The known entity is that PFAL once worked well for us and we saw that it was from God.
Ok. Let's say I agree with this. I am *agreeing* to two statements that are contradictory.
1) PFAL once worked well for us:
2) We saw that it was from God.
I have a simple question that has never been answered to my satisfaction, and my question comes from what docvic taught in pfal. Perhaps you can enlighten me and explain at the same time how PFAL contradicts itself, and is still *from God*.
(If it is FROM GOD -- it can't be contradictory -- right???)
My question is this ---
Docvic taught that it was NOT available to be born again before the day of Pentecost.
Docvic taught that Cain was born of the seed of the serpent.
Docvic taught that being born again was the mystery.
Docvic taught that the adversary can only COPY what God does.
So -- my question is -- how can docvic (pfal) say in one sentence that there were folks *born again of the seed of the serpent* thousands of years before it was *available* on the day of Pentecost, which (according to docvic) was the gist of the mystery.
If you can explain this, I'll be impressed. But I'm not holding my breath. ;)
Your setup looks a little shaky and it has no page references. Relying on memory is not the way to handle these things.
For instance, you wrote: “Docvic taught that being born again was the mystery.”
This is very sloppy if not downright wrong.
More accurately, the mystery was that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs and of the same Body, and the riches of the mystery is that it’s Christ in you, the hope of glory.
Jesus taught on the new birth before Pentecost, so that was no secret. Genesis 3:16 talks about the seed of the woman; no secret.
***
You then wrote: “Docvic taught that the adversary can only COPY what God does.”
I’d like to see that in writing and see the context. Of course, I remember something like it, but I don’t know where it is in writing. If this is important to you we can find at least one such place, but still it would be better to find them all, like with the law of believing.
But I’ll proceed with some preliminary data.
Luke 3:23-38 reads thusly:
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Now all of times the word “son” appears here it’s in italics in the KJV, EXCEPT for the first one in verse 23. The translators properly supplied the implied word "son" for the other verses, even though it looks to be the figure of speech ellipsis to me, for emphasis.
what you said about the Adversary copying Adam is wrong.
Satan (not the adversry as per the advanced class) did not copy sonship with Cain. God Made (formed) man. breathed life into him, gave him a spirit which was holy. Satan did no such thing in Cain. It was in the advanced class syllabus that Cain was the first one born of the serpent. At least to my recollection.
The idea of having a son, with that bond, and the infusion of DNA, and the similar characteristics was there, with Adam, and even with the animals reproduction.
Here’s a good possibility: Adam trained the animals with his personality stamped into them. Naming the animals meant far more than getting out a Dymo label maker and putting “Leo” on the lion’s collar. Adam trained them to behave the way he wanted them to behave. Adam put his mark in them.
Plus, (and I think this is the best so far):
Genesis 3:16 with the idea of the seed of the woman was out there in the open for the adversary to leach off of.
I had written: "The known entity is that PFAL once worked well for us and we saw that it was from God."
Then you responded with: “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.”
I think you missed the logic of what I was saying there. What I was saying in that line was along the same lines of when you said with: “Sure, many, myself included believed that PFAL, for the most part, was a pretty good bible class.”
Tom had asked me why anyone would want to come back to master PFAL, and I said that it “was a pretty good bible class” and the teacher told us to come back and master it.
I was trying to say that it’s NOT necessary to believe that it is error free to heed the advice of our teacher and come back to look at the written part closer.
I also mentioned that if someone insists on making the soap operas, and sin gossip, and rumor mills their center of focus for years and years, then they will UNDERSTANDABLY have a difficult time seeing any motivation to come back.
***
You wrote; “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.”
In order to follow Jesus Christ you need to follow the Word of God. That’s what he did; he BECAME the Word he followed it so close. If you want to accurately follow the real Christ, and not a theological construct of your own making, then you need to get a hold of the accurate Word that God taught Dr and Dr taught us in writing.
There are practical difficulties in mastering written PFAL if you’ve gotten rid of your books. However, there are ways to get them, including a free CD that’s floating around out there that has all the books typed out on it. It has some accuracy problems, but it’s pretty good, and I’m sure you can find it by PMing around a little. The books are easily xeroxed, too, as well as findable on eBay. Plus I’ve found several in big-city used bookstores and antique shops, though the supply is dwindling. The Way bookstore is now open to us all, so some can be ordered, even though there are problems with them changing some things.
***
You wrote: “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.”
No! You’ve only partially been there, only partially done that.
You found the TVTs you absorbed lacking, not the complete texts.
You wrote: “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’re lumping together apples with oranges and then you say I’m not consistent. Point out some specifics. There are many things I’ve seen in there that anyone can see with one fresh reading. There are other things that need a little time to see.
***
You wrote; “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.”
Instead of cataloging the ideas in my posts this way, why don’t you focus on what I’m pointing at?
***
You wrote: “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.”
I spent may years looking at the 5-senses sin “reality” you seem to think is light. I have posted here that I jumped into the sex scandal doctrines that floated around nearly ten years earlier then most posters here.
Here’s something I wrote in a PM just this morning to someone who was not around here when I first started posting.
You may have not seen my early posts, but I happened to have dealt with the ministry sex problems about 10 years before anyone else did. In 1978 I was a twig leader and noticed that there were some problems arising involving that problem. I confronted the people and we sat down for weeks working the Word on the subject. I had seen these problems for years and finally decided to do something about it.
In those weeks we covered 11 different heresies promoting casual sex that were floating around. Nearly ten years later I saw the John Sheonheit paper on sex, and the 14 Appendices where he too dealt with the same heresies I had worked on. He had three more than me.
I have seen in my own life that concentrating on this subject is a mental drainer. It does no one good and everyone bad. It is darkness, so I’ve learned to turn away. When there was something I could do about it, in 1978, I did it, but I see no value in focusing on sin when the job we were given is to master the light, the revelations God gave Dr.
Tom, you and many others here have ignored the REALITY of the revelations God gave to Dr and Dr put into writing for us, and you have immersed yourself in baloney.
