety.
Picking the right blend of Elements for any given situation cannot be done by formula because there are too many different situations, and the formula would be far to complex to use.
It’s a spiritual art, working with these many elements, like pigments.
My collection of Elements could never lead to a useable formula. The number of elements is still rising, it’s a chaotic situation if we try to nail it down to a formula. God has his part in the artistic expression of our handling of these Elements in each and every differing situation.
***
Our responsibility is to simply have a deep familiarity with as many elements of this law of believing as possible. This gives us something God can work with when it’s time to operate the law of believing.
All of our misadventures with believing and the abusive TVT doctrines that grew up were due to simplistic handling of this law. People were constantly forgetting or being unaware of Elements crucial to some situation they found themselves in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Mike,
You wrote just immediately above: "All of our misadventures with believing and the abusive TVT doctrines that grew up were due to simplistic handling of this law. People were constantly forgetting or being unaware of Elements crucial to some situation they found themselves in."
I agree and would add:
All of the seemingly valid criticisms of Dr's teaching on this law of believing were due to simplistic understanding of this law by both the critics and the hearers.
Critics are constantly forgetting (or were never aware of) Elements crucial to the whole picture of this law.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Mike in quotes:
ummm... I don't think I 'pressed" you on the word reissue. YOU decided that was the focus the sentence not me. I'm questioning the whole sentence "PFAL is God's Word reissued". As of now, I don't buy it (nor do I think others) show us how that works. It's YOUR premise. Explain it.ummm... then why did you make the offer?
ummm... I thought your whole premise in this little excercise of yours was that these elements needed to be 'in play' for the 'law of believing' to work. I keep forgetting that this whole little excercise is 'your opinion' so I guess it's all up to you anyway.ummm... you're assuming that "PFAL is written revelation"... is that what you would like for me to use instead of "PFAL is God's Word reissued"? Of course, this too is your opinion since we've had 'testimony' from folks on these boards that that was in fact not the case.
ummm... FINALLY... they are your OPINIONS then... I don't really know about all of the others on these boards but, if you had stated things that way in the beginning instead of presenting them as "The Truth" I don't think they would have had as many problems with you as they have... I know that's what's always baffled me... that you've presented these OPINIONS (or if you want to call them IDEAS) of yours as "The Truth".ummm... yes, I agree, politeness is much preferred. Thank you for being polite.
Now... reading your two posts immediately precding this one I'm confused (again)... wasn't the whole pretext of this little excercise of yours to show what elements must be present to 'operate the law of believing'... it seems that now you're saying that, at times, any or all of these elements could be involved... which is a lot different than the path I thought we started down when you referred to them at different times as "elements of/to/for the law of believing"...
Further, you said you were "seeking PFAL grads who studied the books and can help me [Mike] collect the elements that make up the law of believing"....
And finally, you said "The Law of Believing is, most properly expressed, would be the set of ALL [Mike's caps] elements that go into the makeup of this law."
That's why I'm a little confused. If you're now saying that saying some elements are present... or all elements must be present... which is it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
The more complicated this all gets the more scared-er I get! ( I know the right phrase - thought we needed some humor here.)
Mike this just seems wrong. to complicated something that is so simple is just not right. I'm changing the topic - or at least postponing it because there is a big impasse here.
When I learnedlogic I was taught the classic way to put for a point was a syllogism. basically:
If ( fact) and ( fact) therefore(conclusion)
I believe that this is what Tom S is asking for. You keep wanting to start with a premise that only you see as fact. Can we all back up and get to proving that premise?
