Thanks Tom - you're not so strange after all - i was thinking something to that effect.
Mike, You have to stick to one set of sources. please don't use anything tht you are going to come back later and say "well, that source isn't realy a 'God-breathed' source.'"
If you mix up the sources don't be surprised if WE mix them up - and all your explaining really doesn't help - it just appears to be you changing the tune to fit the dance.
I’m not changing the tune; it’s just that you haven’t heard all the notes yet. In past posts, before you entered the fray, we’ve been through this issue before.
I stick to a fairly consistent set of rules, and I've stated them several times the past.
Often posters don’t see these rules, paying too much attention to mounting their stratergery for counting my posts.
Then again, sometimes posters like you enter the fray many months after I clarify my position, and need me to repeat these things.
It would be interesting if I searched all my posts to see if I forget any details here (I’m winging it), but I’ll state my position again:
There is a fairly well defined set of writings with VPW’s name attached in “book and magazine form”
that I look to as the last word, the most authoritative say on God’s Word and will expressed to grads,
generally Older Leader-type Grads (OLGs).
One of the rough edges that I’m still working on is that this set starts around 1971 with the issuing of the first set of book-form collaterals to the class.
I’m clear about excluding from study Dr’s old (1952?) book “Victory in Christ” and his mid 50’s monograph “The Dilemma of Foreign Missions in India.”
My familiarity with all the magazine articles is weaker than what I have so far accomplished with the books. I have focused on the magazine articles more towards the end of Dr’s life more so far in my work, with less familiarity on the 70’s articles, and almost none of articles before the 70’s.
The small collateral booklets that came with the class prior to 1971 are outside my primary set of writings for study and mastery, although I have looked a lot at the differences between the old large booklet “The Church, the Great Mystery Revealed” and it’s replacement chapter in the GMWD in 1977. Probably will also look at the other large booklet "Studies n Human Suffering" for the same reason: they came with the class up until '77.
I’m happy to have learned from U of L and all the ministry's seminars and other old ministry “publications and teachings” but I only dabble in them and they take a decidedly second seat to the “book and magazine form” set I have “fairly” well defined. There can be error here like the caveat dmiller discovered admits.
I do not attach any value whatsoever to what Dr spoke in private to any group or individual. There may BE value there, but not for me, and it won't be included in my study.
There are a few other items of interest to me, but I'm not sure where they sit, like the "Green" Bluebook, a precursor to BTMS, and some later booklets. I don't have time to detail this list right now.
When I study or cite sources outside this special set of writings I am braced to find error mixed in, but I do also see many benefits secondary sources can contribute, such as documentation of ministry history and augmentation of points found in my “book and magazine form” mastery project.
You wrote: “no response mike? __ thinkin it over? don't even want any kind of clarification?”
There’s no response for several reasons, but thinking it over is not one of them.
Here are some reasons:
1) I have little time, but that may change today as the rains are coming.
2) There are many posts that I haven’t even read on the past two pages; yours included. I get hit with ideas from all angles, if you haven’t noticed. You are not the only one who is getting “no response.”
3) One way to help yourself gain a higher priority in my “response list” is to be less insulting. Keep up the current tone and you will get even less response form me.
4) Another way to guarantee a lowered status in my response priorities is to make it hard for me to read your posts. Hey! I’m all for artistic and individualistic expression, but a little cleaning up of your grammar and punctuation will go a long way to actually getting your ideas across.
It would be interesting if I searched all my posts to see if I forget any details here (I’m winging it), but I’ll state my position again:
There is a fairly well defined set of writings with VPW’s name attached in “book and magazine form”
that I look to as the last word, the most authoritative say on God’s Word and will expressed to grads,
generally Older Leader-type Grads (OLGs).
One of the rough edges that I’m still working on is that this set starts around 1971 with the issuing of the first set of book-form collaterals to the class.
I’m clear about excluding from study Dr’s old (1952?) book “Victory in Christ” and his mid 50’s monograph “The Dilemma of Foreign Missions in India.”