***
You wrote: “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.”
I wrote that those who chose to focus on sin have little motivation to come back to PFAL.
I wrote that those who want to do the opposite of LCM, GEER, and JAL and all other top leaders need only do what Dr told us to do and master PFAL.
I wrote that those who saw the PFAL worked once in their lives can simply heed the teacher’s advice to master the written material with NO BELIEF in the God-breathedness of the material.
***
You wrote: “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.”
I disagree.
The reason the “love of God was operating in people's hearts” back then was BECAUSE OF PFAL and the ministry support of previous grads.
***
You wrote: “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.”
No.
I’m not going to waste my time mentally cranking up for a lot of essay writing just to satisfy your desire to have this information. What possible use can you have for such information?
Why don’t you just follow the discussion and focus on the proper target, PFAL text, and not so much on me and my text? I don’t consider your request to be a useful one. It’s a distraction.
You should have asked me that when I made those statements. Be sharper in the future and you may have your curiosity satisfied.
You wrote: “I'm sure you are thoroughly convinced that you have proved your point - but if that were the case you would not be getting the flack that you are getting.”
Not so. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. I know posters minds are not being changed today, but there’s tomorrow and there’s also silent readers today who may be ready to hear these things.
***
You wrote: “The way you write, Dr is greater than Jesus Christ himself. I say that because you are willing to take as revelation many, many, many, many,* more words of his in writing alone (not to mention some of his spoken words) than were ever recorded by the Saviour himself.”
Jesus Christ never spoke his own words, but only the words his Father taught him.
Also, you may be discounting (people usually do) the words Christ Jesus spoke in his greater ministry, not his ministry as recorded in the Gospels, but in his ministry seated at the right hand of God. These things he taught to Paul and Paul put them into written form.
You also seem to have forgotten that at the end of John’s gospel it says there was a lot more that Jesus spoke that was not recorded.
Your also discounting the possibility that Dr got his revelation from Jesus Christ. Dr did claim in the Intro to JCNG that Jesus Christ appointed him as a spokesman.
I’ve carefully kept my respect for Dr in the proper place, and my respect is much higher for the revelations God taught him and he put into written form for us, because it is the Word of God.
***
You wrote: “I read most of the posts you referred to. The were not set up logically in the way I am asking you to do. I do remember that you said that the only way to get this logic is to act anyway and get back into the class. I'm not sure about anyone else - but I for one do not have very many books left - and I'm not about to buy any more.”
See what I said to Ex10 about this, especially the part about PMing around for that free CD.
***
You wrote: “You know, when I said that this "believing thing was getting too complicated" - well it wasn't because I no longer remembered all those elements. Things became complicated in the way it was presented - like a big ball of rubberbands that was growing intead of getting smaller.”
That was merely a theatrical device to hold attention. I wanted most to show that those who criticize the law of believing haven’t even begun to see the whole presentation ot this law in PFAL.
***
You wrote: “You know in the class when Dr conveys why we should study the Word - he doesn't say because it says its God's word. He SHOWS its perfection. He points out how reliable the Word is. And strangely enough even with this Bible that you call incomplete and "not God's word" Dr managed to get people born again and speaking in tongues. He spent years studying that Bible - not his own work.”
The KJV is an excellent tool for beginners. Dr had to start where we all were at. There was a modicum of cultural respect for the KJV back then (now who knows?) and Dr started with what we could handle.
If Dr did not have the guidance of God on those years he would not have been so successful. God wants to take us MUCH farther than the first three manifestations, though. The area for learning revelation and impartation is written PFAL. That’s why Dr so strongly urged the AC students to master the material many years before his death. It was our refusal to master the material that caused our growth in the other six manifestations to be so paltry. Leadership had to fake receiving revelation in the later years, but even that they couldn’t do when the ministry meltdown occurred. They were exposed for the natural man minds they are.
***
You wrote: “So why don't you start there. Show the perfection of something you are promoting.”
I’d like to, but I’m so often being hampered with distractions. I’d like to bring out my many page references from my ALRI file, the Arena for Learning Revelation and Impartation that I mentioned above. Soon maybe. My goal is to get into a lot of PFAL passages, and end this incessant talk about me and my posting.
For some reason, you seem incapable of hearing what I am saying to you. You make malicious presumptions about me and my experiences. If you indeed want to "teach" somebody something worthwhile, might I suggest you work on your listening skills?
Your responses to me, usually have nothing to do with anything I've said. They have everything to do with whatever is going on in your own head.
Here’s a good possibility: Adam trained the animals with his personality stamped into them. Naming the animals meant far more than getting out a Dymo label maker and putting “Leo” on the lion’s collar. Adam trained them to behave the way he wanted them to behave. Adam put his mark in them.
Tom, you and many others here have ignored the REALITY of the revelations God gave to Dr and Dr put into writing for us, and you have immersed yourself in baloney.
Mike, RE: The so called REALITY of the revelations God gave to Dr, etc, etc That it's REALITY is YOUR OPINION. And that's fine.
But it's not MY OPINION that it's reality. For any of your conclusions to "hold water" we would have to first accept your opinions as fact and there's a little problem there.
You're welcome to your opinions, and without them, your theses hold no merit... but they're your opinions and you're entitled to them.
You wrote: “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.”
I disagree.
The reason the “love of God was operating in people's hearts” back then was BECAUSE OF PFAL and the ministry support of previous grads.
You're welcome to disagree... but PFAL was not the author of the signs, miracles and wonders. Why are you insistent on giving PFAL the glory over God?
You wrote: “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.”
No.
I’m not going to waste my time mentally cranking up for a lot of essay writing just to satisfy your desire to have this information. What possible use can you have for such information?
I have no use for "a lot of essay information" nor did I ask you to write any. All I'm asking you to type is one word for each statement listed: OPINION or TRUTH. Heck, if you want just type "O" or "T".
Why don’t you just follow the discussion and focus on the proper target, PFAL text, and not so much on me and my text? I don’t consider your request to be a useful one. It’s a distraction.