This is how the class was laid out. When Dr taught 4 crucified he started with the known and made a conclusion - by laying it out. I don't really know if you have done that yet. Those 22 points aren't it because they still call for a willing supension of disbelief. That is the hurdle you really have. If you can't start with something known and then build to a conclusion we can't follow you where you want us to go. Forget about a cart pulling a horse - you now have a cart trying to DRAG a horse that is dug in and backing up. This is why you encounter the fight - IMHO
so can we start again? No games, just conversation. The games come across as manipulative tricks and they get tiresome and annoying. I for one don't like being toyed with - had enough of that to last a lifetime.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
BTW from what I see of that list above - there is no reason why all those can't be put into play at the same time - well ok, the unbeliever doesn't get in fellowship and doesn't give God the glory. BUT....
Everyone believes something all the time. What we believe shapes who we are.
The reason ( I believe) we for breaking things down was
1.to point out how we believe so that we could transfer that to the Word (much like the way speaking was broken down in sesson 12 - you don't sit down and go through all the "steps" of speaking, fo you?)
2. to keep people from being frustrated in trying to believe for what wasn't possible -
I now feel that God only instructs us to believe the Word. The phrase"believe for" is never used in the Bible (to my knowledge) so that was a wrong doctrine from the beginning. IMHO So we Believe God and take Him at his Word. We worship Him and praise Him - we get the benefits of being in a big family with a lot of spritual help.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Doojable,
A lot of the logic I use was spelled out in that lengthy post I put on your “Ok once and for all” thread. Did you ever get to read that lengthy post of mine? I know it was terribly long. It was 6 weeks in the making as I was writing in my head during the holidays, when I had no time to post.
Then I repeated the logic again before I did the 22 “thus saith” statements. Did you see that there? It looks like you missed it, and I think Tom Strange missed that too. I may go back and look for it.
***
Just a quick repeat of that logic:
The 22 “thus saith the lord” statements do NOT prove that Dr was speaking for the lord, just that he DID INDEED claim it. You don’t have to by my premise to see that Dr DID CLAIM to have authority for God that was VERY special, 2000 years special, an authority that has not been around since the first century.
I was only trying to prove that Dr DID claim it, not that the claim was correct.
***
Many posters assert that I am misreading and distorting what Dr says in PFAL, and that he did NOT claim to have special authority. My 22 “thus saith” statements prove that it is THEY who have not properly absorbed PFAL’s message regarding these claims.
Likewise, my list of 10 Elements of the law of believing prove that my posting critics have not properly absorbed PFAL’s message regarding the DETAILS in the way PFAL presents the law of believing.
In general, I often point out other things regarding many, many topics in PFAL that they either forgot or that slipped past them unawares decades ago.
I have proved in many ways here that there are many things in PFAL that grads have missed and that’s why Dr told us to master it.
I have proved that PFAL cannot be blamed for failing us when it is us who have failed to properly absorb all that is in PFAL.
What I have NOT proved is that Dr’s claims to this VERY special authority are true.
Still, however, I have shown that Dr went way out on a limb in making these claims, so there is no gray area he can occupy. Either Dr is that man God selected to bring teach His Word like it had not been known since the first century OR he was a very dangerous charlatan.
***
So, how do the claims of PFAL being God-breathed be verified or proved?
NOT by reading and dissecting my posts, but by opening up the PFAL books again and immersing yourself in the material, meekly mastering it. That’s the only way that can be proved.
Do you remember any of these logic pieces from that lengthy post now?
***
Tom Strange,
Does this post help you with any of the answers you want? I just haven’t had time to work on your recent post above yet.
***
Doojable, when we see the 10 Elements to the law of believing it only LOOKS complicated at first. If we had truly mastered PFAL long ago, each entry on that list would look like an old friend as the list grew. If we had previously mastered all those elements then the law’s 10 elements listed would not look like a difficult thing to flow with.
It’s because that list of 10 elements is so NEW to so many grads here that it looks complicated.
Spending much time with all these elements will give us a flow and a familiarity that makes applying them, in the right mix for each different situation in life, an art, and an art that we can always look to God for inspiration as we blend the mix of elements that particular situation calls for.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom Strange,
I said: “No, not backing out, but not committing to a huge block of time either.”