My familiarity with all the magazine articles is weaker than what I have so far accomplished with the books. I have focused on the magazine articles more towards the end of Dr’s life more so far in my work, with less familiarity on the 70’s articles, and almost none of articles before the 70’s.
The small collateral booklets that came with the class prior to 1971 are outside my primary set of writings for study and mastery, although I have looked a lot at the differences between the old large booklet “The Church, the Great Mystery Revealed” and it’s replacement chapter in the GMWD in 1977. Probably will also look at the other large booklet "Studies n Human Suffering" for the same reason: they came with the class up until '77.
I’m happy to have learned from U of L and all the ministry's seminars and other old ministry “publications and teachings” but I only dabble in them and they take a decidedly second seat to the “book and magazine form” set I have “fairly” well defined. There can be error here like the caveat dmiller discovered admits.
I do not attach any value whatsoever to what Dr spoke in private to any group or individual. There may BE value there, but not for me, and it won't be included in my study.
There are a few other items of interest to me, but I'm not sure where they sit, like the "Green" Bluebook, a precursor to BTMS, and some later booklets. I don't have time to detail this list right now.
When I study or cite sources outside this special set of writings I am braced to find error mixed in, but I do also see many benefits secondary sources can contribute, such as documentation of ministry history and augmentation of points found in my “book and magazine form” mastery project.
Mike (not a bad job of 'winging it'... with all due respect... to me it just sounds like you're taking veepee's written works going through them and deciding that "this one is" and "this one isn't" and then deciding "from this point to this point it all is" and then go back to choosing again...
at least I think that's what you're saying up there... which is fine, it's your opinion... unless you've got some stone tablets that you brought down from a mountaintop or something...
CM,
4) Another way to guarantee a lowered status in my response priorities is to make it hard for me to read your posts. Hey! I’m all for artistic and individualistic expression, but a little cleaning up of your grammar and punctuation will go a long way to actually getting your ideas across.
Mike... tsk tsk... come on now... keep it above the belt... no one is flipping your posts around and showing where you used poor grammar or mis-spelled words... none of us has a last name of "Webster" ...at least I don't think so...
So the established fact that Wierwille did not believe his written works to be what Mike considers them to be, and that he expressed this view to others who directly asked him about it, is not valid to dismiss Mike's thesis. Funny. Not even VPW agreed with Mike's thesis.
This would seem odd, Raf. Paul was very bold about his writings and was very frequent in his insistance that God told him what to write - as did Luke and John.
Now Mike, here we go, you're looking at tapes. Please provide the quote with a lot of context from the book. I wasn't even in twi when the tapes you speak of came out - so i'm discounting them. If this quote is one of the "22" I'm sure that I don't see things the same as you do....
You also wrote:
There is a fairly well defined set of writings with VPW’s name attached in “book and magazine form”
that I look to as the last word, the most authoritative say on God’s Word and will expressed to grads,
generally Older Leader-type Grads (OLGs).
But I don't see any mention of tapes here. In fact, I find it disturbing that you place no value whatsoever on what he spoke in private because even dr used to say that "in private' is where a man truly lives. In fact, "in private' is where he made his biggest offenses - and they should count for something - even if you don't like what they count for.
Why is it such a complex idea to you that I’d place a differing status to differing types of teachings of Dr’s?
I cite tapes to show things regarding ministry history, and they serve some other purposes too. But the “last word” or the most authoritative level of Dr’s teachings is “it is written.”
If there is a contradiction between what is on tape and in print, the print wins.
I do not prohibit myself from citing tapes, even though I see they command the lesser authority than print carries.
If someone cites a tape or something else from TWI that is not from Dr’s “book and magazine form” teaching I do not prohibit such a citing, I simply refuse to allow it to command the authority of “it is written.”
***
You asked me to cite evidence of Dr’s earlier years overt insistence of his authority to present God’s Word. I did not cite that in this thread’s immediate context because I had already done so in the 22 “thus saith” statements I presented earlier in this thread.
CM, has provided a link above to an unabridged version of one of the items I included in abbreviated form in those “22 statements.”