Because there's a credibility issue with you Mike. IF you claim these statements are "God's Truth" there's really no more need for discussion. If you calim they're your OPINION, well then maybe there's room for discussion.
You should have asked me that when I made those statements. Be sharper in the future and you may have your curiosity satisfied.
Mike, what happened to your attempt to be polite?
Oh... and for the record... I have been asking you about these items since the first time I saw you claim them... but then you already know that don't you?
Mike, why do you insist on giving PFAL the glory instead of God?
Mike, sometimes you have trouble understanding what we mean and we keep on repeating ourselves. isn't even at all possible that you are mistaken on your conclusions of what dr meant.
Mike, sometimes you have trouble understanding what we mean and we keep on repeating ourselves. isn't even at all possible that you are mistaken on your conclusions of what dr meant.
Dooj, IF they're his OPINIONS, then it doesn't matter... And I guess it really doesn't matter either if he thinks they're "God's Truth"... but it would be nice:
1) to know where he's coming from and
2) if Mike would quit treating us like dirt because we don't believe the way he does.
Bottom line Dooj, Mike is right on everrthing and IF you would only take the time to "Master PFAL" (of course "master" by his definition) you would come to the same conclusions. By the very fact that we haven't come to the same conclusions as Mike means we have not "Mastered PFAL".
That's his premise. There is no convincing him otherwise.
He wants to share his message here.
I have no problem with that, I just want people to be sure they know where he's coming from.
I’d like to see that in writing and see the context. Of course, I remember something like it, but I don’t know where it is in writing. If this is important to you we can find at least one such place, but still it would be better to find them all, like with the law of believing.
Shucks. I may be *sloppy* by not citing pages from PFAL, but the fact that you also (bullinger) remember this, shows (to me that even you thought) it was there. I don't really want to haul all the pfal books out of storage, but I will if I have to.
Docvic taught two different entities concerning this subject, and only one of them could be right. Not both. :)
You wrote: “I have no desire to look at anything else.”
How about looking at the response I gave you some time back? Did you do that?
Not that I want to imitate TS’s hammering nag style, but I asked you a couple of times if my response to you about the TVTs made any sense.
Most grads never suspected that the verbal traditions ever differed from what was in the record.
I never knew it until 1988 when I went back to the film class soundtrack and saw that it had Element #3 (limiting our believing to the promises of God) sprinkled all through it, while most of our late 80’s TVTs had it quite missing.
***********************************
I was away for a while and now see a bunch of posts above to respond to. Maybe soon.
You wrote: “Shucks. I may be *sloppy* by not citing pages from PFAL, but the fact that you also (bullinger) remember this, shows (to me that even you thought) it was there. I don't really want to haul all the pfal books out of storage, but I will if I have to.”
I wish you would do that hauling. It could change your life... unless you’re totally happy with being able to proficiently operate only 3 out of 9 manifestations.
But, maybe you didn’t get what I said. I said that your lack of citing references is a shaky (not sloppy) start, if it’s limited to just what you remember and not anchored to the texts.
There are always details in the texts that our memory has either distorted or dumped. Most starts are shaky and can only be such, but what I encourage is bringing in the solid texts as soon as possible after such a start starts to shake.
What I labeled as “sloppy” was your characterization of the mystery. That was really butchered.
***
So, what did you think of the string of possible ways I suggested to resolve the Apparent Contradiction (AC)?
I thought of another one. There’s an entire drama of the First Heavens and Earth to consider, even though we have very little data on it. The idea of spiritual seed could have come from there, maybe?
As long as you’ve been harboring this AC, have you thought of ANY possible solutions like I suggested (my Method), or were you happy to see the AC (Raf’s Method) and just let it fester for years?
***
You wrote: “Docvic taught two different entities concerning this subject, and only one of them could be right. Not both.”
As far as I can see, the two entities are in an ill defined stage, and not at all ready for being declared even as an APPARENT contradiction. Maybe a WC, Wannabe Contradiction, but it’s not at all apparent to me that there's any contradiction.
Oops! Thanks for pointing that out. I corrected them in my post above, but I don't know how long I've been doing that.
My error stems back years ago when me and Raf were hashing these things out on his thread. It was in our discussions back then that the nomenclature of Apparent Error (AE) and Apparent Contradiction (AC) evolved, as well as Actual Error (again AE) and Actual Contradictions (again AC). I guess I sometimes confuse them.
***
I am trying to be polite to you, but not totally accommodating.
I’m not ignoring your posts above, but they do take me considerable more time than some of the others. Your focus on me and my posting makes the discussion more convoluted, in that you and I discuss what was discussed about what we discussed long ago, AND because you hit me with multiple points so often.
With the other people our discussion is more limited to fewer points and more focused on the PFAL material instead of me. Plus, they don’t have a history of attacking me the way you came on years ago. Back than there were many on the attack and I had to develop a thick skin and a cautious manner. It will take you some time to distance yourself from that history.
***
As for my labeling “my opinion” or “my revelation” the list of pet items you relentlessly bring up, have you really thought it through what you would do with such labels?
I do.
I must consider the possibility of you dropping your polite mode and using my labels as further fuel for your fires.
But even if not, after my labeling wouldn’t you then have the curiosity as to whether my label on each item was an opinion or a revelation? Couldn’t you then engage me in even more convolutions focused on me and my labeling?
I wonder what other posters would think of you if you did the same thing with them on every point they made, if you demanded opinion/revelation labels. I think you’d be in some trouble with many others here and quickly if you did that to others.
In polite conversation people usually assume that everything someone says is an opinion and not as an absolute truth as in revelation, unless explicitly stated as absolute truth. In such conversation, to overtly label someone else’s statements as opinions carries the quiet implication that the statements are MERELY opinions and WRONG ones at that. In such situations a labeler of another gets to quietly (instead of overtly) state that the wrongness of the labeled opinion is absolute. When I see these kinds of labelers use this ploy it looks cheap to me. Anyone can do it and not have any absolute truth to back them up.