You responded with: “...then why did you make the offer?”
Simple: I offered to commit a SMALL block of time.”
***
I had written: “I see ‘Give God the glory’ as a guard on the efficiency of operating the law. It’s an element to keep in mind (as much as possible) when operating the law.”
You responded with: “...I thought your whole premise in this little excercise of yours was that these elements needed to be 'in play' for the 'law of believing' to work.”
As I wrote to doojable above, some situations call for heavy use of some elements , some light.
For instance, if I set out to operate the law in an area where I have lots of practice, success, and have built up a lot of 5-senses skills, then for that situation I may need to beef up my awareness of “Give God the glory” as I act on my believing so that I don’t overly rely on my own abilities to get me through.
In another situation I may completely lack any skills or experience, so giving God the glory as things progress is easy as pie, and I need not beef up my awareness of that element of the law of believing.
***
You wrote: “...you're assuming that "PFAL is written revelation"... is that what you would like for me to use instead of "PFAL is God's Word reissued"? Of course, this too is your opinion since we've had 'testimony' from folks on these boards that that was in fact not the case.”
I can only remember one such folk, and he backed off from discussing it with me. I’ve explained in some detail why I am able to discount their testimony, and if they show their face(s) I will bring out a lot more of those details.
Instead of you jumping up and down as to what my position is, why not use the terminology of Dr’s to advertise it? “Mike believes that God audibly said to Dr in 1942 that He’d teach him His Word like it had not been known since the first century if he’d teach it to others.”
I can guess why you don’t want to use a sentence like that. It has less shock value to your intended audience. Am I right. I suspect that you want to smear me, not understand me. The drive you’ve exhibited to me for years (somewhat excepted now) is one of a smear artist, not a searching student. I will not be at all surprised it after this round of interrogation you revert right back to a simple minded paste-up smear campaign. I’d love to see you prove this expectation wrong.
***
I had written: “I can’t prove any of these things, I can only point to some of the things in the books that got my attention.”
You responded with: “...FINALLY... they are your OPINIONS then... I don't really know about all of the others on these boards but, if you had stated things that way in the beginning instead of presenting them as "The Truth" I don't think they would have had as many problems with you as they have... I know that's what's always baffled me... that you've presented these OPINIONS (or if you want to call them IDEAS) of yours as "The Truth".”
No, not finally...
If you watched all my posts (which is a huge job even I have difficulty with) you’d have seen that this is not the first time at all that I have admitted that some of what I post is opinion, and some is truth I have verified myself. I try to prove some things, and merely point to other things, but I’ve been open about the differences. I think you may have either missed these admissions or they sailed right past you as you looked mostly for smear material.
***
You wrote: “...yes, I agree, politeness is much preferred. Thank you for being polite.”
I will try to change my attitude toward you. I’d also ask you to soften your approach a little, and lessen you demand list. Working on one thing at a time is often much better than hitting me with a large list.
***
You wrote: “Now... reading your two posts immediately precding this one I'm confused (again)... wasn't the whole pretext of this little excercise of yours to show what elements must be present to 'operate the law of believing'... it seems that now you're saying that, at times, any or all of these elements could be involved... which is a lot different than the path I thought we started down when you referred to them at different times as "elements of/to/for the law of believing"...”
As I said above to you and further above to doojable, each situation demands strongly on some elements, not so strong on others.
***
You wrote: “Further, you said you were "seeking PFAL grads who studied the books and can help me [Mike] collect the elements that make up the law of believing"....”
That was when I was going through my mock discovery process. It was a ploy to keep attention and to introduce each element one at a time, instead of flashing all then at once. I was calling for those grad posters here who claimed to have done a lot of PFAL study in the past to participate in the “discovery” process. I wanted them to scratch their heads and see if they could come up with any elements themselves.
***
I had written: “The Law of Believing is, most properly expressed, would be the set of ALL elements that go into the makeup of this law.”