***
You wrote: “In fact, I find it disturbing that you place no value whatsoever on what he spoke in private because even dr used to say that "in private' is where a man truly lives. In fact, "in private' is where he made his biggest offenses - and they should count for something - even if you don't like what they count for.”
Ok, let’s feel free to utilize Dr’s private statements, and let’s elevate them to a status above what he put on tape and in print. Dr told me privately that I was to take over the ministry after Craig failed. He told me in private that if you don’t sell all your possessions and give me the money, that God wouldn’t spit in your direction. We can feel free to discount anything Dr did or printed in public if what he told me in private contradicts it.
Hey! I just may have an element of sarcasm in my voice here, but I have seen attitudes not too different from the above alive and seriously entertained in more than a few clergy over the years. The entire Geer group rests on exactly such a foundation.
Doojable, can you cite the record (tape or print) where Dr shared what you report here?
None of us places any weight on what "Dr." said in private. So if he told you those things, so what? But YOU do place weight on what he said in private (and you're lying through your teeth if you say otherwise).
I guarantee that if VPW told you in private that you were on the right track, you'd suddenly talk about how important and vital his private communications were.
Wierwille did not believe what you're saying about PFAL.
How do we know this?
1. None of the people closest to him testifies he felt that way.
2. A credible poster had a specific conversation with him about it, and Wierwille made his position clear.
You're deluded, Mike. You're wasting your time and, sad to say, your life.
My policy towards ignoring Dr’s private statements is an absolute necessity, and is well locked in place. It’s needed to protect from the wide divergence of what people claim (usually false claims) what he said in private.
Even credible posters can read their own beliefs into a subtle conversation they had many years ago. And when they refuse cross examination they’re credibility on that issue drops a bit.
I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the exact same “reading into” went on for that poster you have in mind as goes on here all the time regarding PFAL page 83. Dr was very clear on that page that his sense knowledge ideas were just as unreliable as anyone else’s, BUT that what God taught him by revelation was solid rock.
People here have shown me they can easily latch onto Dr’s warning on page 83 that his sense knowledge was unreliable, and can simultaneously ignore totally the “God-breathed” and “necessarily” connection in the same sentence.
With a private conversation a similar mistake is even easier to make, since the context can be so easily lost in the shuffle. With page 83 I can point out the words that are continually ignored.
***
I totally expect the people closest to Dr to be the MOST blinded by his flesh, according to the principle behind Matthew 13:57.
The people closest to Jesus, who MADE the statement in Matthew 13:57, stood by his claims. True, family members wavered. I'm sure some friends did too. But 11 of the 12 all declared him Messiah after his death and resurrection.
Fast forward to Wierwille: the people closest to him all, to a person, say your claim is false. It takes a few degrees of separation to arrive at your particular delusion, and no one, not even Wierwille himself can talk you out of it.
Waste of life. And a waste of potential Christian service.
You wrote: “...to me it just sounds like you're taking veepee's written works going through them and deciding that "this one is" and "this one isn't" and then deciding "from this point to this point it all is" and then go back to choosing again... __ at least I think that's what you're saying up there... which is fine, it's your opinion... unless you've got some stone tablets that you brought down from a mountaintop or something...”
I do have such stone tablets.
It’s not at all a matter of whimsy for me. I do my picking and choosing according to principles, and it was done long ago, before I started posting, not on-the-fly.
The principle is “It Is Written,” the motto of the Way Corps.
It’s obvious that Dr’s teaching evolved over the decades from spoken to written. The written is the final end-product of the 1942 promise where Dr was to “teach others.”
Towards the end of Dr’s life, starting slowly in 1975, he is on record pointing to the written record of his teaching as what needs to be mastered by us.
***
As for your defense of CM’s grammar and punctuation, you omitted the context of my remarks. He was complaining that I was not responding to him, so I gave him some tips for getting better attention.
“Mike... it's OK... they're your opinions and you believe them... there's nothing at all wrong with that...”
What you really mean to say here, though, is:
“Mike, they’re MERELY your opinions, and they’re wrong. This is not merely Tom’s opinion, it’s the absolute truth.”
Why don’t you fully write out what you mean to claim? I know why. By hiding it in an implication it sounds more authoritative and gives the listener less of a handle to deal with it in disagreement.
