[Mike] 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.
See, Mike lacked the closeness with vpw that the corps had.
If he HAD, he'd have been in a better position to see him as he WAS,
and not as he's built vpw up in his mind.
Ever see people in love with a celebrity-from afar?
Then when they get to actually meet the real person without the press releases,
they're completely crushed, since the reality failed to meet
the fantasy?
That's what we're dealing with here.
A starstruck person dealing with a fantasy.
Hey, Che Gueverra still has fans-probably more now than when alive.
Of course there's resentment. Worse-those who interacted with vpw regularly
(HCW, among others) have already told him he's completely wrong with
the basis of his doctrine, as well as how the "written pfal" is supposedly
superior to the "taped pfal" and so on. They have an inside track on
information he wants, AND they disagree with him, both of which are
unforgiveable.
Mike has met vpw a few times, and has constructed a detailed personality
of him, based on those and his entire PUBLIC PERSONA.
That's a completely different person than the one you've met.
Mike loves the persona he's constructed. That person is nigh-perfect,
and shakes the earth when he walks. He's got an overabundance of
brains and brawn. You might even say he's OVERgifted.
Finally,
you're forgetting his framework!
pfal didn't work, twi didnt work.
He has declared by fiat that it wasn't vpw's fault, but everyone
else's. (That wasn't just "Passing of the Patriarch-Mike's said
it also.)
Therefore, like PoP did, Mike blames every leader and every
corps person. It's all YOUR fault. vpw is blameless-
You know, folks, the title of this thread is "The Official, the Ultimate, the Amazing PFAL Thread"
NOT
"The Official, the Ultimate, the Amazing Bash Mike Thread"
.....
I think the more appropriate place to discuss the various mental illnesses that plague any PFAL sycophant would be in the 'soap opera' forum...not that they shouldn't be discussed, but why screw up this gentlemanly forum this way?
Well, the thread is dominated by Mike responses, making it hard to have any discussion outside Mike's comments. As with any troll, feeding them just makes them louder. If Mike had a 100 page thread before, I guess he is going for a new record. Or maybe he's a shrink hired by Paw to help ex-wayfers finally release any inner anxieties from the past ... bringing them to their "Primal Scream"
In any case, I think many people enjoyed the side of twi that made THEM feel a little superior to those other Christians. Maybe we need to see if there's a doctor in the house, we have a sick man here. LOL Just kidding Mike ... mostly. But the volume of responses alone seems just a tad obsessive. So understanding piffle may include understanding Mike types ... the true believers ...
Was it at PFAL in Muncie, Indiana that vp commented about the original class, that he felt it was almost all revelation? He was talking about the filming. What amazes/scares me is how well I remember some of this stuff without really thinking of it for some 20 years. I think the contradictions stand out to me 'cuz I cringed when I heard them while running a class, then had to try to explain them away when people asked about them.
I think the intent of this thread was to keep all the "Mike wars" in one place, so the replies are appropriate in here, Mark. In fact, the other thread specifically said "Take your fight to the new thread." So, regardless of the title of this thread, the intent was to take all this discussion and put it in one place.
I think the intent of this thread was to keep all the "Mike wars" in one place, so the replies are appropriate in here, Mark. In fact, the other thread specifically said "Take your fight to the new thread." So, regardless of the title of this thread, the intent was to take all this discussion and put it in one place.
The interesting thing, Mark, is that PFAL never was the subject of Mike's threads. PFAL specifically sets the words Wierwille wrote in contrast with what it calls the perfect God-breathed Word, and thus discounts itself as part of that Word. Mike takes VPW's imperfect articulation of this simple and straightforward fact and turns it into a declaration that the PFAL books are perfect God-breathed Word, but maybe his letters to his family and friends and/or earlier editions of his books, complete with Trinitarian references, do not rise to that standard. He injects complexity into the simple, thus twisting the meaning to conform to an already multiply disproven thesis.
That PFAL fails to live up to its standard of perfection causes those of us who value its lessons to lose no sleep at all. But to Mike, it undermines his thesis to the extent that he must narrow the intended audience so that it becomes a sort of anti-gospel, aimed not at bringing the gospel message to the world, but a secret and ubiquitously hidden message to the elite. PFAL mastery, as Mike defines it, is the exact opposite of the Great Commission. Go ye therefore unto all the older leader grads, baptizing in the name of the Orange Book, the Blue Book, and the Last/Lust Message of The Teaching Doctor Brains and Brawn.