For you to ask me to do my own labeling as opinion seems to me to be an escalation of that kind of cheapness. If you are really intellectually curious, and not merely looking to have me help you in the next round of smears, then I’d suggest you limit the number of points you make inquiries of and you back off from the opinion/revelation demands altogether.
I had written regarding dmiller’s AC: “Here’s a good possibility: Adam trained the animals with his personality stamped into them. Naming the animals meant far more than getting out a Dymo label maker and putting “Leo” on the lion’s collar. Adam trained them to behave the way he wanted them to behave. Adam put his mark in them.”
You wrote; “Mike... Shirley you're not serious...”
Whatsamatta, you own stock in Dymo Inc. or something?
But seriously, we were taught in Orientalisms (did you ever take it?) that when we see the word “name” in the Bible it meant a whole lot more in that Eastern Bible lands culture than the same word means to us today.
But that aside, didn’t you see the context that my passage on Adam naming the animals sits in? I can point to four spots in that context that should have answered your question. Context is a big deal. Want me to point out those four spots?
***
You wrote: “You're welcome to disagree... but PFAL was not the author of the signs, miracles and wonders. Why are you insistent on giving PFAL the glory over God?”
I still disagree. It was PFAL that wound us up. It was previous grads of PFAL who supported us in learning to think that way, that God is good and that He empowers us.
You ask “Why are you insistent on giving PFAL the glory over God?” but you omit that I accredit PFAL to God. God inspired PFAL, PFAL helped us to believe, God gets the credit.
If I thought that PFAL was NOT of God, and that PFAL produced the signs, miracles and wonders, THEN I’d be robbing god of the glory. But I thank God that He brought forth PFAL and that it helped us greatly.
***
You wrote: “I have no use for ‘a lot of essay information’ nor did I ask you to write any. All I'm asking you to type is one word for each statement listed: OPINION or TRUTH. Heck, if you want just type ‘O’ or ‘T’.”
I’m not surprised that you have no use for the an essay’s worth of information. Your eschewing of the context for your pet quotes testifies to this, and your skipping the context of my post on Adam and the animals testifies to this. Your eagerness now for my labels leads me again to suspect that you are not in the least interested in the details of WHY each item of pet quotes would get each label, which is what an essay would convey.
I have no use for your contextless, detailless curiosity being satisfied. If you want to discuss things and examine ideas, I do like that. I suggest you take that course.
***
I wrote almost the same thing before and you quoted me thusly: “Why don’t you just follow the discussion and focus on the proper target, PFAL text, and not so much on me and my text? I don’t consider your request to be a useful one. It’s a distraction.”
You responded with: “Because there's a credibility issue with you Mike. IF you claim these statements are "God's Truth" there's really no more need for discussion. If you claim they're your OPINION, well then maybe there's room for discussion.”
This saddens me, Tom.
Why would there be no discussion if a label were to be “God's Truth?”
I know that it’s not because you will then meekly accept it.
What’s the matter with someone speaking God's Truth? Are you of the opinion that no one can do that? Do you believe in the 9 manifestations? Do you believe in God? just where are YOU coming from, Tom.
If you are going to warn readers about me, shouldn’t you be open and honest about your beliefs? What do you believe? Who is your God?
***
You wrote: “Mike, what happened to your attempt to be polite?”
Being polite doesn’t mean being submissive. You must earn my respect, and you’re not starting from scratch, but from in the hole. Relax your program of discrediting me, focus on the discussion at hand, and you have a chance of earning my respect. It will take time. You have a lot of impolite posts to make up for.
***
You wrote to doojable: Dooj, IF they're his OPINIONS, then it doesn't matter... And I guess it really doesn't matter either if he thinks they're "God's Truth"... but it would be nice: 1) to know where he's coming from and 2) if Mike would quit treating us like dirt because we don't believe the way he does.”
Tom, you started it. You and many others treated me like dirt EVEN BEFORE I started posting. Want me to dig up the posts and prove it? I was the subject of ridicule here MONTHS before I ever made one post. I don’t remember if you participated in that round, but you do. I do remember in my early months of posting that you were right there with a mob of posters trying to wear me down and insult me with all sorts of junk. I can find those posts if you deny this.
I have wonderful times here discussing things with people who disagree with me. I do it in PMs and e-mails too. Most people disagree with me, but only some treat me with contempt and disrespect. It will take time for you to re-make yourself in my eyes. Discussing the topic at hand (and not me) is the only way you can do this.
***
You wrote: “He wants to share his message here. I have no problem with that, I just want people to be sure they know where he's coming from. He's not always real clear about that.”
I suggest you wear the appropriate mask and cape if you are going to rescue readers from my wily clutches. I also suggest you focus on discussing things with me to properly find out where I’m coming from, because you’ve consistently gotten me wrong for years.
And Tom, you too should tell us where YOU are coming from. I asked you some questions above that you can be clear and forthcoming about, you can do what you falsely accuse me of. I am quite clear on where I am coming from. I don’t know why you think I’m hiding anything. I post what I post.
“it is not a law, it is your living breathing heart
doctrines are for getting a good idea of the truth
not some set in stone unmoveable piece of truth...”
I agree with this.
The “law” part I see is addressed not to us but to the angels and devils, to the inanimate objects of the universe, to the creation. The “law” part of the law of believing is binding on God’s universe, lining up with us as we believe His Word.
In our living breathing heart we apply the elements, the doctrines, the law to each and every unique situation with heartfelt comapassion.
It was the corrupted handing of the doctrines that made them set in stone and unbendable, inflexible to adapt to new situations. It was a gross oversimplification.
I like this line: “doctrines are for getting a good idea of the truth”
The proper mix of which doctrines apply to each situation and how strongly is a heart thing, lining our hearts up with God’s.
In order for us to hear God’s advice in these matters, the doctrines need to be in there, in our hearts. We need to be ALREADY familiar with them when the time for application comes. When the time for application comes it’s too late for learning the doctrines. They already have to be in there. That’s why we were told to master PFAL. Now is the time for learning the elements of that law. First we put them inot our heart, and then God directs our hearts to uniquely apply them properly to each unique situation.