You responded with: “That's why I'm a little confused. If you're now saying that saying some elements are present... or all elements must be present... which is it?”
Here I’m talking about the PROPER EXPRESSION of the law, not the proper application of it.
The proper expression of the law would include all elements. We need to study all of the elements in our PFAL mastery, but a particular situation may only call for our heavy attention on one or two elements.
Likewise, before anyone could expect to properly criticize Dr’s teaching of the law, ALL the elements must be brought into that mix.
Study and criticizing PFAL require all elements.
Everyday situations may only call for some of the elements.
Make sense?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
EXACTLY!!! Great point Doojable. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Because that's a lot different than "PFAL is God's Word reissued". Nowhere in that statement does it say that PFAL replaces the Bible and is God's Word reissued. That statement is a simple deal that God allegedly made with veepee.
No, you're not.How can I "smear" you if all I'm doing is quoting your words? Asking you to explain them? How is that a "smear". No, it is simply a "where/how did you come up with that?" type of thing.
These things (the few that I keep asking you about) are things you have presented as "truth that I [Mike] have verified myself." That's why I keep asking you about them. If they're just your opinions how hard is it to just answer "that's just my opinion"?And these are your OPINIONS right?
And regarding your post addressed to Dooj...
Mike, what you have 'proved' is that you have come to different conclusions/opinions than the rest of us here.Yet you accept that as a fact, the truth, and expect us to as well.
It is very apparent that you believe the former while I am convinced of the latter.Mike, but you have claimed many times before that it was, in fact 'correct' and the truth. You have often presented the "thus saith the Lord" statements as the 'backup' for one of your stances.
Look at that post to dooj. It's filled with you claiming that you 'know' things... and that the ONLY reason we don't know them is because we haven't studied and mastered PFAL... and that if we had, we would know them...
Of course, that's just your OPINION, even though it was stated as FACT.
Dooj said:
That's the crux of the biscuit.
Have a nice afternoon...maybe spend some time watching the "Andy Griffith Show" marathon on TVLand. It'll do your heart good.
Edited by Tom StrangeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom Strange,
I was writing the following to dmiller and just noticed your post. I'll get back to your post later.
***********************************************************
***********************************************************
***********************************************************
***********************************************************
dmiller,
Did you read my post to doojable above?
You echoed her comment of: “Those 22 points aren't it because they still call for a willing supension of disbelief.”
Do you now see that the 22 points do NOT call for any suspension of disbelief WHEN it’s known that they are only supposed to show that we forgot how strongly Dr claimed to have authority from God.
Now as to the VALIDITY of the claims, sure that’s a HUGE bite to swallow.
That the claims were made I can prove, but the validity of the claims I cannot prove, not on a computer screen. I can prove it to myself, by immersing myself in the books and meekly mastering the material. You can too.
***
Now, here’s another point to keep clear. It should not require a prior belief in the PFAL writings being God-breathed to come back to them and meekly master them. That would be a vicious cycle if I stood for that.
Coming back to PFAL and meekly mastering the material only requires a few things like a remembrance of seeing long ago that PFAL was SOMEWHAT of God. With that kind of memory, AND seeing from my posts that there is a lot of material within written PFAL that was forgotten or that had slipped by unawares decades ago. It would also be important for such a returning grad to NOT have their head cluttered with a huge number of soap operas of how things went wrong. That kind of focus on gossip and rumors could disqualify many posters here from being able to come back to PFAL and meekly mastering it.
I’ve tossed out one other motivation to meekly master PFAL here before: that since ALL the top leaders totally ignored Dr’s final instructions to master written PFAL and failed to even tell most other grads about that last teaching, and had been operating this refusal to follow Dr’s advice for almost ten years prior to 1985, then it might be interesting to do the opposite of what Craig, Geer, JAL, and all the others did. They all refused to master written PFAL, so what will happen when someone DOES master it? This could conceivably motivate some grads to open the books. It did me.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Mike, why on earth would anyone want to invest the time and energy to 'master PFAL' if they didn't think that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom Strange,
You quoted me thusly: “Now, here’s another point to keep clear. It should not require a prior belief in the PFAL writings being God-breathed to come back to them and meekly master them.”