Those who point out the imperfections of PFAL are easily dismissed by this standard, because they are not part of Mike's elite intended audience and, thus, not worth listening to. They are dismissed with casual comments intended to be insults, such as "you weren't around when Wierwille was, so you couldn't understand," and "you were poisoned by people who did not grab onto something whenever Wierwille walked by." In other words, anyone who looks at Wierwille's written works with an open mind and sees it for what it is automatically and by definition becomes an "unfit researcher," even if all such a person is doing is applying the very advice Wierwille (perhaps cynically) gave to examine his teachings critically.
You and I may have to disagree a bit here, Raf. If I understand your basic premise about PFAL correctly, you believe that the basic premise of PFAL was alright, but it was plagued by several aggregious errors and that proper attribution was not provided for VPW's sources in the work.
I believe that the fundamental premise of PFAL was error and that anything that is not in error is the abberation, not the errors being the abberation that scar an otherwise fundamentally theologically sound work.
(Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I've gotten out of your posts on the subject).
My problem with PFAL starts off with the very beginning of the class and move on from there.
1) The opening of the book with John 10:10 (taken completely out of it's context), sets up the class as instruction in Word-Faith theology (alternately known as "Prosperity Theology"). This enabled the massive financial gains and, when people didn't reap the promised results from the error of "prosperity theology", they were made to feel inadequate. (The theology is not in error, the person is in error)
2) The dispensationalism taught throughout the class (as proposed by Darby) was also in error. This dispensationalism allowed the error of the "absent Christ" ... and set forth the stage allowing the MOG-worship idolatry to further imprison TWI's followers.
And it goes on from there.
But the bottom line is that I see that the class, from it's roots, is erroneous. The theology that is taught through that class is what enabled the abuses to occur.
But, of course, as always, it is IMHO. And, of course, YMMV.
That's why I distinguish between actual errors and interpretational errors, a deeper and more substantive discussion. I believe there are errors of interpretation in PFAL, and have discussed several. But if someone is unwilling to face the fact that there are even actual errors, the topic of interpretational errors is moot. Wierwille can write "the moon is made of green cheese," and anyone who disputes that notion is an unfit researcher who has not looked carefully enough at the text in a bid at mastery. "Skeptics," we're called. "Critics." "Naysayers." "Crybabies."
I look at the conflict between the Blue Book and Jesus Christ Our Passover concerning the definition of "hanged himself," and I see Wierwille changing his mind over time when he gathers more information. One of those explanations is wrong. But I never lost sleep over it because PFAL never claimed to be inerrant. I think it's a big fat "so what," the only value to the discrepancy being that it disproves the thesis that PFAL IS inerrant. So Wierwille overstated (ie, was wrong about) the significance of heteros and allos in the "four crucified" discussion. So what? We all know the important cross was the one in the middle.
So my discussion here (and in related threads) was never about the overall value of PFAL. Some give it high value, some give it low value. My discussion has been about the notion of PFAL as "inerrant," a notion that is demonstrably false when one accepts PFAL's very own definition of what it means to be God-breathed, and one must accept that definition in order to hold onto the notion. After all, how could PFAL be God-breathed while at the same time be wrong about what God-breathed means?
I guess I'm saying that your analysis of where I stand on PFAL is partly right, but not relevant to the discussion. I'm simply pointing out that such a position can exist, so those who DO value Wierwille's books do not need to idolatrously exalt them, or him, in order to crack them open and smile while reading them.
The first two premises are mutually exclusive, and the subject of this overall discussion.
The first premise and the third premise are compatible, but one need not adopt the first premise to accept the third.
The second and third premises are compatible. Most Wierwillites, even the staunchest, fall into this category.
The second and fourth premises are compatible.
The conflict between the third and fourth premises comprise a significant reason Greasespot, and Waydale before it, exists. You and I can have a great discussion about premises three and four, but if I attach premise one to my position, then we're both wasting our time.
Only the most simple and/or noteworthy items will I be able to comment on this morning because I have very little time (...and I’m trying be a good example for you).
Oh... for the time I wish I had to respond to all that's here!
***
“What the Hey” was correct, it was his duel with Raf over trivialities that I was commenting on and it didn’t involve you at all.
***
In post #99 you wrote: “D) There are no answers among Christians outside twi.”
I agree that there are lots of answers out there, but they’re not together in one place and free of crippling and corrupting error mixed in.
So, if we want to enjoy and utilize those answers, they are not accessible. As he himself admitted, but it was and still is ignored, Dr didn’t do all that much original work, but he did put it together sans the crippling error.
So, I concur with Dr that IN EFFECT there are no answers out there, outside of PFAL, except relatively irretrievable elements of truth and fact.