***
You wrote: “I think part of what confuses me when you're posting your opinions Mike, is that you "switch back and forth from different sources. I would think it might be easier to follow if when you're trying to convince us of your argument that "PFAL is God-breathed", that you use the one "God-breathed" source to help prove that. It doesn't make sense (to me) to use sources that aren't "God-breathed" because how could you prove they were true?”
Here it is in outline form.
Doctrine – Book and magazine form, with vpw’s name on it.
History – Anything in the print and tape record.
***
You wrote: “I never, ever heard or read where veepee said to elevate PFAL over the KJV or the Bible. I often heard and read where he said PFAL was to be used (a tool) to help understand the Bible or KJV. But if that's your opinion...”
From the film class were taught that the KJV was a tool, and not The Word in itself. You may have forgotten.
Toward the end of Dr’s life are many records where he pointed to the collaterals and said they needed to be mastered. He did not point to any version of the Bible like that in those years.
***
You wrote: “Oh... and dooj's analogy with the hammer/chisel/coconut was a good one, there were tools and there was food. __ Your analogy was a nice try, but not the same comparison. You took food that could be used as a tool and compared it... a different thing all together.”
Doojable deliberately took tools that could not be eaten to illustrate her argument, not prove it.
Likewise I deliberately took tools that COULD be eaten to illustrate my argument, not prove it.
When Wierwille said "I didn't write the book," he was referring to "The Cat in the Hat" and "Anna Karenina." He was not referring to the PFAL series.
You are so adept at twisting words that Wierwille could say the sky is blue, not brown, blonde or periwinkle, and you would argue that the sky is fuschia because fuschia is not brown, blonde or periwinkle.
One positive thing about threads like this, is it shows the classic textbook case (Smikeol) of what delusion really is.
Somebody ought to submit all of his PFAL-is-God-breathed related threads to the American Psychiatric Association for distribution to various medical colleges & universities for educational purposes.
Which is precisely why I never argue with the boy - or people that wear tinfoil hats, or have lengthy discussions with invisible friends, or hear voices, or...
Some things just don't make any sense to fool with...
Oh, George, you're obviously are arguing with this boy right now, just not daring to face me.
To place another thing above board that you might like to keep under, your criteria for discussion buddies excludes Moses, Jesus, and Paul, to name a few.
Oh, George, you're obviously are arguing with this boy right now, just not daring to face me."
Yeah, I'm skeered.
"To place another thing above board that you might like to keep under, your criteria for discussion buddies excludes Moses, Jesus, and Paul, to name a few."
Yeah, that's fine with me, and it also excludes the guys in the urine-soaked jeans, jabbering to noone in particular on the street corner downtown. Lunacy is unappealing to me, no matter how respectable it gets dressed up...
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
doojable
Thanks Tom - you're not so strange after all - i was thinking something to that effect.
Mike, You have to stick to one set of sources. please don't use anything tht you are going to come back later and say "well, that source isn't realy a 'God-breathed' source.'"
If you mix up the sources don't be surprised if WE mix them up - and all your explaining really doesn't help - it just appears to be you changing the tune to fit the dance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
doojable,
I’m not changing the tune; it’s just that you haven’t heard all the notes yet. In past posts, before you entered the fray, we’ve been through this issue before.
I stick to a fairly consistent set of rules, and I've stated them several times the past.
Often posters don’t see these rules, paying too much attention to mounting their stratergery for counting my posts.
Then again, sometimes posters like you enter the fray many months after I clarify my position, and need me to repeat these things.
It would be interesting if I searched all my posts to see if I forget any details here (I’m winging it), but I’ll state my position again:
There is a fairly well defined set of writings with VPW’s name attached in “book and magazine form”
that I look to as the last word, the most authoritative say on God’s Word and will expressed to grads,
generally Older Leader-type Grads (OLGs).
One of the rough edges that I’m still working on is that this set starts around 1971 with the issuing of the first set of book-form collaterals to the class.
I’m clear about excluding from study Dr’s old (1952?) book “Victory in Christ” and his mid 50’s monograph “The Dilemma of Foreign Missions in India.”