You responded with: “Mike, why on earth would anyone want to invest the time and energy to 'master PFAL' if they didn't think that?”
My answer to your question here is immediately after the line you just quoted.
Here it is again, the quoted line and the answer to your question:
Now, here’s another point to keep clear. It should not require a prior belief in the PFAL writings being God-breathed to come back to them and meekly master them. That would be a vicious cycle if I stood for that.
Coming back to PFAL and meekly mastering the material only requires a few things like a remembrance of seeing long ago that PFAL was SOMEWHAT of God. With that kind of memory, AND seeing from my posts that there is a lot of material within written PFAL that was forgotten or that had slipped by unawares decades ago. It would also be important for such a returning grad to NOT have their head cluttered with a huge number of soap operas of how things went wrong. That kind of focus on gossip and rumors could disqualify many posters here from being able to come back to PFAL and meekly mastering it.
I’ve tossed out one other motivation to meekly master PFAL here before: that since ALL the top leaders totally ignored Dr’s final instructions to master written PFAL and failed to even tell most other grads about that last teaching, and had been operating this refusal to follow Dr’s advice for almost ten years prior to 1985, then it might be interesting to do the opposite of what Craig, Geer, JAL, and all the others did. They all refused to master written PFAL, so what will happen when someone DOES master it? This could conceivably motivate some grads to open the books. It did me.
***
I suggested to you: “Instead of you jumping up and down as to what my position is, why not use the terminology of Dr’s to advertise it? ‘Mike believes that God audibly said to Dr in 1942 that He’d teach him His Word like it had not been known since the first century if he’d teach it to others.’”
You responded with: “Because that's a lot different than "PFAL is God's Word reissued". Nowhere in that statement does it say that PFAL replaces the Bible and is God's Word reissued. That statement is a simple deal that God allegedly made with veepee.”
Yes, but it DOES express the IDEA of Dr claiming to have an authority that’s 2000 years unique. You just claimed to not be so interested in the mere words “reissued” and “replaced” but now you are interested in them.
Had you seen my distancing myself from the bald use of the word “replaced” last year with ChattyKathy? Did you see the many qualifications I put on it? I wish you had.
If you DID see those qualifications, why are they so absent now from your quoting me?
I have qualifications and reservations for the word “reissued” too, but I never see that included in your synopsis of my position. Your abbreviation of my position by focusing on those words distorts my position, and fail to summarize it.
***
You wrote: “How can I "smear" you if all I'm doing is quoting your words? Asking you to explain them? How is that a "smear". No, it is simply a "where/how did you come up with that?" type of thing.”
Are you unfamiliar with the distorting power of lifting quoted words out of their context?
You claim that “all I'm doing is quoting your words.” That is not the whole story. You’re lifting words that I carefully placed in a context to arouse attention, stripping them of their context, and alone those words can look pretty wild.
You are hiding the essence what you are doing by saying “all I'm doing is quoting your words.” You’re doing much more than that. you’re distorting my words by the way you selectively truncate my quotes.
***
You wrote: “These things (the few that I keep asking you about) are things you have presented as "truth that I [Mike] have verified myself." That's why I keep asking you about them. If they're just your opinions how hard is it to just answer "that's just my opinion"?”
Because I don’t think they are MERELY my opinion. The reason I adopted them as my opinion is because I see their truth. It should be obvious to you that many things are my opinion simply because I state them. I shouldn’t have to constantly state “that’s my opinion” when I want to strongly state something. It waters down the statement if I always include that. Maybe that’s what you want, to see me uncertain, or to see my statements as wimpy opinions. I am certain that these things are true and that’s WHY I adopt them as my opinion.