(Doojable, this also goes for the research tools that are out there, as I discussed this with you. They are out there, but who can find and refine them without God’s great guidance. God already did provide that great guidance to us grads and most of us have spurned it as not religious enough for the worldly tastes that dominate the masses.)
***
You wrote: “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.”
I’d refine it thusly:
The benefit of Dr’s final instructions is to us not to him, so the idea of “commercial” doesn’t fit.
I wouldn’t put it as wide sweeping, either. I’d call it (especially when joined with a few other crucial things Dr stated) the great spiritual wakeup call FOR OLGS.
It’s crucial that you see the focus on OLGs if you want to represent my message. You set up a straw man when you omit this aspect of my message.
Lastly, I’d soften the “spiritually inept” part. The natural state of man is spiritually inept. What I see is that we OLGs, when facing what we allowed to slip through our fingers, must accept the fact that the understanding of spiritual matters we presently have is NOT the paragon of spiritual strength we thought it was.
We OLGs must accept the fact that we still have oodles of spiritual blind spots that guarantee eventual failure in ministering situations, even though we can enjoy limited successes in the short run due to what truths we DID master and get right from PFAL ...and even elsewhere.
We OLGs must accept the fact that we didn't absorb PFAL nearly as well as we thought we did, and ON THE POSITIVE SIDE, there is a wealth of information and instruction awaiting our re-discovery within written PFAL.
I think Oak, with his advantage of having seen the earlier days, and with his advantage of being a more detached observer as a self-proclaimed atheist, is able to see that Dr claimed to be THE authority, and I’ll add “because he was appointed such by God.”
First of all, I have never considered myself an atheist, let alone "proclaimed" myself as one.
Seeing that Wierwille set himself up as the final arbiter of truth is different than believing that he was saying that PFAL is on par with the bible. Yes, he was very clear that he thought that no translation or version could be termed THE WORD OF GOD, but he was equally emphatic that with study of the early texts, and applying the "keys", one could determime what the originals said.
Sorry if I misunderstood your position. I think I accurately hit on the detachment part, though, didn't I? This came up before in how you and Abigail were the only ones who could understand what I was reporting on that Dr’s “only rule for faith and practice” being the abstract, originals, and not pined down to the existing manuscripts.
Do you agree with my assessment of the attitude of “Thus saith the lord” was in the air all about Dr in the early 70’s?
***
markomalley,
I think you got it right on the purpose of this thread. This was something I discussed with Paw when I met him at pamsandiego’s house last summer, and then with Modaustin a few days ago.
Now that this thread is underway, in order to limit the size of this thread (so as to not offend those with understandable PFAL phobias), and to compartmentalize sub-topics as they emerge, maybe we could discuss having an entire forum for focusing on PFAL matters. Just a suggestion.
At first I thought an entire forum would be too much, and I was bothered by the idea of rules, but Modaustin’s handling of the intro went farther than I expected, and neatly deals with some aspects I hadn’t thought through very well.
Now you, Mark, have reminded us all that the way Modaustin started it has the necessary wisdom to contain things, and also makes it easier for management to deal with things. I am very grateful to GSC management for not only allowing me to post, but also for the response work they are saddled with when people complain about my proPFAL message. Hopefully that workload will diminish.
I think in the past I have politely avoided invading MOST threads at GSC with my message, and I will continue to be respectful like this of grads hurting from past TWI abuses and reminded of such by my repetition of related catch phrases. It would be nice to see some reciprocity from antiPFAL grads here and a little more tolerance for my message and less intent to snuff it out by various means.
I think in the past I have politely avoided invading MOST threads at GSC with my message, and I will continue to be respectful like this of grads hurting from past TWI abuses and reminded of such by my repetition of related catch phrases. It would be nice to see some reciprocity from antiPFAL grads here and a little more tolerance for my message and less intent to snuff it out by various means.
you are a liar, and have intentionally hurt and abused people on this forum
i witnessed it and can bring it back up
but i won't for the sake of those you attacked
and don't give me that crap about they started it,
I am not defending you. I am not agreeing with you. I pray for you that God may open your eyes, as He did to Saul. And I pray that God will show you mercy if you continue to be deceived up until the time of your death.
The reason I posted what I did earlier was not in defense of you or your arguments, rather it was based on my belief in the fundamental dignity of the human person. I do believe that each person has a fundamental amount of dignity by virtue of that person's existence, not based upon any amount of dignity or respect that person may have earned or thrown away. As such, I believe that the best way to have such an argument is through facts and logic based on ideas and beliefs, rather than attacks against a person's existence.