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
dmiller
Ok. Let's say I agree with this. I am *agreeing* to two statements that are contradictory.
1) PFAL once worked well for us:
2) We saw that it was from God.
I have a simple question that has never been answered to my satisfaction, and my question comes from what docvic taught in pfal. Perhaps you can enlighten me and explain at the same time how PFAL contradicts itself, and is still *from God*.
(If it is FROM GOD -- it can't be contradictory -- right???)
My question is this ---
Docvic taught that it was NOT available to be born again before the day of Pentecost.
Docvic taught that Cain was born of the seed of the serpent.
Docvic taught that being born again was the mystery.
Docvic taught that the adversary can only COPY what God does.
So -- my question is -- how can docvic (pfal) say in one sentence that there were folks *born again of the seed of the serpent* thousands of years before it was *available* on the day of Pentecost, which (according to docvic) was the gist of the mystery.
If you can explain this, I'll be impressed. But I'm not holding my breath. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
AAAnnnd.. this WAS in writing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
Your setup looks a little shaky and it has no page references. Relying on memory is not the way to handle these things.
For instance, you wrote: “Docvic taught that being born again was the mystery.”
This is very sloppy if not downright wrong.
More accurately, the mystery was that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs and of the same Body, and the riches of the mystery is that it’s Christ in you, the hope of glory.
Jesus taught on the new birth before Pentecost, so that was no secret. Genesis 3:16 talks about the seed of the woman; no secret.
***
You then wrote: “Docvic taught that the adversary can only COPY what God does.”
I’d like to see that in writing and see the context. Of course, I remember something like it, but I don’t know where it is in writing. If this is important to you we can find at least one such place, but still it would be better to find them all, like with the law of believing.
But I’ll proceed with some preliminary data.
Luke 3:23-38 reads thusly:
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Now all of times the word “son” appears here it’s in italics in the KJV, EXCEPT for the first one in verse 23. The translators properly supplied the implied word "son" for the other verses, even though it looks to be the figure of speech ellipsis to me, for emphasis.
In verse 38 we see that Adam was the son of God.
The adversary copied the idea with Cain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Mike,
what you said about the Adversary copying Adam is wrong.
Satan (not the adversry as per the advanced class) did not copy sonship with Cain. God Made (formed) man. breathed life into him, gave him a spirit which was holy. Satan did no such thing in Cain. It was in the advanced class syllabus that Cain was the first one born of the serpent. At least to my recollection.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Doojable,
I’m just hashing out some ideas on this.
The adversary's copy jobs are never exact.
The idea of having a son, with that bond, and the infusion of DNA, and the similar characteristics was there, with Adam, and even with the animals reproduction.
Here’s a good possibility: Adam trained the animals with his personality stamped into them. Naming the animals meant far more than getting out a Dymo label maker and putting “Leo” on the lion’s collar. Adam trained them to behave the way he wanted them to behave. Adam put his mark in them.
Plus, (and I think this is the best so far):
Genesis 3:16 with the idea of the seed of the woman was out there in the open for the adversary to leach off of.
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
Ex10,
I had written: "The known entity is that PFAL once worked well for us and we saw that it was from God."
Then you responded with: “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.”
I think you missed the logic of what I was saying there. What I was saying in that line was along the same lines of when you said with: “Sure, many, myself included believed that PFAL, for the most part, was a pretty good bible class.”
Tom had asked me why anyone would want to come back to master PFAL, and I said that it “was a pretty good bible class” and the teacher told us to come back and master it.
I was trying to say that it’s NOT necessary to believe that it is error free to heed the advice of our teacher and come back to look at the written part closer.
I also mentioned that if someone insists on making the soap operas, and sin gossip, and rumor mills their center of focus for years and years, then they will UNDERSTANDABLY have a difficult time seeing any motivation to come back.
***
You wrote; “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.”
In order to follow Jesus Christ you need to follow the Word of God. That’s what he did; he BECAME the Word he followed it so close. If you want to accurately follow the real Christ, and not a theological construct of your own making, then you need to get a hold of the accurate Word that God taught Dr and Dr taught us in writing.
There are practical difficulties in mastering written PFAL if you’ve gotten rid of your books. However, there are ways to get them, including a free CD that’s floating around out there that has all the books typed out on it. It has some accuracy problems, but it’s pretty good, and I’m sure you can find it by PMing around a little. The books are easily xeroxed, too, as well as findable on eBay. Plus I’ve found several in big-city used bookstores and antique shops, though the supply is dwindling. The Way bookstore is now open to us all, so some can be ordered, even though there are problems with them changing some things.
***
You wrote: “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.”
No! You’ve only partially been there, only partially done that.
You found the TVTs you absorbed lacking, not the complete texts.
************************************************************
************************************************************
************************************************************
************************************************************
Tom Strange
You wrote: “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’re lumping together apples with oranges and then you say I’m not consistent. Point out some specifics. There are many things I’ve seen in there that anyone can see with one fresh reading. There are other things that need a little time to see.
***
You wrote; “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.”
Instead of cataloging the ideas in my posts this way, why don’t you focus on what I’m pointing at?
***
You wrote: “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.”
I spent may years looking at the 5-senses sin “reality” you seem to think is light. I have posted here that I jumped into the sex scandal doctrines that floated around nearly ten years earlier then most posters here.
Here’s something I wrote in a PM just this morning to someone who was not around here when I first started posting.
You may have not seen my early posts, but I happened to have dealt with the ministry sex problems about 10 years before anyone else did. In 1978 I was a twig leader and noticed that there were some problems arising involving that problem. I confronted the people and we sat down for weeks working the Word on the subject. I had seen these problems for years and finally decided to do something about it.
In those weeks we covered 11 different heresies promoting casual sex that were floating around. Nearly ten years later I saw the John Sheonheit paper on sex, and the 14 Appendices where he too dealt with the same heresies I had worked on. He had three more than me.