***
I wrote: “The proper expression of the law would include all elements. We need to study all of the elements in our PFAL mastery, but a particular situation may only call for our heavy attention on one or two elements. __ Likewise, before anyone could expect to properly criticize Dr’s teaching of the law, ALL the elements must be brought into that mix. __ Study and criticizing PFAL require all elements. __ Everyday situations may only call for some of the elements.
You asked: “And these are your OPINIONS right?”
Why do you insist I water them down with “there are only my mere opinions” ?
I think these particular statements are almost self evident.
They SHOULD be your opinions too!
***
You wrote: “Mike, what you have 'proved' is that you have come to different conclusions/opinions than the rest of us here.”
Not merely that, but I’ve also proved that there are many things in written PFAL that you all have either forgotten or that slipped past you unawares. I post quotes that were forgotten or that never were absorbed often here.
***
I had written: "What I have NOT proved is that Dr’s claims to this VERY special authority are true."
You wrote in response: "Yet you accept that as a fact, the truth, and expect us to as well.”
No!
NOT TRUE!
I don't expect you to accept that as truth.
Over and over I’ve pointed out, even more than once on this page, that I cannot prove “that Dr’s claims to this VERY special authority are true.”
Yes, I do accept this as fact. But I do NOT expect you to accept it as well. Not on my word, anyway. It's ONLY by opening up the books a lot and meekly mastering the material that you can accept such a thing.
I painted the word “only” in red in my post to doojable above. I’ll repeat it here:
How can the claims of PFAL being God-breathed be verified or proved? By opening up the PFAL books again and immersing yourself in the material, meekly mastering it. That’s the only way that can be proved. I cannot prove it, and I don’t try to prove it.
***
I wrote: “Still, however, I have shown that Dr went way out on a limb in making these claims, so there is no gray area he can occupy. Either Dr is that man God selected to bring teach His Word like it had not been known since the first century OR he was a very dangerous charlatan.”
You responded with: “It is very apparent that you believe the former while I am convinced of the latter.”
Yes, this is apparent. It’s also apparent that there is a lot more information that needs to go into this decision, and that information can ONLY come by opening up the books a lot. If you are convinced of the latter, it’s because you have immersed yourself in the soap operas, the gossip, the rumors. Immerse yourself in the books and you’ll see a different picture emerge.
***
You wrote: “Mike, but you have claimed many times before that it was, in fact 'correct' and the truth. You have often presented the "thus saith the Lord" statements as the 'backup' for one of your stances.”
I have tried over and over again to point out that Dr claiming such does not make it true.
I have tried over and over again to point out that most people forgot that he claimed such.
I have tried over and over again to point out that the proof of his claims can only come from a great familiarity with the written record.
***
You wrote: “Of course, that's just your OPINION, even though it was stated as FACT.”
You act as if both can’t be true.
If something is fact and you happen to believe it, then you opinion is also fact.
Do you think that opinions are always wrong, or can never in principle, be proved to also be fact? There are those who think this way, that there is no absolute truths and all is mere opinion. Is this your stand, that no one can get their opinions lined up with absolute truth because there IS NO absolute truth?
***
Dooj said: “I believe that this is what Tom S is asking for. You keep wanting to start with a premise that only you see as fact. Can we all back up and get to proving that premise?”
You commented: “That's the crux of the biscuit.”
Proving that premise takes immersing yourself in written PFAL. It ain’t coming from me. I proved it for myself by immersing myself in written PFAL. Come on in! The water’s fine!
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Mike, you missed my point, when I quoted Dooj.
What I am agreeing with, is her premise that you are not coming from a *known* conclusion, but are rather coming from a perspective that only you hold.
Now -- everyone is entitled to their opinion (you, me, and every last somebody), but the way you have laid out these things you have been saying requires that we think like you. Dooj made a valid comment about starting with the known, and moving on from there to prove a point.
You haven't done that. And yes -- I did read your post to her.
I've said it before, and now I'll say it again ~~~ you are grasping at straws.
You have a knack for picking and choosing words,
and then say *this proves* docvic was speaking for God.
Sorry ~~~ I don't buy it. :)
Start with a known entity, and go from there. Not something you have conjectured.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
The known entity is that PFAL once worked well for us and we saw that it was from God.
Not knowing that will pretty much prevent a grad from following my argument and from opening up the books a lot. I can’t reach any grads here who either did not experience PFAL being good and from God or who have forgotten it and are determined to keep it forgotten.
You're still looking for some proof from me that PFAL is God-breathed. The proof comes from God when people immerse themselves in PFAL.
All I can argue is that we missed a lot of what’s in there. I can point out and quote some of what is missing from grads memory and perception of what is in PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Mike
You said: "The known entity is that PFAL once worked well for us and we saw that it was from God. "
Speak for yourself, please. I knew tons of "researchers and teachers" when I was in TWI, and am surrounded by ex-ways since leaving. I don't know anyone who thought that PFAL was error free, or contradiction free. Then or now.
There were always "problems." Doctrinal as well as practical. Anybody I know/knew who was a thinking human was aware of this fact. Sure, many, myself included believed that PFAL, for the most part, was a pretty good bible class. But that is different that what you are saying.
Now I'm alot older and wiser, as are most others in my little corner of the world. Going backwards, and embracing a class that for all practical purposes is not "available" any more, is not a route that I want to pursue in my efforts to be a follower of Jesus Christ.
If you want to go there, fine. I'm sure you've got plenty of company. But obviously most of us who have posted here, are not interested in "mastering PFAL." Been there, done that, found it lacking, as have most of us here, especially us who were corps bees.
Have a nice day. :) :) :) :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
As usual, Mike is in quotes:
Mike,
Others claim to have mastered PFAL and not come to the same conclusions as you have nor have they seen these truths that you have seen. Your response to them is that they have in fact not mastered PFAL or they would have seen them.
With all due respect, this is all just one long continuous circle jerk. I mean, one post you say they're conclusions you've reached, one post you say they're truths you've proven, other posts you say they're opinions based on truths that only you see because only you have mastered PFAL to the degree it takes to "see" these truths.
Yes I am. I've watched you do it for years concerning PFAL. All I have done Mike is take a few simple statements that you have made, that stand on their own and express the context they were taken from, and ask you whether or not they are TRUTH or OPINION. There's no need to muddy the argument with "can't they be both", no one disputes that indeed they can, by TRUTH or OPINION I am asking you to differentiate between TRUTH = God's Word and OPINION = Mike's word.And I contend that the only way you have come up with these "truths" and conclusions is because you have immersed yourself in PFAL and ignored REALITY. Why did God give you five senses if he didn't want you to be aware of what happened around you? You cannot ignore the character of the man who is delivering the message. For us to believe all of the things you want us to believe, we have to believe that all of the things that veepee said were true. And that's just something I'm not going to do nor do I think will others.
Just like ex10 and so many others have pointed out. PFAL was a nice little Bible class. Many signs, miracles and wonders occurred because of the love of God operating in people's hearts, not because of PFAL.
Finally, Mike, please, just so we all know where you're coming from, which of these statements are your OPINION and which are GOD'S TRUTH? If it's God's Truth and also happens to be your opinion, please categorize it as God's Truth.
I'm not trying to "bully" or "smear" you (to use your words). I'm simply trying to clarify your stance on these statements that you've made in the past regarding PFAL, God and Christ. Each statement accurately reflects the context of the passage it was taken from… and besides that, how could context change any of them? They're pretty simple, forthright statements.
Please categorize them for me (us) and please try to do so by just typing the words "opinion" or "God's truth" next to them instead of trying to lay a bunch of double speak and verbiage on us.
Thank you.
Edited by Tom StrangeLink to comment
Share on other sites