The reason I am posting now is to clarify and reiterate my position. I actually agree with the conclusions that most of your detractors have drawn, that your beliefs are idolatrous and are deceived. I believe that your ideas and beliefs would, in fact, be quite dangerous if you had the rhetorical skills to properly present them. Fortunately, you haven't evidenced those skills.
Having said that, no matter how dangerous the ideas, no matter how clumsily those dangerous ideas are presented, I don't think that attacks against the person are appropriate, no matter how much the person deserves or even begs for those attacks. No matter how many back-handed ad hominem attacks are delivered in any direction. I think the appropriate action is. as I said before, "don't feed the trolls."
This came up before in how you and Abigail were the only ones who could understand what I was reporting on that Dr’s “only rule for faith and practice” being the abstract, originals, and not pined down to the existing manuscripts.
I doubt if we were the only ones that understood that, Mike. However, I am as unwilling to accept the bible (in concrete or abstract form ) as "god-breathed" as am to accept PFAL in that manner.
Do you agree with my assessment of the attitude of “Thus saith the lord” was in the air all about Dr in the early 70’s?
I did not encounter TWI until 1978. I would disagree with your assessment for the late 70's, early 80's. I think that the attitude was that we were all able to determine what "The Word" said and meant because of what we were taught by Wierwille in PFAL, not that Wierwille was speaking ex cathedra or by revelation, just that his opinion was to be respected and given precedence due to his years of experience in "working the Word". It's only in looking back that I see that Wierwille was really saying that only his opinion mattered.
Wierwille, and the whole TWI system, was great at getting us to take dissenting opinions and "hold them in abeyance", and convincing us to put our common sense on hold, not because we thought that he was incapable or error, but because we assumed that he was utilizing those "keys" that he taught us about. If I had thought, in my early days in TWI, that we should swallow what Wierwille said, just because he said it, I doubt that I would have stuck around.
Do you agree with my assessment of the attitude of “Thus saith the lord” was in the air all about Dr in the early 70’s?
So VP had a 'Thus saith the Lord' attitude back in the 70's. <_< So what? Jerry Falwell has that same attitude. So does Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggert. ... So did David Koresh.
So how does that attitude make his PFAL any more Gawd breathed than not?
Yo wrote: "So VP had a 'Thus saith the Lord' attitude back in the 70's. So what? Jerry Falwell has that same attitude. So does Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggert. ... So did David Koresh. __ So how does that attitude make his PFAL any more Gawd breathed than not?"
Dr's exhibited attitude in the early 70’s does NOT prove that PFAL is God-breathed.
I have never argued that it does.
***
Dr’s attitude of “thus saith” coincides with the many “thus saith the lord” statements that are scattered all through PFAL, just like they were in the “air’ in the early 70’s.
BUT, Dr’s many “thus saith the lord” statements still do NOT prove that PFAL is indeed God-breathed.
***
I’m often accused of claiming that PFAL is greater than Dr claimed it to be, and that Dr never claimed it to be God-breathed, but my accusers are not in command of all the facts on this issue.
Dr’s many “thus saith the lord” statements (along with the “atmosphere” in the early 70’s), however DO INDICATE, or lightly prove, that those OLGs who THINK Dr never claimed to be producing anything more than a Bible aid, that the class and collaterals were MERELY some Bible research keys, have not sufficiently heard all of Dr’s message on this issue. (WordWolf, the purpose of the PFAL book is not TOTALLY revealed in that book's beginning pages. Like I did with "A simple guy," I insist on ALL of the passages of PFAL on a give topic be brought to the table, not just selected ones.)
Dr’s many “thus saith the lord” statements show that these OLGs’ PFAL mastery was insufficient, as per Dr’s final instructions, to catch this “thus saith” nuance in written PFAL.
***
Again, there is STILL no proof here in this post, nor even a weak indication, that any or all of this leads directly to PFAL being God-breathed, just that the internal claim within PFAL that it is the Word of God was missed by most later grads and forgotten by most early ones.
Still no proof of God-breathed PFAL here.
***
If it’s the case, and I think I have shown that it is, that we grads missed the CLAIM of God-breathedness within PFAL, then HOW MANY OTHER THINGS WERE MISSED?
It’s in absorbing these OTHER MISSED THINGS that the proof of PFAL being God-breathed will be shown to each meek mastering student by the real author behind PFAL and all of it’s collected elements, God Himself.
***
For those who want more detail, all of this I posted at length in my lengthy post # 268 on doojable’s “Ok once and for all” thread, near the top of page 14 for those who kept the default setting of number of posts per page.
