Can you even read? Tell you what, I'll give you a pass on that ignorant statement since you were probably writing it before I added an explanation in an edit.
But Jeez, the way you guys twist words to mean something other than that which is plainly stated leads me to understand fully why you take the positions you take.
The idea that someone must know PFAL inside and out to point out an actual error is ludicrous.
Anything man produces will have errors in it. Some of the pages in the PFAL collaterals are printed crooked, and in some instances I found cases where a word has been repeated repeated in the text. (I purposely typed repeated twice). The point is, how far does one want to go in pointing out errors - are they errors that even matter?
I don't know the first thing about filmmaking, but I know that Ed Wood was lousy at it.
I could make some comments about filmaking here, but will decidedly hold my tongue for now.
I don't know everything about PFAL, but I know there are errors in it.
So do I, but the crookedly printed pages, the repeated words and whatever other errors people want to debate about haven't distracted me from the Christian gospel.
First things first, when people say there are errors in PFAL, they are not talking about typos or crooked type. This is a silly attempt at distraction from the real issue. Not one error pointed out by anyone has ever said "the type on p. 32 is a little off-kilter: aha! PFAL is not God-breathed."
How far does one want to go in pointing out errors? Well, if you want to get utterly nitpicky, you could talk about crooked type and typos. But the only people who have mentioned such errors are you and Mike. Let's try a few things of a little more substance: The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven are Biblically synonymous. Wierwille said they weren't. The Jews had a name for God that was both pronounceable and pronounced. Wierwille said God had no pronounceable name.
How far do we go in discussing errors? Let me reverse it: how many errors (not typos, not page alignment issues) does it take for PFAL to still have the value you ascribe to it, yet not be what Mike claims it to be? According to the standard of PFAL, the answer is one. We've pointed out far more than that, just to confront the error of "PFAL is God-breathed."
Do you disagree with every single item on the actual errors list? ALL of them? Or do you believe PFAL to be error-free (typos and page/text alignment notwithstanding)?
By the way, I will concede that the existence of typos or misaligned text or anything else of that trivial miniscule irrelevant nature does not disprove Mike's thesis.
are they errors that even matter?
Why, they make all the difference int he world between a perfect, inerrant word of God and a crumbled, jumbled piece of writing, or something like that. That's PFAL's standard.
You're making up rules and then complaining he didn't follow them.
It was a FAMILY, not a University or a brute marketplace.
dmiller,
You wrote: “No --- I am not making up rules. __ Go to any university (I assume there is one there in San Diego -- maybe not), and ask any professor how it works.”
I had just written to you that the Way was not a University, nor a brute marketplace. Then you tell me to seek out the rules at a University!
Ho-kay -- I read what you wrote the first time and I'll cut a little slack on your second response.
Granted -- twi was SUPPOSED to be a family, and the folks there got the books.
No need for citing sources amongst *family* members?
Meebe I'll even agree with that (for now -- though it rankles).
What you either fail to realize (or are completely ignoring), is the fact that
those books were for sale to ANYONE who forked over the cash.
The books were on sale at EVERY public event twi hosted.
No *grad ID* was required for someone to buy a book.
You could show up at the Rock, and buy whatever you wanted -- no questions.
If *Joe off the street* bought a book, twi scrambled to get a follow-up on the guy.
Shucks -- I remember once when twi suggested donating books to the local public library,
so that they would be *out there* for folks to read.
So what's the point?? The point is --- FAMILY wasn't the only group of people reading.
And especially -- if those books were placed in a public venue (like the library), they were out there for anyone to read, and no proper credits given, like every other book there would have had.
Don't say docvic wasn't bound by *literary law* because of *family*.
He is guilty as charged. (Hmm -- does the *P* in his name stand for *plagiarizer*)?
Have you thought of adding to your argumentation devices of insulting phrases a scowling nasty face for you avatar picture? Maybe you’ll find me at a weak moment and together the insults and the scowl will convince me to embrace your god.
Mike, because I haven't taken you off ignore, I missed this earlier statement. Good one. Of course, you'd know all about resorting to ad hominem attacks, having used them so ineffectually so often since you began posting here. By the way, at least I have the courage to SHOW my face around here.
Nice touch, typing "god" with a lower case "g" to get my goat. Where did you get that stroke of brilliance from? Oh yeah, ME! Dude, at least get an original insult.
It is good to see you finally acknowledge, however, that you and I worship different deities.
I've never found you at anything other than your weak moments.
I don’t know what you meant by drama. I do know it’s not what I want, though.
I guess what kind of grads I’m looking for to discuss these things deeply are the Karl Barth types.
Karl Barth was the European theologian that Dr mentions in the class that he went to visit to talk about holy spirit. When Dr got Barth to focus on the manifestations being manifestations of the gift, and not a gift in themselves, Barth sat back and said that if Dr was right it would mean a complete re-thinking of the entire holy spirit field.
We have a similar situation. Dr teaches us wonderful things, but like rebellious teenagers with a modicum of knowledge, we drifted fast and far from the fine details that Dr was wanting to transmit to us as we matured a little. Dr patiently dealt with this situation gently stepping up the intensity of his urging us to master the WRITTEN portion of the class, but we felt comfortable with the spoken pretty well mastered, and the collaterals pretty less well mastered, and we didn’t hear him.