My familiarity with all the magazine articles is weaker than what I have so far accomplished with the books. I have focused on the magazine articles more towards the end of Dr’s life more so far in my work, with less familiarity on the 70’s articles, and almost none of articles before the 70’s.
The small collateral booklets that came with the class prior to 1971 are outside my primary set of writings for study and mastery, although I have looked a lot at the differences between the old large booklet “The Church, the Great Mystery Revealed” and it’s replacement chapter in the GMWD in 1977. Probably will also look at the other large booklet "Studies n Human Suffering" for the same reason: they came with the class up until '77.
I’m happy to have learned from U of L and all the ministry's seminars and other old ministry “publications and teachings” but I only dabble in them and they take a decidedly second seat to the “book and magazine form” set I have “fairly” well defined. There can be error here like the caveat dmiller discovered admits.
I do not attach any value whatsoever to what Dr spoke in private to any group or individual. There may BE value there, but not for me, and it won't be included in my study.
There are a few other items of interest to me, but I'm not sure where they sit, like the "Green" Bluebook, a precursor to BTMS, and some later booklets. I don't have time to detail this list right now.
When I study or cite sources outside this special set of writings I am braced to find error mixed in, but I do also see many benefits secondary sources can contribute, such as documentation of ministry history and augmentation of points found in my “book and magazine form” mastery project.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
CM,
You wrote: “no response mike? __ thinkin it over? don't even want any kind of clarification?”
There’s no response for several reasons, but thinking it over is not one of them.
Here are some reasons:
1) I have little time, but that may change today as the rains are coming.
2) There are many posts that I haven’t even read on the past two pages; yours included. I get hit with ideas from all angles, if you haven’t noticed. You are not the only one who is getting “no response.”
3) One way to help yourself gain a higher priority in my “response list” is to be less insulting. Keep up the current tone and you will get even less response form me.
4) Another way to guarantee a lowered status in my response priorities is to make it hard for me to read your posts. Hey! I’m all for artistic and individualistic expression, but a little cleaning up of your grammar and punctuation will go a long way to actually getting your ideas across.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
There was no insults and the grammar and punctuation is fine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Maybe I was thinking of someone else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Mike (not a bad job of 'winging it'... with all due respect... to me it just sounds like you're taking veepee's written works going through them and deciding that "this one is" and "this one isn't" and then deciding "from this point to this point it all is" and then go back to choosing again...
at least I think that's what you're saying up there... which is fine, it's your opinion... unless you've got some stone tablets that you brought down from a mountaintop or something...
Mike... tsk tsk... come on now... keep it above the belt... no one is flipping your posts around and showing where you used poor grammar or mis-spelled words... none of us has a last name of "Webster" ...at least I don't think so...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
So the established fact that Wierwille did not believe his written works to be what Mike considers them to be, and that he expressed this view to others who directly asked him about it, is not valid to dismiss Mike's thesis. Funny. Not even VPW agreed with Mike's thesis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
This would seem odd, Raf. Paul was very bold about his writings and was very frequent in his insistance that God told him what to write - as did Luke and John.
This is not the case with vpw.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
doojable,
It IS the case with vpw.
You just need to look in his early record for it.
Many SNS tapes in the low 200's have this.
It's in a major book, published in 1971.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Now Mike, here we go, you're looking at tapes. Please provide the quote with a lot of context from the book. I wasn't even in twi when the tapes you speak of came out - so i'm discounting them. If this quote is one of the "22" I'm sure that I don't see things the same as you do....
You also wrote:
There is a fairly well defined set of writings with VPW’s name attached in “book and magazine form”
that I look to as the last word, the most authoritative say on God’s Word and will expressed to grads,
generally Older Leader-type Grads (OLGs).
But I don't see any mention of tapes here. In fact, I find it disturbing that you place no value whatsoever on what he spoke in private because even dr used to say that "in private' is where a man truly lives. In fact, "in private' is where he made his biggest offenses - and they should count for something - even if you don't like what they count for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
doojable,
this was posted a long time ago
by another poster
keep a barf bag close....