Paraphrasing me you wrote: "Now people who look at PFAL objectively have a PHOBIA."
Not all, just some people here. There are SOME posters and readers here who have bad associations with PFAL nonenclature. That's all I was referring to when I wrote "phobias."
I also added the word "understandable" to that mix.
I don't think you have a PFAL phobia, maybe just a Mike phobia.
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
WordWolf
See, Mike lacked the closeness with vpw that the corps had.
If he HAD, he'd have been in a better position to see him as he WAS,
and not as he's built vpw up in his mind.
Ever see people in love with a celebrity-from afar?
Then when they get to actually meet the real person without the press releases,
they're completely crushed, since the reality failed to meet
the fantasy?
That's what we're dealing with here.
A starstruck person dealing with a fantasy.
Hey, Che Gueverra still has fans-probably more now than when alive.
Of course there's resentment. Worse-those who interacted with vpw regularly
(HCW, among others) have already told him he's completely wrong with
the basis of his doctrine, as well as how the "written pfal" is supposedly
superior to the "taped pfal" and so on. They have an inside track on
information he wants, AND they disagree with him, both of which are
unforgiveable.
Mike has met vpw a few times, and has constructed a detailed personality
of him, based on those and his entire PUBLIC PERSONA.
That's a completely different person than the one you've met.
Mike loves the persona he's constructed. That person is nigh-perfect,
and shakes the earth when he walks. He's got an overabundance of
brains and brawn. You might even say he's OVERgifted.
Finally,
you're forgetting his framework!
pfal didn't work, twi didnt work.
He has declared by fiat that it wasn't vpw's fault, but everyone
else's. (That wasn't just "Passing of the Patriarch-Mike's said
it also.)
Therefore, like PoP did, Mike blames every leader and every
corps person. It's all YOUR fault. vpw is blameless-
a pox on you and your ancestors! And your mother
dresses you funny. And you killed vpw. And so on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Well, the thread is dominated by Mike responses, making it hard to have any discussion outside Mike's comments. As with any troll, feeding them just makes them louder. If Mike had a 100 page thread before, I guess he is going for a new record. Or maybe he's a shrink hired by Paw to help ex-wayfers finally release any inner anxieties from the past ... bringing them to their "Primal Scream"
In any case, I think many people enjoyed the side of twi that made THEM feel a little superior to those other Christians. Maybe we need to see if there's a doctor in the house, we have a sick man here. LOL Just kidding Mike ... mostly. But the volume of responses alone seems just a tad obsessive. So understanding piffle may include understanding Mike types ... the true believers ...
Was it at PFAL in Muncie, Indiana that vp commented about the original class, that he felt it was almost all revelation? He was talking about the filming. What amazes/scares me is how well I remember some of this stuff without really thinking of it for some 20 years. I think the contradictions stand out to me 'cuz I cringed when I heard them while running a class, then had to try to explain them away when people asked about them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
the opening verse of the class
how much was stolen from us?
how much of it was
that they might have life and have it more abundantly?
And in context of this scripture tells you where this class belongs.
Trying to enter some other way besides the Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think the intent of this thread was to keep all the "Mike wars" in one place, so the replies are appropriate in here, Mark. In fact, the other thread specifically said "Take your fight to the new thread." So, regardless of the title of this thread, the intent was to take all this discussion and put it in one place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
OK, Rhino/Raf
Point well taken.
Have fun!
So, I guess I'll just need to excuse myself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The interesting thing, Mark, is that PFAL never was the subject of Mike's threads. PFAL specifically sets the words Wierwille wrote in contrast with what it calls the perfect God-breathed Word, and thus discounts itself as part of that Word. Mike takes VPW's imperfect articulation of this simple and straightforward fact and turns it into a declaration that the PFAL books are perfect God-breathed Word, but maybe his letters to his family and friends and/or earlier editions of his books, complete with Trinitarian references, do not rise to that standard. He injects complexity into the simple, thus twisting the meaning to conform to an already multiply disproven thesis.