So for ten years we ignore these pleas of his, and then the year of his death he issues two urgings in one magazine to us that we need to do a Barth Makeover of our whole theology, and stating twice in the same issue that it’s an emergency situation with dark clouds hanging over us. Then a few weeks later, the last time a tape recorder is catching his very few last words to us, he twice tells us to master the collaterals.
So what do we do? Nothing. All of his last words to us fall to the ground. We keep on doing our own thing, building our own broken cisterns, researching our own projects.
So, now 20 years later, the indisputable documentation of this grad scandal comes out. Like Barth, we grads should be shaken to the core by what we missed 20 years ago. Any Corps member who hasn’t gotten talked into completely doubting the genuine ministry God gave Dr, but yet cannot see that this is an emergency situation calling for nothing but a complete suspension of all ministering activity, and a starting over where we missed so much 20 years ago, then I have no alternative but to never expect that grad to get anything spiritually right.
A simple guy, you’ve seen Dr’s last teaching here, I’m assuming. If not PM me and I will e-mail you a copy. It’s posted in several locations here at GSC too. I know that you have now seen those two magazine urgings to do a theological makeover. Let’s see how obedient you are to the teacher I think you still respect. And the same goes for other Corps people here, but most of them are so jaded by now to this information they can’t hear it.
Mike, I always cringe when anyone makes sweeping generalizations. Your comments about the Corps concern me deeply.
Many other than corps have decided to just stop the fight with you. On the other hand, not all corps are the same.
Perhaps there is a bond that unites many of us ( and yes I was corps) we shared many experiences and saw things that we can discuss with each other. There is a reason why so many are rejecting your theory. WE saw first hand a lot of what went on. Many saw and some even experienced the sins of VPW and his trusted friends. If you are equating Dr to the likes of the apostles Paul and Peter and John et al, you have a problem in that at least 2 of them wrote about being above rebuke and having self control - that is simply not the example Dr protrayed.
If he wanted us to follow him he would have been like Paul and given us more to trust and something more solid to mimic. Sometimes you come across as resenting the fact that you were not in the Corps. That's just an impression and not an accusation - but it is a strong impression.
As to the Pfal - God breathed thing.... Jesus Christ was the Living Word and He always pointed the way to the Father. He rarely even pointed to himself except to say that he was the way TO THE FATHER.
I fail to see how PFAL does the same - at least the way you handle yourself. You seem to want us to focus on the class and see how the class points the way to itself and Dr's ministry - hmmmmmm. PFAL is a compilation of works that help make sense of the Bible. To the extent that it acccomplishes that it also points the way to the Father and his son. But the focus must be on the latter and not the former -
...we drifted fast and far from the fine details that Dr was wanting to transmit to us as we matured a little. Dr patiently dealt with this situation gently stepping up the intensity of his urging us to master the WRITTEN portion of the class, but we felt comfortable with the spoken pretty well mastered, and the collaterals pretty less well mastered, and we didn’t hear him.
On this point I can concur with you Mike. A single detail can make all the difference between truth and error - between the genuine and the counterfeit. To make the point of drifting fast and far from the fine details in PFAL even clearer, it was previously stated there is no difference between The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven and that they were synonymous. The exact quote was written in an earlier post:
The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven are Biblically synonymous. Wierwille said they weren't.
One is never given the "details" on how VPW came to that conclusion, mainly because the "critic" didn't master the material themselves. (That is not their purpose and it never will be. But they always seem to want you to believe they are a master on something they never bother with mastering themselves.) To see the "finer details" one must refer back to what was actually written in TNDC. [My own comments are bracketed.] From TNDC - Chapter 1. Ekklesia, Bride or Body? [starting on p.6]
"Before we go further, it is necessary to clarify the difference between the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God has no beginning and no ending. The Kingdom of God spans all existance. However [here is the detail that was neglected and never mentioned] under this all-expansive Kingdom of God are several periods, one of which is the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven period is for the called-out of Israel, the church of Israel, which is the bride of Christ. Each time the Kingdom of Heaven is referred to, the personal presence of the King Himself upon earth is designated. [This is not necessarily true when the bible refers to the Kingdom of God however - that the King (Jesus) upon earth is also designated.]
The word "kingdom" is made up of two words: king and dom meaning "reign or supremacy." There cannot be a kingdom without a king. Great Britain can speak of itself as a kingdom because of the reign of a king or queen. Citizens of the United States of America cannot speak of their land as a kingdom for there is no monarch. While Jesus Christ was on earth, it was His reign. During His reign He called out those people of Israel who believed in Him as the Messiah. Not only did Jesus Himself minister to the people of Israel, but He also sent the twelve apostles to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He told them not to go unto the Gentiles because Jesus had come unto God's own, Israel, and called out from Israel those who were to make up the bride. Jesus Christ was the Bridegroom. The church, the called-out of Israel, was called the bride while the Bridegroom was on the earth.
But what happened to the Bridegroom? He was nailed to the cross. When the King of the Kingdom was crucified, the church as the bride was interrupted because the Bridegroom was dead. As previously noted, God promised that there would be no end to the Kingdom of Heaven, but man killed the King.* [The * points to this footnote: Luke 1:33 "And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."] What happened to God's promise? God promised that when the King came He would build the church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. But the when the King was crucified, the Bridegroom was dead, and it appeared that the Kingdom had been defeated. However, this is not so, for the church of the bride is yet to be fulfilled in the future. The same church referred to in Revelation is again the church of the bride, just as it ws in the Gospels.* [This * points to the footnote: The church described and spoken of in the book of Revelation has nothing to do with our time and our administration.]"