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...topic=1871&st=0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
doojable,
Why is it such a complex idea to you that I’d place a differing status to differing types of teachings of Dr’s?
I cite tapes to show things regarding ministry history, and they serve some other purposes too. But the “last word” or the most authoritative level of Dr’s teachings is “it is written.”
If there is a contradiction between what is on tape and in print, the print wins.
I do not prohibit myself from citing tapes, even though I see they command the lesser authority than print carries.
If someone cites a tape or something else from TWI that is not from Dr’s “book and magazine form” teaching I do not prohibit such a citing, I simply refuse to allow it to command the authority of “it is written.”
***
You asked me to cite evidence of Dr’s earlier years overt insistence of his authority to present God’s Word. I did not cite that in this thread’s immediate context because I had already done so in the 22 “thus saith” statements I presented earlier in this thread.
CM, has provided a link above to an unabridged version of one of the items I included in abbreviated form in those “22 statements.”
***
You wrote: “In fact, I find it disturbing that you place no value whatsoever on what he spoke in private because even dr used to say that "in private' is where a man truly lives. In fact, "in private' is where he made his biggest offenses - and they should count for something - even if you don't like what they count for.”
Ok, let’s feel free to utilize Dr’s private statements, and let’s elevate them to a status above what he put on tape and in print. Dr told me privately that I was to take over the ministry after Craig failed. He told me in private that if you don’t sell all your possessions and give me the money, that God wouldn’t spit in your direction. We can feel free to discount anything Dr did or printed in public if what he told me in private contradicts it.
Hey! I just may have an element of sarcasm in my voice here, but I have seen attitudes not too different from the above alive and seriously entertained in more than a few clergy over the years. The entire Geer group rests on exactly such a foundation.
Doojable, can you cite the record (tape or print) where Dr shared what you report here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Umm, Mike, the difference is this:
None of us places any weight on what "Dr." said in private. So if he told you those things, so what? But YOU do place weight on what he said in private (and you're lying through your teeth if you say otherwise).
I guarantee that if VPW told you in private that you were on the right track, you'd suddenly talk about how important and vital his private communications were.
Wierwille did not believe what you're saying about PFAL.
How do we know this?
1. None of the people closest to him testifies he felt that way.
2. A credible poster had a specific conversation with him about it, and Wierwille made his position clear.
You're deluded, Mike. You're wasting your time and, sad to say, your life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Raf,
My policy towards ignoring Dr’s private statements is an absolute necessity, and is well locked in place. It’s needed to protect from the wide divergence of what people claim (usually false claims) what he said in private.
Even credible posters can read their own beliefs into a subtle conversation they had many years ago. And when they refuse cross examination they’re credibility on that issue drops a bit.
I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the exact same “reading into” went on for that poster you have in mind as goes on here all the time regarding PFAL page 83. Dr was very clear on that page that his sense knowledge ideas were just as unreliable as anyone else’s, BUT that what God taught him by revelation was solid rock.
People here have shown me they can easily latch onto Dr’s warning on page 83 that his sense knowledge was unreliable, and can simultaneously ignore totally the “God-breathed” and “necessarily” connection in the same sentence.
With a private conversation a similar mistake is even easier to make, since the context can be so easily lost in the shuffle. With page 83 I can point out the words that are continually ignored.
***
I totally expect the people closest to Dr to be the MOST blinded by his flesh, according to the principle behind Matthew 13:57.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
HCW: Hey, Doc. Are your works God-breathed?
VPW: No.
Very subtle.
The people closest to Jesus, who MADE the statement in Matthew 13:57, stood by his claims. True, family members wavered. I'm sure some friends did too. But 11 of the 12 all declared him Messiah after his death and resurrection.
Fast forward to Wierwille: the people closest to him all, to a person, say your claim is false. It takes a few degrees of separation to arrive at your particular delusion, and no one, not even Wierwille himself can talk you out of it.
Waste of life. And a waste of potential Christian service.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom Strange,
You wrote: “...to me it just sounds like you're taking veepee's written works going through them and deciding that "this one is" and "this one isn't" and then deciding "from this point to this point it all is" and then go back to choosing again... __ at least I think that's what you're saying up there... which is fine, it's your opinion... unless you've got some stone tablets that you brought down from a mountaintop or something...”
I do have such stone tablets.
It’s not at all a matter of whimsy for me. I do my picking and choosing according to principles, and it was done long ago, before I started posting, not on-the-fly.
The principle is “It Is Written,” the motto of the Way Corps.
It’s obvious that Dr’s teaching evolved over the decades from spoken to written. The written is the final end-product of the 1942 promise where Dr was to “teach others.”
Towards the end of Dr’s life, starting slowly in 1975, he is on record pointing to the written record of his teaching as what needs to be mastered by us.
***
As for your defense of CM’s grammar and punctuation, you omitted the context of my remarks. He was complaining that I was not responding to him, so I gave him some tips for getting better attention.
************************************************************
************************************************************
************************************************************
************************************************************
Raf,
HCW: Hey, Doc. Are your works God-breathed?
VPW: No.
Mike: Hey Doc. Are the collaterals your works?
VPW: No. I didn't write the book.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom Strange,
You wrote:
“Mike... it's OK... they're your opinions and you believe them... there's nothing at all wrong with that...”
What you really mean to say here, though, is:
“Mike, they’re MERELY your opinions, and they’re wrong. This is not merely Tom’s opinion, it’s the absolute truth.”
Why don’t you fully write out what you mean to claim? I know why. By hiding it in an implication it sounds more authoritative and gives the listener less of a handle to deal with it in disagreement.
***
You wrote: “I think part of what confuses me when you're posting your opinions Mike, is that you "switch back and forth from different sources. I would think it might be easier to follow if when you're trying to convince us of your argument that "PFAL is God-breathed", that you use the one "God-breathed" source to help prove that. It doesn't make sense (to me) to use sources that aren't "God-breathed" because how could you prove they were true?”
Here it is in outline form.
Doctrine – Book and magazine form, with vpw’s name on it.
History – Anything in the print and tape record.
***
You wrote: “I never, ever heard or read where veepee said to elevate PFAL over the KJV or the Bible. I often heard and read where he said PFAL was to be used (a tool) to help understand the Bible or KJV. But if that's your opinion...”
From the film class were taught that the KJV was a tool, and not The Word in itself. You may have forgotten.
Toward the end of Dr’s life are many records where he pointed to the collaterals and said they needed to be mastered. He did not point to any version of the Bible like that in those years.
***
You wrote: “Oh... and dooj's analogy with the hammer/chisel/coconut was a good one, there were tools and there was food. __ Your analogy was a nice try, but not the same comparison. You took food that could be used as a tool and compared it... a different thing all together.”
Doojable deliberately took tools that could not be eaten to illustrate her argument, not prove it.
Likewise I deliberately took tools that COULD be eaten to illustrate my argument, not prove it.
The proof is NOT in the pudding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mike,
When Wierwille said "I didn't write the book," he was referring to "The Cat in the Hat" and "Anna Karenina." He was not referring to the PFAL series.
You are so adept at twisting words that Wierwille could say the sky is blue, not brown, blonde or periwinkle, and you would argue that the sky is fuschia because fuschia is not brown, blonde or periwinkle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
lol....if mike wasn't really a person
this would even be funnier
"I didn't write the book"
lol...lol...lol....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
One positive thing about threads like this, is it shows the classic textbook case (Smikeol) of what delusion really is.
Somebody ought to submit all of his PFAL-is-God-breathed related threads to the American Psychiatric Association for distribution to various medical colleges & universities for educational purposes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Garth,
Which is precisely why I never argue with the boy - or people that wear tinfoil hats, or have lengthy discussions with invisible friends, or hear voices, or...
Some things just don't make any sense to fool with...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oh, George, you're obviously are arguing with this boy right now, just not daring to face me.
To place another thing above board that you might like to keep under, your criteria for discussion buddies excludes Moses, Jesus, and Paul, to name a few.
No pain, no gain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Look who's talking about daring to face!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Link to comment
Share on other sites