I have seen in my own life that concentrating on this subject is a mental drainer. It does no one good and everyone bad. It is darkness, so I’ve learned to turn away. When there was something I could do about it, in 1978, I did it, but I see no value in focusing on sin when the job we were given is to master the light, the revelations God gave Dr.
Tom, you and many others here have ignored the REALITY of the revelations God gave to Dr and Dr put into writing for us, and you have immersed yourself in baloney.
***
You wrote: “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.”
I wrote that those who chose to focus on sin have little motivation to come back to PFAL.
I wrote that those who want to do the opposite of LCM, GEER, and JAL and all other top leaders need only do what Dr told us to do and master PFAL.
I wrote that those who saw the PFAL worked once in their lives can simply heed the teacher’s advice to master the written material with NO BELIEF in the God-breathedness of the material.
***
You wrote: “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.”
I disagree.
The reason the “love of God was operating in people's hearts” back then was BECAUSE OF PFAL and the ministry support of previous grads.
***
You wrote: “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.”
No.
I’m not going to waste my time mentally cranking up for a lot of essay writing just to satisfy your desire to have this information. What possible use can you have for such information?
Why don’t you just follow the discussion and focus on the proper target, PFAL text, and not so much on me and my text? I don’t consider your request to be a useful one. It’s a distraction.
You should have asked me that when I made those statements. Be sharper in the future and you may have your curiosity satisfied.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
doojable,
You wrote: “I'm sure you are thoroughly convinced that you have proved your point - but if that were the case you would not be getting the flack that you are getting.”
Not so. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. I know posters minds are not being changed today, but there’s tomorrow and there’s also silent readers today who may be ready to hear these things.
***
You wrote: “The way you write, Dr is greater than Jesus Christ himself. I say that because you are willing to take as revelation many, many, many, many,* more words of his in writing alone (not to mention some of his spoken words) than were ever recorded by the Saviour himself.”
Jesus Christ never spoke his own words, but only the words his Father taught him.
Also, you may be discounting (people usually do) the words Christ Jesus spoke in his greater ministry, not his ministry as recorded in the Gospels, but in his ministry seated at the right hand of God. These things he taught to Paul and Paul put them into written form.
You also seem to have forgotten that at the end of John’s gospel it says there was a lot more that Jesus spoke that was not recorded.
Your also discounting the possibility that Dr got his revelation from Jesus Christ. Dr did claim in the Intro to JCNG that Jesus Christ appointed him as a spokesman.
I’ve carefully kept my respect for Dr in the proper place, and my respect is much higher for the revelations God taught him and he put into written form for us, because it is the Word of God.
***
You wrote: “I read most of the posts you referred to. The were not set up logically in the way I am asking you to do. I do remember that you said that the only way to get this logic is to act anyway and get back into the class. I'm not sure about anyone else - but I for one do not have very many books left - and I'm not about to buy any more.”
See what I said to Ex10 about this, especially the part about PMing around for that free CD.
***
You wrote: “You know, when I said that this "believing thing was getting too complicated" - well it wasn't because I no longer remembered all those elements. Things became complicated in the way it was presented - like a big ball of rubberbands that was growing intead of getting smaller.”
That was merely a theatrical device to hold attention. I wanted most to show that those who criticize the law of believing haven’t even begun to see the whole presentation ot this law in PFAL.
***
You wrote: “You know in the class when Dr conveys why we should study the Word - he doesn't say because it says its God's word. He SHOWS its perfection. He points out how reliable the Word is. And strangely enough even with this Bible that you call incomplete and "not God's word" Dr managed to get people born again and speaking in tongues. He spent years studying that Bible - not his own work.”
The KJV is an excellent tool for beginners. Dr had to start where we all were at. There was a modicum of cultural respect for the KJV back then (now who knows?) and Dr started with what we could handle.
If Dr did not have the guidance of God on those years he would not have been so successful. God wants to take us MUCH farther than the first three manifestations, though. The area for learning revelation and impartation is written PFAL. That’s why Dr so strongly urged the AC students to master the material many years before his death. It was our refusal to master the material that caused our growth in the other six manifestations to be so paltry. Leadership had to fake receiving revelation in the later years, but even that they couldn’t do when the ministry meltdown occurred. They were exposed for the natural man minds they are.
***
You wrote: “So why don't you start there. Show the perfection of something you are promoting.”
I’d like to, but I’m so often being hampered with distractions. I’d like to bring out my many page references from my ALRI file, the Arena for Learning Revelation and Impartation that I mentioned above. Soon maybe. My goal is to get into a lot of PFAL passages, and end this incessant talk about me and my posting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Sigh......
Mike
For some reason, you seem incapable of hearing what I am saying to you. You make malicious presumptions about me and my experiences. If you indeed want to "teach" somebody something worthwhile, might I suggest you work on your listening skills?
Your responses to me, usually have nothing to do with anything I've said. They have everything to do with whatever is going on in your own head.
Frustrating........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Mike... Shirley you're not serious...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
But it's not MY OPINION that it's reality. For any of your conclusions to "hold water" we would have to first accept your opinions as fact and there's a little problem there.
You're welcome to your opinions, and without them, your theses hold no merit... but they're your opinions and you're entitled to them.
You're welcome to disagree... but PFAL was not the author of the signs, miracles and wonders. Why are you insistent on giving PFAL the glory over God?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Because there's a credibility issue with you Mike. IF you claim these statements are "God's Truth" there's really no more need for discussion. If you calim they're your OPINION, well then maybe there's room for discussion.
Mike, what happened to your attempt to be polite?
Oh... and for the record... I have been asking you about these items since the first time I saw you claim them... but then you already know that don't you?
Mike, why do you insist on giving PFAL the glory instead of God?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Mike, sometimes you have trouble understanding what we mean and we keep on repeating ourselves. isn't even at all possible that you are mistaken on your conclusions of what dr meant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Dooj, IF they're his OPINIONS, then it doesn't matter... And I guess it really doesn't matter either if he thinks they're "God's Truth"... but it would be nice:
1) to know where he's coming from and
2) if Mike would quit treating us like dirt because we don't believe the way he does.