I have cited a fairly lengthy passage from TNDC for a specific purpose. It proves VPW went to great lengths and into great detail in PFAL - details many PFAL grads tend to "gloss over" and completely miss. The reason I cited this passage is to prove these details were not just there to establish the difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, but they are also used to establish the difference between the church of the bride and the church of the body. When you read the rest of this chapter you will come away with the conclusion the church of the bride and the church of the body are no more synonomous with one another than are the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven.
Whether you agree with VPW's conclusion or not is not really the issue. But if one is going to make it a point to refute what was written in PFAL, one would think one should make it a point to know what was actually written there in PFAL to begin with.
What battle has Mike been observing with me in it?
I'm missing all the details, since I'm not even there!
Although Mike had made mention of you in that particular post (not really sure why) I believe the battle he was referring to was an earlier issue between Raf and me - not necessarily with you.
Before we go further, it is necessary to clarify the difference between the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God.
Biblically, there is none. The remainder of your post is irrelevant to the discussion, but I'm glad you can retype what you read.
I have cited a fairly lengthy passage from TNDC for a specific purpose. It proves VPW went to great lengths and into great detail in PFAL - details many PFAL grads tend to "gloss over" and completely miss. The reason I cited this passage is to prove these details were not just there to establish the difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, but they are also used to establish the difference between the church of the bride and the church of the body. When you read the rest of this chapter you will come away with the conclusion the church of the bride and the church of the body are no more synonomous with one another than are the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven.
Whether there's a difference between the church of the bride and the church of the body is arguable. I've seen good arguments on both sides.
Whether there's a difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven is not arguable. They are Biblically identical. Try reading this other book, called the Bible, to get that point.
"Before we go further, it is necessary to clarify the difference between the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God has no beginning and no ending. The Kingdom of God spans all existence. However [here is the detail that was neglected and never mentioned] under this all-expansive Kingdom of God are several periods, one of which is the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven period is for the called-out of Israel, the church of Israel, which is the bride of Christ. Each time the Kingdom of Heaven is referred to, the personal presence of the King Himself upon earth is designated. [This is not necessarily true when the bible refers to the Kingdom of God however - that the King (Jesus) upon earth is also designated.]
The word "kingdom" is made up of two words: king and dom meaning "reign or supremacy." There cannot be a kingdom without a king. Great Britain can speak of itself as a kingdom because of the reign of a king or queen. Citizens of the United States of America cannot speak of their land as a kingdom for there is no monarch. While Jesus Christ was on earth, it was His reign. During His reign He called out those people of Israel who believed in Him as the Messiah. Not only did Jesus Himself minister to the people of Israel, but He also sent the twelve apostles to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He told them not to go unto the Gentiles because Jesus had come unto God's own, Israel, and called out from Israel those who were to make up the bride. Jesus Christ was the Bridegroom. The church, the called-out of Israel, was called the bride while the Bridegroom was on the earth.
But what happened to the Bridegroom? He was nailed to the cross. When the King of the Kingdom was crucified, the church as the bride was interrupted because the Bridegroom was dead. As previously noted, God promised that there would be no end to the Kingdom of Heaven, but man killed the King.* [The * points to this footnote: Luke 1:33 "And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."] What happened to God's promise? God promised that when the King came He would build the church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. But the when the King was crucified, the Bridegroom was dead, and it appeared that the Kingdom had been defeated. However, this is not so, for the church of the bride is yet to be fulfilled in the future. The same church referred to in Revelation is again the church of the bride, just as it ws in the Gospels.*
it is not true what he says about the presence of the king
it don't hold up
in fact hardly any of it holds up to the evidence in the scriptures
Jesus Christ is King now
and the book of Revelations is not about what he says it is
You can declare that they're different things, and cite VPW as evidence. But you can't make that argument from the words of Christ, because he used the terms interchangeably.
Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Luke 7:28
For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
Thanks for the google link, CM. Lots of good stuff there for those who don't want to reinvent the wheel.
It strikes me that some are missing the forest for the tries, which was a common problem in TWI. It's an analougous problem to straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, concentrating on a mote in some other's eye and missing a beam in one's own, or insisting on strict adherence to certain nits in the law and igonring the weightier matters of the heart of the law. I'm far from a perfect messenger in this regard, because I don't believe the Bible (and certainly not PFAL) to be "inerrant" or "God-breathed." But even as an infidel, I can appreciate much of the heart of the Bible, which heart can easily be lost in over-concentration on the letter.
Regarding the "new rules" that Mike claims that others are imposing on Wierwille, the pertinant rule dates from the Ten Commandments, if not before. It's simple, basic honesty, as illustrated in the commandment to not bear false witness. Wierwille represented other people's work as his own. Regardless of any academic or legal standards, that's lying. Wierwille lied repeatedly, with the intent of presenting himself as "some great one." Some people (not the all-inclusive "we" that Mike suggests) bought into that whole-heartedly. Others accepted it to lesser degrees. No matter how people accepted Wierwille's misrepresentations, they (his misrepresentations, not necessarily the people) were dishonest.
I don’t know what you meant by drama. I do know it’s not what I want, though.
I guess what kind of grads I’m looking for to discuss these things deeply are the Karl Barth types.
Karl Barth was the European theologian that Dr mentions in the class that he went to visit to talk about holy spirit. When Dr got Barth to focus on the manifestations being manifestations of the gift, and not a gift in themselves, Barth sat back and said that if Dr was right it would mean a complete re-thinking of the entire holy spirit field.
Since we only have vpw's word on this incident,
I can't trust it any more than any other incident-
and vpw's track record on inventing incidents is
too long for me to trust it.
We have a similar situation. Dr teaches us wonderful things, but like rebellious teenagers with a modicum of knowledge, we drifted fast and far from the fine details that Dr was wanting to transmit to us as we matured a little. Dr patiently dealt with this situation gently stepping up the intensity of his urging us to master the WRITTEN portion of the class, but we felt comfortable with the spoken pretty well mastered, and the collaterals pretty less well mastered, and we didn’t hear him.
For those of you who are new, here's what Mike is
talking about.
vpw spent the entire time of twi and pfal insisting that it was
better than ANYTHING the Christian church can offer outside
of twi and pfal. (Since it was a composite of the works of a
few other Christians, this was-at least-an outright lie and a
deception. Mike is perfectly comfortable with this, and keeps
saying that God WANTED it this way-God wanted vpw to
plagiarize, God WANTED vpw to leave out footnotes, etc.
Virtually everything in twi was an advertisement for pfal-
or something that advertised pfal (like the wow program)
or otherwise centralized power to vpw (like the corps.)
So, after decades of advertising pfal, vpw made a
"final" tape, called "the Joy of Serving."
It is an ad for pfal.
It says, in short:
A) The best thing you can do is serve people.
B) The best thing you can serve those people is pfal.
C) Therefore you must learn more pfal so you can
serve people more pfal. You must master it and then
serve it to them.
D) There are no answers among Christians outside twi.
I can find you a link, but I just saved you 20 minutes
instead. Feel free to look it up yourself. :)
"The Joy of Serving", if it was really a Last Will and
Testament of vpw to twi, was a miserable indictment
of the crippling limitations vpw suffered under.
If he, at that age, honestly was blind to the skills of
other Christians, he lacked acumen.
If he was AWARE of the skills of other Christians,
he was not blind-he was a vicious LIAR who
WITHHELD the truth from people so as to keep
the gravy train running on time.
So, all that "rebellious teenagers" blather was because
"we failed to master PFAL."
Mike, see, views that tape as a damning indictment of
everybody in twi except vpw. twi had problems, but vpw
was NOT the cause of any of them, and he did NOT set
the stage for them in how he taught the corps, treated
staff, etc. Since it CAN'T be vpw's fault, it must be the
fault of everyone else.
Just as the fake "law" of believing is used to continually
"move the goalposts" i.e. "if you REALLY believed, it would
have worked, so you must not have REALLY believed..",
Mike claims the fall of twi was due to the rank-and-file
failing to live up to the "promise" of pfal that NEVER
materialized in our lives.
So, Mike blames us all collectively and individually.
And if you never met vpw, then you lack sufficient
experience and are too moronic to comprehend what
Mike's talking about without such experience-
which is the ONLY thing that allows one to agree with Mike.
So for ten years we ignore these pleas of his, and then the year of his death he issues two urgings in one magazine to us that we need to do a Barth Makeover of our whole theology, and stating twice in the same issue that it’s an emergency situation with dark clouds hanging over us. Then a few weeks later, the last time a tape recorder is catching his very few last words to us, he twice tells us to master the collaterals.
vpw makes commercial after commercial for pfal.
And many of us, without hearing them, had set out to "master"
pfal on our own-which is why some of us can recite sections of
the books without having read them for DECADES.
So what do we do? Nothing. All of his last words to us fall to the ground. We keep on doing our own thing, building our own broken cisterns, researching our own projects.
According to Mike,
since the bad stuff happened, it must have been our fault,
so we must have been doing the wrong thing.
So, now 20 years later, the indisputable documentation of this grad scandal comes out.
The Last Great Commercial of VPW is upon us!
Like Barth, we grads should be shaken to the core by what we missed 20 years ago.
It was a commercial the likes of which have not been seen since the
First Century!
Any Corps member who hasn’t gotten talked into completely doubting the genuine ministry God gave Dr, but yet cannot see that this is an emergency situation calling for nothing but a complete suspension of all ministering activity, and a starting over where we missed so much 20 years ago, then I have no alternative but to never expect that grad to get anything spiritually right.
According to Mike,
if we don't see The Last Great Commercial of VPW
as anything less than the great spiritual wakeup call of the 20th century,
we're spiritually inept.
Since that one comes from Mike,
most of us-to say the least-are less than terrified of this appraisal.
A simple guy, you’ve seen Dr’s last teaching here, I’m assuming. If not PM me and I will e-mail you a copy. It’s posted in several locations here at GSC too. I know that you have now seen those two magazine urgings to do a theological makeover.
Therefore, you "must" see it Mike's way, right?
Let’s see how obedient you are to the teacher I think you still respect. And the same goes for other Corps people here, but most of them are so jaded by now to this information they can’t hear it.
"You can agree with Mike, or you can be spiritually in error."
vpw is still THE TEACHER as he called HIMSELF.
And those who came to different conclusions are "jaded".
It strikes me that some are missing the forest for the tries, which was a common problem in TWI. It's an analougous problem to straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, concentrating on a mote in some other's eye and missing a beam in one's own, or insisting on strict adherence to certain nits in the law and igonring the weightier matters of the heart of the law. I'm far from a perfect messenger in this regard, because I don't believe the Bible (and certainly not PFAL) to be "inerrant" or "God-breathed." But even as an infidel, I can appreciate much of the heart of the Bible, which heart can easily be lost in over-concentration on the letter.
Regarding the "new rules" that Mike claims that others are imposing on Wierwille, the pertinant rule dates from the Ten Commandments, if not before. It's simple, basic honesty, as illustrated in the commandment to not bear false witness. Wierwille represented other people's work as his own. Regardless of any academic or legal standards, that's lying. Wierwille lied repeatedly, with the intent of presenting himself as "some great one." Some people (not the all-inclusive "we" that Mike suggests) bought into that whole-heartedly. Others accepted it to lesser degrees. No matter how people accepted Wierwille's misrepresentations, they (his misrepresentations, not necessarily the people) were dishonest.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
89
149
306
85
Popular Days
Feb 10
62
Feb 20
61
Feb 11
46
Mar 2
45
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 89 posts
CM 149 posts
Mike 306 posts
Tom Strange 85 posts
Popular Days
Feb 10 2006
62 posts
Feb 20 2006
61 posts
Feb 11 2006
46 posts
Mar 2 2006
45 posts
Posted Images
Mike
Hey guys,
One of the things I wish WordWolf would do is chose his battles more wisely instead of going after each and every diddly point.
I think the point you two are debating has reached the diddly stage.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
And there you go changing my words again.
I did NOT say "PFAL Mastery=idolatrous pigswill."
Can you even read? Tell you what, I'll give you a pass on that ignorant statement since you were probably writing it before I added an explanation in an edit.
But Jeez, the way you guys twist words to mean something other than that which is plainly stated leads me to understand fully why you take the positions you take.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
A simple guy
You know all about drama don't you Mike?
Sorry you've got such a hang up about the Way Corps, which I dropped out of, btw. I can't change my past.
Keep accusing and fighting... your identity depends on it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Neither do I, and I demonstrate why, and whenever I do, I get nothing but grief from you.
Why don't you agree with all of Mike's conclusions?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
The idea that someone must know PFAL inside and out to point out an actual error is ludicrous.
Anything man produces will have errors in it. Some of the pages in the PFAL collaterals are printed crooked, and in some instances I found cases where a word has been repeated repeated in the text. (I purposely typed repeated twice). The point is, how far does one want to go in pointing out errors - are they errors that even matter?
I don't know the first thing about filmmaking, but I know that Ed Wood was lousy at it.
I could make some comments about filmaking here, but will decidedly hold my tongue for now.
I don't know everything about PFAL, but I know there are errors in it.
So do I, but the crookedly printed pages, the repeated words and whatever other errors people want to debate about haven't distracted me from the Christian gospel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Fair enough.
First things first, when people say there are errors in PFAL, they are not talking about typos or crooked type. This is a silly attempt at distraction from the real issue. Not one error pointed out by anyone has ever said "the type on p. 32 is a little off-kilter: aha! PFAL is not God-breathed."
How far does one want to go in pointing out errors? Well, if you want to get utterly nitpicky, you could talk about crooked type and typos. But the only people who have mentioned such errors are you and Mike. Let's try a few things of a little more substance: The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven are Biblically synonymous. Wierwille said they weren't. The Jews had a name for God that was both pronounceable and pronounced. Wierwille said God had no pronounceable name.
How far do we go in discussing errors? Let me reverse it: how many errors (not typos, not page alignment issues) does it take for PFAL to still have the value you ascribe to it, yet not be what Mike claims it to be? According to the standard of PFAL, the answer is one. We've pointed out far more than that, just to confront the error of "PFAL is God-breathed."
Do you disagree with every single item on the actual errors list? ALL of them? Or do you believe PFAL to be error-free (typos and page/text alignment notwithstanding)?
By the way, I will concede that the existence of typos or misaligned text or anything else of that trivial miniscule irrelevant nature does not disprove Mike's thesis.
Why, they make all the difference int he world between a perfect, inerrant word of God and a crumbled, jumbled piece of writing, or something like that. That's PFAL's standard.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Ho-kay -- I read what you wrote the first time and I'll cut a little slack on your second response.
Granted -- twi was SUPPOSED to be a family, and the folks there got the books.
No need for citing sources amongst *family* members?
Meebe I'll even agree with that (for now -- though it rankles).
What you either fail to realize (or are completely ignoring), is the fact that
those books were for sale to ANYONE who forked over the cash.
The books were on sale at EVERY public event twi hosted.
No *grad ID* was required for someone to buy a book.
You could show up at the Rock, and buy whatever you wanted -- no questions.
If *Joe off the street* bought a book, twi scrambled to get a follow-up on the guy.
Shucks -- I remember once when twi suggested donating books to the local public library,
so that they would be *out there* for folks to read.
So what's the point?? The point is --- FAMILY wasn't the only group of people reading.
And especially -- if those books were placed in a public venue (like the library), they were out there for anyone to read, and no proper credits given, like every other book there would have had.
Don't say docvic wasn't bound by *literary law* because of *family*.
He is guilty as charged. (Hmm -- does the *P* in his name stand for *plagiarizer*)?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mike, because I haven't taken you off ignore, I missed this earlier statement. Good one. Of course, you'd know all about resorting to ad hominem attacks, having used them so ineffectually so often since you began posting here. By the way, at least I have the courage to SHOW my face around here.
Nice touch, typing "god" with a lower case "g" to get my goat. Where did you get that stroke of brilliance from? Oh yeah, ME! Dude, at least get an original insult.
It is good to see you finally acknowledge, however, that you and I worship different deities.
I've never found you at anything other than your weak moments.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
A simple guy,
I don’t know what you meant by drama. I do know it’s not what I want, though.
I guess what kind of grads I’m looking for to discuss these things deeply are the Karl Barth types.
Karl Barth was the European theologian that Dr mentions in the class that he went to visit to talk about holy spirit. When Dr got Barth to focus on the manifestations being manifestations of the gift, and not a gift in themselves, Barth sat back and said that if Dr was right it would mean a complete re-thinking of the entire holy spirit field.
We have a similar situation. Dr teaches us wonderful things, but like rebellious teenagers with a modicum of knowledge, we drifted fast and far from the fine details that Dr was wanting to transmit to us as we matured a little. Dr patiently dealt with this situation gently stepping up the intensity of his urging us to master the WRITTEN portion of the class, but we felt comfortable with the spoken pretty well mastered, and the collaterals pretty less well mastered, and we didn’t hear him.
So for ten years we ignore these pleas of his, and then the year of his death he issues two urgings in one magazine to us that we need to do a Barth Makeover of our whole theology, and stating twice in the same issue that it’s an emergency situation with dark clouds hanging over us. Then a few weeks later, the last time a tape recorder is catching his very few last words to us, he twice tells us to master the collaterals.
So what do we do? Nothing. All of his last words to us fall to the ground. We keep on doing our own thing, building our own broken cisterns, researching our own projects.
So, now 20 years later, the indisputable documentation of this grad scandal comes out. Like Barth, we grads should be shaken to the core by what we missed 20 years ago. Any Corps member who hasn’t gotten talked into completely doubting the genuine ministry God gave Dr, but yet cannot see that this is an emergency situation calling for nothing but a complete suspension of all ministering activity, and a starting over where we missed so much 20 years ago, then I have no alternative but to never expect that grad to get anything spiritually right.
A simple guy, you’ve seen Dr’s last teaching here, I’m assuming. If not PM me and I will e-mail you a copy. It’s posted in several locations here at GSC too. I know that you have now seen those two magazine urgings to do a theological makeover. Let’s see how obedient you are to the teacher I think you still respect. And the same goes for other Corps people here, but most of them are so jaded by now to this information they can’t hear it.
We have a drama here, that’s for sure.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Mike, I always cringe when anyone makes sweeping generalizations. Your comments about the Corps concern me deeply.
Many other than corps have decided to just stop the fight with you. On the other hand, not all corps are the same.
Perhaps there is a bond that unites many of us ( and yes I was corps) we shared many experiences and saw things that we can discuss with each other. There is a reason why so many are rejecting your theory. WE saw first hand a lot of what went on. Many saw and some even experienced the sins of VPW and his trusted friends. If you are equating Dr to the likes of the apostles Paul and Peter and John et al, you have a problem in that at least 2 of them wrote about being above rebuke and having self control - that is simply not the example Dr protrayed.
If he wanted us to follow him he would have been like Paul and given us more to trust and something more solid to mimic. Sometimes you come across as resenting the fact that you were not in the Corps. That's just an impression and not an accusation - but it is a strong impression.
As to the Pfal - God breathed thing.... Jesus Christ was the Living Word and He always pointed the way to the Father. He rarely even pointed to himself except to say that he was the way TO THE FATHER.
I fail to see how PFAL does the same - at least the way you handle yourself. You seem to want us to focus on the class and see how the class points the way to itself and Dr's ministry - hmmmmmm. PFAL is a compilation of works that help make sense of the Bible. To the extent that it acccomplishes that it also points the way to the Father and his son. But the focus must be on the latter and not the former -
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Hey guys,
One of the things I wish Mike would do is actually READ WHAT'S WRITTEN,
instead of see something and hallucinate an entire post around it.
Until this moment, I haven't posted on this thread YET!
What battle has Mike been observing with me in it?
I'm missing all the details, since I'm not even there!
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I wondered where you were, WordWolf. :)
It took no time flat for this thread to reach 3 pages!
(ps -- same old, same old.)
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
5 pages.
And yes, it's effectively interchangeable, no?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
"Before we go further, it is necessary to clarify the difference between the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God has no beginning and no ending. The Kingdom of God spans all existance. However [here is the detail that was neglected and never mentioned] under this all-expansive Kingdom of God are several periods, one of which is the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven period is for the called-out of Israel, the church of Israel, which is the bride of Christ. Each time the Kingdom of Heaven is referred to, the personal presence of the King Himself upon earth is designated. [This is not necessarily true when the bible refers to the Kingdom of God however - that the King (Jesus) upon earth is also designated.]
The word "kingdom" is made up of two words: king and dom meaning "reign or supremacy." There cannot be a kingdom without a king. Great Britain can speak of itself as a kingdom because of the reign of a king or queen. Citizens of the United States of America cannot speak of their land as a kingdom for there is no monarch. While Jesus Christ was on earth, it was His reign. During His reign He called out those people of Israel who believed in Him as the Messiah. Not only did Jesus Himself minister to the people of Israel, but He also sent the twelve apostles to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He told them not to go unto the Gentiles because Jesus had come unto God's own, Israel, and called out from Israel those who were to make up the bride. Jesus Christ was the Bridegroom. The church, the called-out of Israel, was called the bride while the Bridegroom was on the earth.
But what happened to the Bridegroom? He was nailed to the cross. When the King of the Kingdom was crucified, the church as the bride was interrupted because the Bridegroom was dead. As previously noted, God promised that there would be no end to the Kingdom of Heaven, but man killed the King.* [The * points to this footnote: Luke 1:33 "And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."] What happened to God's promise? God promised that when the King came He would build the church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. But the when the King was crucified, the Bridegroom was dead, and it appeared that the Kingdom had been defeated. However, this is not so, for the church of the bride is yet to be fulfilled in the future. The same church referred to in Revelation is again the church of the bride, just as it ws in the Gospels.* [This * points to the footnote: The church described and spoken of in the book of Revelation has nothing to do with our time and our administration.]"
I have cited a fairly lengthy passage from TNDC for a specific purpose. It proves VPW went to great lengths and into great detail in PFAL - details many PFAL grads tend to "gloss over" and completely miss. The reason I cited this passage is to prove these details were not just there to establish the difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, but they are also used to establish the difference between the church of the bride and the church of the body. When you read the rest of this chapter you will come away with the conclusion the church of the bride and the church of the body are no more synonomous with one another than are the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven.
Whether you agree with VPW's conclusion or not is not really the issue. But if one is going to make it a point to refute what was written in PFAL, one would think one should make it a point to know what was actually written there in PFAL to begin with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Although Mike had made mention of you in that particular post (not really sure why) I believe the battle he was referring to was an earlier issue between Raf and me - not necessarily with you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Whether there's a difference between the church of the bride and the church of the body is arguable. I've seen good arguments on both sides.
Whether there's a difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven is not arguable. They are Biblically identical. Try reading this other book, called the Bible, to get that point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navc...ngdom+of+heaven
some interesting points in these hits
and no i don't agree with this-
"Before we go further, it is necessary to clarify the difference between the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God has no beginning and no ending. The Kingdom of God spans all existence. However [here is the detail that was neglected and never mentioned] under this all-expansive Kingdom of God are several periods, one of which is the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven period is for the called-out of Israel, the church of Israel, which is the bride of Christ. Each time the Kingdom of Heaven is referred to, the personal presence of the King Himself upon earth is designated. [This is not necessarily true when the bible refers to the Kingdom of God however - that the King (Jesus) upon earth is also designated.]
The word "kingdom" is made up of two words: king and dom meaning "reign or supremacy." There cannot be a kingdom without a king. Great Britain can speak of itself as a kingdom because of the reign of a king or queen. Citizens of the United States of America cannot speak of their land as a kingdom for there is no monarch. While Jesus Christ was on earth, it was His reign. During His reign He called out those people of Israel who believed in Him as the Messiah. Not only did Jesus Himself minister to the people of Israel, but He also sent the twelve apostles to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He told them not to go unto the Gentiles because Jesus had come unto God's own, Israel, and called out from Israel those who were to make up the bride. Jesus Christ was the Bridegroom. The church, the called-out of Israel, was called the bride while the Bridegroom was on the earth.
But what happened to the Bridegroom? He was nailed to the cross. When the King of the Kingdom was crucified, the church as the bride was interrupted because the Bridegroom was dead. As previously noted, God promised that there would be no end to the Kingdom of Heaven, but man killed the King.* [The * points to this footnote: Luke 1:33 "And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."] What happened to God's promise? God promised that when the King came He would build the church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. But the when the King was crucified, the Bridegroom was dead, and it appeared that the Kingdom had been defeated. However, this is not so, for the church of the bride is yet to be fulfilled in the future. The same church referred to in Revelation is again the church of the bride, just as it ws in the Gospels.*
it is not true what he says about the presence of the king
it don't hold up
in fact hardly any of it holds up to the evidence in the scriptures
Jesus Christ is King now
and the book of Revelations is not about what he says it is
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You can declare that they're different things, and cite VPW as evidence. But you can't make that argument from the words of Christ, because he used the terms interchangeably.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Matthew 11:11
Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Luke 7:28
For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
Thanks for the google link, CM. Lots of good stuff there for those who don't want to reinvent the wheel.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Maybe it's all about Mike ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Of course it is.
Take one poster (rhino, for example.)
rhino spends some time in twi, trying to learn some God-stuff,
sometimes learning some God-stuff.
rhino spends some quality time with some Christians that feel
like family.
rhino later learns that there were terrible things happening,
and while rhino was being blessed, others were being cursed
(by vpw in the motorcoach and other places, or by those
he trained in that sort of thing, aka his criminal gang.)
rhino concludes at some point that God doesn't need felons
to lead people to Christ, and splits.
rhino has learned some good stuff, but now seeks BETTER-
among Christians out there.
Was twi a scam from the beginning? Well, mostly.
Was there some benefit in there? Well, partly.
Was it God's will for the 2 to be mixed? No.
Was rhino's time all wasted in there? Probably not.
BUT, rhino has moved on.
Take a different poster. (Let's call him "Gabe".)
Gabe spent some time in twi, trying to learn some God-stuff,
sometimes learning some God-stuff.
Gabe spends some quality time with some Christians that
feel like family.
Gave later learns that there were terrible things happening,
and while Gabe was being blessed, others were being cursed.
At some point, Gabe leaves twi.
Later, Gabe looks back at the time he spent in twi and refuses
to accept that it wasn't all "profitable".
"I spent all that time in twi TRYING to serve God-
so it MUST have served God!
Somehow, God must have WANTED me to focus on PFAL-
so I shall!
Oho! THAT's the reason! PFAL is the new Bible, better than
the current Bible! My life has meaning! I must spread this
good news to others!"
See-that would not be about what GOD wanted,
but what GABE wanted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
It strikes me that some are missing the forest for the tries, which was a common problem in TWI. It's an analougous problem to straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, concentrating on a mote in some other's eye and missing a beam in one's own, or insisting on strict adherence to certain nits in the law and igonring the weightier matters of the heart of the law. I'm far from a perfect messenger in this regard, because I don't believe the Bible (and certainly not PFAL) to be "inerrant" or "God-breathed." But even as an infidel, I can appreciate much of the heart of the Bible, which heart can easily be lost in over-concentration on the letter.
Regarding the "new rules" that Mike claims that others are imposing on Wierwille, the pertinant rule dates from the Ten Commandments, if not before. It's simple, basic honesty, as illustrated in the commandment to not bear false witness. Wierwille represented other people's work as his own. Regardless of any academic or legal standards, that's lying. Wierwille lied repeatedly, with the intent of presenting himself as "some great one." Some people (not the all-inclusive "we" that Mike suggests) bought into that whole-heartedly. Others accepted it to lesser degrees. No matter how people accepted Wierwille's misrepresentations, they (his misrepresentations, not necessarily the people) were dishonest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Since we only have vpw's word on this incident,
I can't trust it any more than any other incident-
and vpw's track record on inventing incidents is
too long for me to trust it.
For those of you who are new, here's what Mike istalking about.
vpw spent the entire time of twi and pfal insisting that it was
better than ANYTHING the Christian church can offer outside
of twi and pfal. (Since it was a composite of the works of a
few other Christians, this was-at least-an outright lie and a
deception. Mike is perfectly comfortable with this, and keeps
saying that God WANTED it this way-God wanted vpw to
plagiarize, God WANTED vpw to leave out footnotes, etc.
Virtually everything in twi was an advertisement for pfal-
or something that advertised pfal (like the wow program)
or otherwise centralized power to vpw (like the corps.)
So, after decades of advertising pfal, vpw made a
"final" tape, called "the Joy of Serving."
It is an ad for pfal.
It says, in short:
A) The best thing you can do is serve people.
B) The best thing you can serve those people is pfal.
C) Therefore you must learn more pfal so you can
serve people more pfal. You must master it and then
serve it to them.
D) There are no answers among Christians outside twi.
I can find you a link, but I just saved you 20 minutes
instead. Feel free to look it up yourself. :)
"The Joy of Serving", if it was really a Last Will and
Testament of vpw to twi, was a miserable indictment
of the crippling limitations vpw suffered under.
If he, at that age, honestly was blind to the skills of
other Christians, he lacked acumen.
If he was AWARE of the skills of other Christians,
he was not blind-he was a vicious LIAR who
WITHHELD the truth from people so as to keep
the gravy train running on time.
So, all that "rebellious teenagers" blather was because
"we failed to master PFAL."
Mike, see, views that tape as a damning indictment of
everybody in twi except vpw. twi had problems, but vpw
was NOT the cause of any of them, and he did NOT set
the stage for them in how he taught the corps, treated
staff, etc. Since it CAN'T be vpw's fault, it must be the
fault of everyone else.
Just as the fake "law" of believing is used to continually
"move the goalposts" i.e. "if you REALLY believed, it would
have worked, so you must not have REALLY believed..",
Mike claims the fall of twi was due to the rank-and-file
failing to live up to the "promise" of pfal that NEVER
materialized in our lives.
So, Mike blames us all collectively and individually.
And if you never met vpw, then you lack sufficient
experience and are too moronic to comprehend what
Mike's talking about without such experience-
which is the ONLY thing that allows one to agree with Mike.
vpw makes commercial after commercial for pfal.
And many of us, without hearing them, had set out to "master"
pfal on our own-which is why some of us can recite sections of
the books without having read them for DECADES.
According to Mike,since the bad stuff happened, it must have been our fault,
so we must have been doing the wrong thing.
The Last Great Commercial of VPW is upon us!
It was a commercial the likes of which have not been seen since theFirst Century!
According to Mike,
if we don't see The Last Great Commercial of VPW
as anything less than the great spiritual wakeup call of the 20th century,
we're spiritually inept.
Since that one comes from Mike,
most of us-to say the least-are less than terrified of this appraisal.
Therefore, you "must" see it Mike's way, right?"You can agree with Mike, or you can be spiritually in error."
vpw is still THE TEACHER as he called HIMSELF.
And those who came to different conclusions are "jaded".
More of a comedy of errors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Oh, it goes a step FURTHER than that.
Mike adds a delicious new level.
See, if you just go by the contents of PFAL,
you will NOT agree with Mike.
PFAL says PFAL is about KEYS, that it does not
REPLACE Genesis to Revelation.
The Mikean system puts forth that Genesis to
Revelation is now obsolete, so long as you
have pfal-that pfal, in short, replaces
Genesis to Revelation and that it is more than
simply KEYS.
So,
vpw put his own name on work that wasn't his,
and claimed it was his.
Mike has come along with a new system,
has put VPW's name on work that wasn't VPW's,
and claims it was his.
vpw claimed to make known the Bible.
Mike claims to make known pfal, a new Bible.
But don't blink-his precise claims are subject to
change without warning, and retroactively were
ALWAYS the claims he holds today-even when
YESTERDAY they were different.
Link to comment
Share on other sites