That PFAL fails to live up to its standard of perfection causes those of us who value its lessons to lose no sleep at all. But to Mike, it undermines his thesis to the extent that he must narrow the intended audience so that it becomes a sort of anti-gospel, aimed not at bringing the gospel message to the world, but a secret and ubiquitously hidden message to the elite. PFAL mastery, as Mike defines it, is the exact opposite of the Great Commission. Go ye therefore unto all the older leader grads, baptizing in the name of the Orange Book, the Blue Book, and the Last/Lust Message of The Teaching Doctor Brains and Brawn.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Those who point out the imperfections of PFAL are easily dismissed by this standard, because they are not part of Mike's elite intended audience and, thus, not worth listening to. They are dismissed with casual comments intended to be insults, such as "you weren't around when Wierwille was, so you couldn't understand," and "you were poisoned by people who did not grab onto something whenever Wierwille walked by." In other words, anyone who looks at Wierwille's written works with an open mind and sees it for what it is automatically and by definition becomes an "unfit researcher," even if all such a person is doing is applying the very advice Wierwille (perhaps cynically) gave to examine his teachings critically.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
You and I may have to disagree a bit here, Raf. If I understand your basic premise about PFAL correctly, you believe that the basic premise of PFAL was alright, but it was plagued by several aggregious errors and that proper attribution was not provided for VPW's sources in the work.
I believe that the fundamental premise of PFAL was error and that anything that is not in error is the abberation, not the errors being the abberation that scar an otherwise fundamentally theologically sound work.
(Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I've gotten out of your posts on the subject).
My problem with PFAL starts off with the very beginning of the class and move on from there.
1) The opening of the book with John 10:10 (taken completely out of it's context), sets up the class as instruction in Word-Faith theology (alternately known as "Prosperity Theology"). This enabled the massive financial gains and, when people didn't reap the promised results from the error of "prosperity theology", they were made to feel inadequate. (The theology is not in error, the person is in error)
2) The dispensationalism taught throughout the class (as proposed by Darby) was also in error. This dispensationalism allowed the error of the "absent Christ" ... and set forth the stage allowing the MOG-worship idolatry to further imprison TWI's followers.
And it goes on from there.
But the bottom line is that I see that the class, from it's roots, is erroneous. The theology that is taught through that class is what enabled the abuses to occur.
But, of course, as always, it is IMHO. And, of course, YMMV.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
That's why I distinguish between actual errors and interpretational errors, a deeper and more substantive discussion. I believe there are errors of interpretation in PFAL, and have discussed several. But if someone is unwilling to face the fact that there are even actual errors, the topic of interpretational errors is moot. Wierwille can write "the moon is made of green cheese," and anyone who disputes that notion is an unfit researcher who has not looked carefully enough at the text in a bid at mastery. "Skeptics," we're called. "Critics." "Naysayers." "Crybabies."
I look at the conflict between the Blue Book and Jesus Christ Our Passover concerning the definition of "hanged himself," and I see Wierwille changing his mind over time when he gathers more information. One of those explanations is wrong. But I never lost sleep over it because PFAL never claimed to be inerrant. I think it's a big fat "so what," the only value to the discrepancy being that it disproves the thesis that PFAL IS inerrant. So Wierwille overstated (ie, was wrong about) the significance of heteros and allos in the "four crucified" discussion. So what? We all know the important cross was the one in the middle.
So my discussion here (and in related threads) was never about the overall value of PFAL. Some give it high value, some give it low value. My discussion has been about the notion of PFAL as "inerrant," a notion that is demonstrably false when one accepts PFAL's very own definition of what it means to be God-breathed, and one must accept that definition in order to hold onto the notion. After all, how could PFAL be God-breathed while at the same time be wrong about what God-breathed means?
I guess I'm saying that your analysis of where I stand on PFAL is partly right, but not relevant to the discussion. I'm simply pointing out that such a position can exist, so those who DO value Wierwille's books do not need to idolatrously exalt them, or him, in order to crack them open and smile while reading them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
===
Let me try a different approach:
There are four premises:
PFAL is God-breathed.
PFAL is not God-breathed.
PFAL is valuable.
PFAL is not valuable.
The first two premises are mutually exclusive, and the subject of this overall discussion.
The first premise and the third premise are compatible, but one need not adopt the first premise to accept the third.
The second and third premises are compatible. Most Wierwillites, even the staunchest, fall into this category.
The second and fourth premises are compatible.
The conflict between the third and fourth premises comprise a significant reason Greasespot, and Waydale before it, exists. You and I can have a great discussion about premises three and four, but if I attach premise one to my position, then we're both wasting our time.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
Only the most simple and/or noteworthy items will I be able to comment on this morning because I have very little time (...and I’m trying be a good example for you).
Oh... for the time I wish I had to respond to all that's here!
***
“What the Hey” was correct, it was his duel with Raf over trivialities that I was commenting on and it didn’t involve you at all.
***
In post #99 you wrote: “D) There are no answers among Christians outside twi.”
I agree that there are lots of answers out there, but they’re not together in one place and free of crippling and corrupting error mixed in.
So, if we want to enjoy and utilize those answers, they are not accessible. As he himself admitted, but it was and still is ignored, Dr didn’t do all that much original work, but he did put it together sans the crippling error.
So, I concur with Dr that IN EFFECT there are no answers out there, outside of PFAL, except relatively irretrievable elements of truth and fact.
(Doojable, this also goes for the research tools that are out there, as I discussed this with you. They are out there, but who can find and refine them without God’s great guidance. God already did provide that great guidance to us grads and most of us have spurned it as not religious enough for the worldly tastes that dominate the masses.)
***
You wrote: “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.”
I’d refine it thusly:
The benefit of Dr’s final instructions is to us not to him, so the idea of “commercial” doesn’t fit.
I wouldn’t put it as wide sweeping, either. I’d call it (especially when joined with a few other crucial things Dr stated) the great spiritual wakeup call FOR OLGS.
It’s crucial that you see the focus on OLGs if you want to represent my message. You set up a straw man when you omit this aspect of my message.
Lastly, I’d soften the “spiritually inept” part. The natural state of man is spiritually inept. What I see is that we OLGs, when facing what we allowed to slip through our fingers, must accept the fact that the understanding of spiritual matters we presently have is NOT the paragon of spiritual strength we thought it was.
We OLGs must accept the fact that we still have oodles of spiritual blind spots that guarantee eventual failure in ministering situations, even though we can enjoy limited successes in the short run due to what truths we DID master and get right from PFAL ...and even elsewhere.
We OLGs must accept the fact that we didn't absorb PFAL nearly as well as we thought we did, and ON THE POSITIVE SIDE, there is a wealth of information and instruction awaiting our re-discovery within written PFAL.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
That's fine, Raf.
I misinterpreted the purpose of the thread. So allow me to graciously withdraw.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Seeing that Wierwille set himself up as the final arbiter of truth is different than believing that he was saying that PFAL is on par with the bible. Yes, he was very clear that he thought that no translation or version could be termed THE WORD OF GOD, but he was equally emphatic that with study of the early texts, and applying the "keys", one could determime what the originals said.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oakspear,
Sorry if I misunderstood your position. I think I accurately hit on the detachment part, though, didn't I? This came up before in how you and Abigail were the only ones who could understand what I was reporting on that Dr’s “only rule for faith and practice” being the abstract, originals, and not pined down to the existing manuscripts.
Do you agree with my assessment of the attitude of “Thus saith the lord” was in the air all about Dr in the early 70’s?
***
markomalley,
I think you got it right on the purpose of this thread. This was something I discussed with Paw when I met him at pamsandiego’s house last summer, and then with Modaustin a few days ago.
Now that this thread is underway, in order to limit the size of this thread (so as to not offend those with understandable PFAL phobias), and to compartmentalize sub-topics as they emerge, maybe we could discuss having an entire forum for focusing on PFAL matters. Just a suggestion.
At first I thought an entire forum would be too much, and I was bothered by the idea of rules, but Modaustin’s handling of the intro went farther than I expected, and neatly deals with some aspects I hadn’t thought through very well.
Now you, Mark, have reminded us all that the way Modaustin started it has the necessary wisdom to contain things, and also makes it easier for management to deal with things. I am very grateful to GSC management for not only allowing me to post, but also for the response work they are saddled with when people complain about my proPFAL message. Hopefully that workload will diminish.
I think in the past I have politely avoided invading MOST threads at GSC with my message, and I will continue to be respectful like this of grads hurting from past TWI abuses and reminded of such by my repetition of related catch phrases. It would be nice to see some reciprocity from antiPFAL grads here and a little more tolerance for my message and less intent to snuff it out by various means.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
you are a liar, and have intentionally hurt and abused people on this forum
i witnessed it and can bring it back up
but i won't for the sake of those you attacked
and don't give me that crap about they started it,
you are a liar and try to manipulate people into
your insanity
friggin nutcase
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
yeah you forget ole Vertical Limit huh
that's me, and i'll kick your foot again
if i see you try the same $*@!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Mike,
I am not defending you. I am not agreeing with you. I pray for you that God may open your eyes, as He did to Saul. And I pray that God will show you mercy if you continue to be deceived up until the time of your death.
The reason I posted what I did earlier was not in defense of you or your arguments, rather it was based on my belief in the fundamental dignity of the human person. I do believe that each person has a fundamental amount of dignity by virtue of that person's existence, not based upon any amount of dignity or respect that person may have earned or thrown away. As such, I believe that the best way to have such an argument is through facts and logic based on ideas and beliefs, rather than attacks against a person's existence.
The reason I am posting now is to clarify and reiterate my position. I actually agree with the conclusions that most of your detractors have drawn, that your beliefs are idolatrous and are deceived. I believe that your ideas and beliefs would, in fact, be quite dangerous if you had the rhetorical skills to properly present them. Fortunately, you haven't evidenced those skills.
Having said that, no matter how dangerous the ideas, no matter how clumsily those dangerous ideas are presented, I don't think that attacks against the person are appropriate, no matter how much the person deserves or even begs for those attacks. No matter how many back-handed ad hominem attacks are delivered in any direction. I think the appropriate action is. as I said before, "don't feed the trolls."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Wierwille, and the whole TWI system, was great at getting us to take dissenting opinions and "hold them in abeyance", and convincing us to put our common sense on hold, not because we thought that he was incapable or error, but because we assumed that he was utilizing those "keys" that he taught us about. If I had thought, in my early days in TWI, that we should swallow what Wierwille said, just because he said it, I doubt that I would have stuck around.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
So VP had a 'Thus saith the Lord' attitude back in the 70's. <_< So what? Jerry Falwell has that same attitude. So does Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggert. ... So did David Koresh.
So how does that attitude make his PFAL any more Gawd breathed than not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Yeah, but when VPW said it, it was special. The earth shook when he said it. Did you see the earth shake when the other ministers said that?
Ooh, a new casual intended insult! Now people who look at PFAL objectively have a PHOBIA.
It's be funny if it weren't so funny.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
marko, dooj, and anybody else lurking who is fairly new to GS......
There is a history among some of us posters that you I'm sure are not aware of. B)
Some of it is not so pretty. It's a little messy, in fact. That's all I wanted to say.....
Carry on. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Garth,
Yo wrote: "So VP had a 'Thus saith the Lord' attitude back in the 70's. So what? Jerry Falwell has that same attitude. So does Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggert. ... So did David Koresh. __ So how does that attitude make his PFAL any more Gawd breathed than not?"
Dr's exhibited attitude in the early 70’s does NOT prove that PFAL is God-breathed.
I have never argued that it does.
***
Dr’s attitude of “thus saith” coincides with the many “thus saith the lord” statements that are scattered all through PFAL, just like they were in the “air’ in the early 70’s.
BUT, Dr’s many “thus saith the lord” statements still do NOT prove that PFAL is indeed God-breathed.
***
I’m often accused of claiming that PFAL is greater than Dr claimed it to be, and that Dr never claimed it to be God-breathed, but my accusers are not in command of all the facts on this issue.
Dr’s many “thus saith the lord” statements (along with the “atmosphere” in the early 70’s), however DO INDICATE, or lightly prove, that those OLGs who THINK Dr never claimed to be producing anything more than a Bible aid, that the class and collaterals were MERELY some Bible research keys, have not sufficiently heard all of Dr’s message on this issue. (WordWolf, the purpose of the PFAL book is not TOTALLY revealed in that book's beginning pages. Like I did with "A simple guy," I insist on ALL of the passages of PFAL on a give topic be brought to the table, not just selected ones.)
Dr’s many “thus saith the lord” statements show that these OLGs’ PFAL mastery was insufficient, as per Dr’s final instructions, to catch this “thus saith” nuance in written PFAL.
***
Again, there is STILL no proof here in this post, nor even a weak indication, that any or all of this leads directly to PFAL being God-breathed, just that the internal claim within PFAL that it is the Word of God was missed by most later grads and forgotten by most early ones.
Still no proof of God-breathed PFAL here.
***
If it’s the case, and I think I have shown that it is, that we grads missed the CLAIM of God-breathedness within PFAL, then HOW MANY OTHER THINGS WERE MISSED?
It’s in absorbing these OTHER MISSED THINGS that the proof of PFAL being God-breathed will be shown to each meek mastering student by the real author behind PFAL and all of it’s collected elements, God Himself.
***
For those who want more detail, all of this I posted at length in my lengthy post # 268 on doojable’s “Ok once and for all” thread, near the top of page 14 for those who kept the default setting of number of posts per page.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Raf,
You're reading too much into my posts.
Paraphrasing me you wrote: "Now people who look at PFAL objectively have a PHOBIA."
Not all, just some people here. There are SOME posters and readers here who have bad associations with PFAL nonenclature. That's all I was referring to when I wrote "phobias."
I also added the word "understandable" to that mix.
I don't think you have a PFAL phobia, maybe just a Mike phobia.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Phobia's not the word, chief.
Link to comment
Share on other sites