Bottom line Dooj, Mike is right on everrthing and IF you would only take the time to "Master PFAL" (of course "master" by his definition) you would come to the same conclusions. By the very fact that we haven't come to the same conclusions as Mike means we have not "Mastered PFAL".
That's his premise. There is no convincing him otherwise.
He wants to share his message here.
I have no problem with that, I just want people to be sure they know where he's coming from.
He's not always real clear about that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Shucks. I may be *sloppy* by not citing pages from PFAL, but the fact that you also (bullinger) remember this, shows (to me that even you thought) it was there. I don't really want to haul all the pfal books out of storage, but I will if I have to.
Docvic taught two different entities concerning this subject, and only one of them could be right. Not both. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
topoftheworld
Watch out, D...that could be the point of all this. "Somebody" may want the books dusted off.
I keep two books near me.....King James and Bullingers....I have no desire to look at anything else.
Acts 13:10.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
topoftheworld,
You wrote: “I have no desire to look at anything else.”
How about looking at the response I gave you some time back? Did you do that?
Not that I want to imitate TS’s hammering nag style, but I asked you a couple of times if my response to you about the TVTs made any sense.
Most grads never suspected that the verbal traditions ever differed from what was in the record.
I never knew it until 1988 when I went back to the film class soundtrack and saw that it had Element #3 (limiting our believing to the promises of God) sprinkled all through it, while most of our late 80’s TVTs had it quite missing.
***********************************
I was away for a while and now see a bunch of posts above to respond to. Maybe soon.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
You wrote: “Shucks. I may be *sloppy* by not citing pages from PFAL, but the fact that you also (bullinger) remember this, shows (to me that even you thought) it was there. I don't really want to haul all the pfal books out of storage, but I will if I have to.”
I wish you would do that hauling. It could change your life... unless you’re totally happy with being able to proficiently operate only 3 out of 9 manifestations.
But, maybe you didn’t get what I said. I said that your lack of citing references is a shaky (not sloppy) start, if it’s limited to just what you remember and not anchored to the texts.
There are always details in the texts that our memory has either distorted or dumped. Most starts are shaky and can only be such, but what I encourage is bringing in the solid texts as soon as possible after such a start starts to shake.
What I labeled as “sloppy” was your characterization of the mystery. That was really butchered.
***
So, what did you think of the string of possible ways I suggested to resolve the Apparent Contradiction (AC)?
I thought of another one. There’s an entire drama of the First Heavens and Earth to consider, even though we have very little data on it. The idea of spiritual seed could have come from there, maybe?
As long as you’ve been harboring this AC, have you thought of ANY possible solutions like I suggested (my Method), or were you happy to see the AC (Raf’s Method) and just let it fester for years?
***
You wrote: “Docvic taught two different entities concerning this subject, and only one of them could be right. Not both.”
As far as I can see, the two entities are in an ill defined stage, and not at all ready for being declared even as an APPARENT contradiction. Maybe a WC, Wannabe Contradiction, but it’s not at all apparent to me that there's any contradiction.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Mike, why do you use "AE" for "Apparent Contradiction"? Why not "AC"? Just wondering...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
blast from the past-there ain't no "law" of believing
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navc...aw+of+believing
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom,
Oops! Thanks for pointing that out. I corrected them in my post above, but I don't know how long I've been doing that.
My error stems back years ago when me and Raf were hashing these things out on his thread. It was in our discussions back then that the nomenclature of Apparent Error (AE) and Apparent Contradiction (AC) evolved, as well as Actual Error (again AE) and Actual Contradictions (again AC). I guess I sometimes confuse them.
***
I am trying to be polite to you, but not totally accommodating.
I’m not ignoring your posts above, but they do take me considerable more time than some of the others. Your focus on me and my posting makes the discussion more convoluted, in that you and I discuss what was discussed about what we discussed long ago, AND because you hit me with multiple points so often.
With the other people our discussion is more limited to fewer points and more focused on the PFAL material instead of me. Plus, they don’t have a history of attacking me the way you came on years ago. Back than there were many on the attack and I had to develop a thick skin and a cautious manner. It will take you some time to distance yourself from that history.
***
As for my labeling “my opinion” or “my revelation” the list of pet items you relentlessly bring up, have you really thought it through what you would do with such labels?
I do.
I must consider the possibility of you dropping your polite mode and using my labels as further fuel for your fires.
But even if not, after my labeling wouldn’t you then have the curiosity as to whether my label on each item was an opinion or a revelation? Couldn’t you then engage me in even more convolutions focused on me and my labeling?
I wonder what other posters would think of you if you did the same thing with them on every point they made, if you demanded opinion/revelation labels. I think you’d be in some trouble with many others here and quickly if you did that to others.
In polite conversation people usually assume that everything someone says is an opinion and not as an absolute truth as in revelation, unless explicitly stated as absolute truth. In such conversation, to overtly label someone else’s statements as opinions carries the quiet implication that the statements are MERELY opinions and WRONG ones at that. In such situations a labeler of another gets to quietly (instead of overtly) state that the wrongness of the labeled opinion is absolute. When I see these kinds of labelers use this ploy it looks cheap to me. Anyone can do it and not have any absolute truth to back them up.
For you to ask me to do my own labeling as opinion seems to me to be an escalation of that kind of cheapness. If you are really intellectually curious, and not merely looking to have me help you in the next round of smears, then I’d suggest you limit the number of points you make inquiries of and you back off from the opinion/revelation demands altogether.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
it is not a law, it is your living breathing heart
doctrines are for getting a good idea of the truth
not some set in stone unmoveable piece of truth
finding truth - that's seeing it-believing it-that's faith
but don't stop there and come up with a bunch of mini doctrines to support it
but rather let our eyes open a bit wider to that truth and more truth
and it will change, you will change with it, faith increases
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom Strange,
I had written regarding dmiller’s AC: “Here’s a good possibility: Adam trained the animals with his personality stamped into them. Naming the animals meant far more than getting out a Dymo label maker and putting “Leo” on the lion’s collar. Adam trained them to behave the way he wanted them to behave. Adam put his mark in them.”
You wrote; “Mike... Shirley you're not serious...”
Whatsamatta, you own stock in Dymo Inc. or something?
But seriously, we were taught in Orientalisms (did you ever take it?) that when we see the word “name” in the Bible it meant a whole lot more in that Eastern Bible lands culture than the same word means to us today.
But that aside, didn’t you see the context that my passage on Adam naming the animals sits in? I can point to four spots in that context that should have answered your question. Context is a big deal. Want me to point out those four spots?
***
You wrote: “You're welcome to disagree... but PFAL was not the author of the signs, miracles and wonders. Why are you insistent on giving PFAL the glory over God?”
I still disagree. It was PFAL that wound us up. It was previous grads of PFAL who supported us in learning to think that way, that God is good and that He empowers us.
You ask “Why are you insistent on giving PFAL the glory over God?” but you omit that I accredit PFAL to God. God inspired PFAL, PFAL helped us to believe, God gets the credit.
If I thought that PFAL was NOT of God, and that PFAL produced the signs, miracles and wonders, THEN I’d be robbing god of the glory. But I thank God that He brought forth PFAL and that it helped us greatly.
***
You wrote: “I have no use for ‘a lot of essay information’ nor did I ask you to write any. All I'm asking you to type is one word for each statement listed: OPINION or TRUTH. Heck, if you want just type ‘O’ or ‘T’.”
I’m not surprised that you have no use for the an essay’s worth of information. Your eschewing of the context for your pet quotes testifies to this, and your skipping the context of my post on Adam and the animals testifies to this. Your eagerness now for my labels leads me again to suspect that you are not in the least interested in the details of WHY each item of pet quotes would get each label, which is what an essay would convey.
I have no use for your contextless, detailless curiosity being satisfied. If you want to discuss things and examine ideas, I do like that. I suggest you take that course.
***
I wrote almost the same thing before and you quoted me thusly: “Why don’t you just follow the discussion and focus on the proper target, PFAL text, and not so much on me and my text? I don’t consider your request to be a useful one. It’s a distraction.”
You responded with: “Because there's a credibility issue with you Mike. IF you claim these statements are "God's Truth" there's really no more need for discussion. If you claim they're your OPINION, well then maybe there's room for discussion.”
This saddens me, Tom.
Why would there be no discussion if a label were to be “God's Truth?”
I know that it’s not because you will then meekly accept it.
What’s the matter with someone speaking God's Truth? Are you of the opinion that no one can do that? Do you believe in the 9 manifestations? Do you believe in God? just where are YOU coming from, Tom.
If you are going to warn readers about me, shouldn’t you be open and honest about your beliefs? What do you believe? Who is your God?
***
You wrote: “Mike, what happened to your attempt to be polite?”
Being polite doesn’t mean being submissive. You must earn my respect, and you’re not starting from scratch, but from in the hole. Relax your program of discrediting me, focus on the discussion at hand, and you have a chance of earning my respect. It will take time. You have a lot of impolite posts to make up for.
***
You wrote to doojable: Dooj, IF they're his OPINIONS, then it doesn't matter... And I guess it really doesn't matter either if he thinks they're "God's Truth"... but it would be nice: 1) to know where he's coming from and 2) if Mike would quit treating us like dirt because we don't believe the way he does.”
Tom, you started it. You and many others treated me like dirt EVEN BEFORE I started posting. Want me to dig up the posts and prove it? I was the subject of ridicule here MONTHS before I ever made one post. I don’t remember if you participated in that round, but you do. I do remember in my early months of posting that you were right there with a mob of posters trying to wear me down and insult me with all sorts of junk. I can find those posts if you deny this.
I have wonderful times here discussing things with people who disagree with me. I do it in PMs and e-mails too. Most people disagree with me, but only some treat me with contempt and disrespect. It will take time for you to re-make yourself in my eyes. Discussing the topic at hand (and not me) is the only way you can do this.
***
You wrote: “He wants to share his message here. I have no problem with that, I just want people to be sure they know where he's coming from. He's not always real clear about that.”
I suggest you wear the appropriate mask and cape if you are going to rescue readers from my wily clutches. I also suggest you focus on discussing things with me to properly find out where I’m coming from, because you’ve consistently gotten me wrong for years.
And Tom, you too should tell us where YOU are coming from. I asked you some questions above that you can be clear and forthcoming about, you can do what you falsely accuse me of. I am quite clear on where I am coming from. I don’t know why you think I’m hiding anything. I post what I post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
CM,
You wrote:
“it is not a law, it is your living breathing heart
doctrines are for getting a good idea of the truth
not some set in stone unmoveable piece of truth...”
I agree with this.
The “law” part I see is addressed not to us but to the angels and devils, to the inanimate objects of the universe, to the creation. The “law” part of the law of believing is binding on God’s universe, lining up with us as we believe His Word.
In our living breathing heart we apply the elements, the doctrines, the law to each and every unique situation with heartfelt comapassion.
It was the corrupted handing of the doctrines that made them set in stone and unbendable, inflexible to adapt to new situations. It was a gross oversimplification.
I like this line: “doctrines are for getting a good idea of the truth”
The proper mix of which doctrines apply to each situation and how strongly is a heart thing, lining our hearts up with God’s.
In order for us to hear God’s advice in these matters, the doctrines need to be in there, in our hearts. We need to be ALREADY familiar with them when the time for application comes. When the time for application comes it’s too late for learning the doctrines. They already have to be in there. That’s why we were told to master PFAL. Now is the time for learning the elements of that law. First we put them inot our heart, and then God directs our hearts to uniquely apply them properly to each unique situation.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
yeah-figured-Mike you have no idea what you are talking about
you really don't know what you are doing do you
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
you say this-
and then YOU try to make it a law
WHAT happened to the LORD JESUS CHRIST
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites