I object to Tom using it here on this topic because I suspect he has other than genuine learning motives. If he wants to learn this complex topic he wouldn’t mind trying out my suggested questions.
He seems to think he can call the shots for delving into a VERY complex topic that I have a little bit of a grasp on and that he does none. It’s a topic that I spent 8 years on and he none, so I will work it the way I see fit.
Mike,
I have read a lot of Tom's posts and I just simply do not agree. You are coming off as arrogant here.
Sorry - but that's how I see it. YOu tell Tom that You are calling the shots and not him......Wow! I can't even begin to tell you how that sets my nerves on edge.
I ran this all by my hubby - the lawyer. He seems to think that with as much thought as you've put into the subject, that you ought to be able to give people a reason to do what you say. Dr did this. You seem to want to get "your message" out - but you limit folks so much...almost like you're setting yourself up to fail...
Think about this:
I don't know if there are ANY records in the Bible of men who lead God's people, then went on to betray God's people, then abuse God's people; -then God says - "Oh BTW, his message was a good one, You should listen to it (him)."
David - nope - he repented. And he paid a big price for his indescretions - Israel ended up really in the toilet by the time his grandson Rehoboam came on the scene - it was a looooooooong time before Israel was able to receive the Word again - and it obviously wasn't David doing the speaking - nor was it really David's message.
Paul - nope -he got he message after he changed and never looked back.
My main objection is and will remain that if God were to have wanted to really breath this message into a man - he would not have chosen someone who He knew in His foreknowlege would become so distasteful, so difficult to believe and trust. This leads me to believe that either Pfal wasn't really god-breathed - and God would not ask US to go back to it if it were. Its' still too soon, too raw. You know that even in your own life there are people that you would not want to have to "listen to" - even after all these years.....the wounds run too deep.
I know you think we should move on from this point - but it seems like the starting point. Can't move on to "Go" and collect $200 without this point being really taken care of.
You seem to ignore the fact that God doesn't send the same message or the same messenger to the people that were hurt by it in the first place. I heard that in the Corps. So why would God ask any of us grads to return to the teachings of a man that has proven to be questionable at best? A man that really harmed many - physically and emotionally and spiritually? This is not in keeping with Godly-logic. God is not a fool, nor is he ignorant.
If I remember rightly, the test part was tongue in cheek where I was playing the teacher role, and is a legitimate figure of speech, while the preparation part was literal.
As usual Mike... when cornered you pull out the "I was only kidding" line...
Now that I defused your reason to refuse, you can reconsider this paste:
If you can’t understand the questions I asked you in those earlier posts, or if you simply don’t want to deal with them, then you either won’t be able to understand the answers I give you to your questions or you'll not want to accept them.
Again Mike, you're pre-supposing yet again... you simply do not know whether of not I (we) will be able to understand or will accept them. But I won't even consider them just on your saying "believe me, what I say is true".
The reason I can say this is because I specifically designed those questions to you to track closely with the issues you are asking me about. Since you seem unable or unwilling to deal with the issues in my questions, then you will be similarly disposed to deal with my answers.
Again, you'll never really know until you answer.
Because you seem unable or unwilling to deal with the issues I feel that we must start with the basics, and build a foundation for understanding these things. To really do that we must dive headlong into the PFAL texts. It is THIS that I really wish to communicate to you and to readers. Those who do not want to do this are free to do so, but I’m also free to not care what they think about me.
Look at it this way, Tom, the questions I asked you are hints. Work with them.
Mike, why don't you pre-suppose this: your 40 million pages of 'basics' that you've provided us with are enough basics... but also know (refer back to dmiller's example) that while you have presented us with the grand volume of basics... you've never answered the questions about those basices that are needed to lend any credibility to YOU, the presenter of the basics.
***
You pasted (with my bold fonts) in Post #34: “I'm trying to figure out if you have any credibility, to determine if you or your message should be heeded... and all you ever do is say "you just have to believe me" (but in many many more words than that).”
Yes, Tom, you're VERY trying.
Very nice Mike... and yet you still wonder why you're not taken seriously here.
But if you want to try harder, then why don’t you work a little more on my paste several lines above and the referecned questions in Post #6 and #9?
And you got something wrong in your paste here.
The phrase "you just have to believe me" should read:
"you just have to work with my referenced questions a little more"
Remember those questions in Posts #6 and #9? I do. The ones on recognizing Jesus.
No Mike... YOU have always stated that the whole of your theories is based upon the fact/truth/tenent that PFAL IS GOD BREATHED and that we have to believe you on that. And since the entire body of your "teachings" rest on YOUR interpretation of PFAL and the premise that it's God Breathed, it ALL becomes "you just have to believe me"...
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU WON'T ANSWER LEGITIMATE, STRAITFORWARD QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR "STATEMENTS OF TRUTH".
***
I had written: “If I am insane, then what the heck do you want my answers for?”
You responded with: “...at this point it's a matter of perception isn't it? ...or is it?”
Let’s use a little logic.
If I’m insane, then you ought to tiptoe away.
If I’m sane, then the very odd statements I’ve made should be looked at with great care, and every hint, question, suggestion, and tit-bit of an answer should be meekly received and pondered. But razzing and badgering should be avoided at all cost, lest I cast you out of my classroom.
(tongue in cheek teacher role, for the humor impaired)
If you can’t understand the questions I asked you in those earlier posts, or if you simply don’t want to deal with them, then you either won’t be able to understand the answers I give you to your questions or you'll not want to accept them
Mike,
Sorry but if this quote of your's was anymore of a straw man argument it would be singing, "If I Only Had a Brain!"
obtainable or accessible and ready for use or service
World peace is available. All that is required is that each individual not fight. The fact that it most likely won't happen, in no way make it unobtainable. All it takes is each person on the planet controlling their behavior. Do I think it will happen, probably not ,but that doesn't mean that it can't happen. The necessary" tools" are in place in each of us. Not choosing to use said "tools" is our exercise of freedom of choice which in no way changes the fact that we could at any time use the "tools" provided.
WHO came up with the "available" list
Chapter and verse (scripture not VPW)
"All things are possible through Christ Jesus....."
There is no law of believing, there is prayer, there is fasting, there is scripture, there is planning, there is Working toward a goal, But just sitting around"exercising your brain cells and expecting "manna" to fall from the heavens NO.
One of the most insidious thing I have had to clean from those Little gray cells in my head is the notion that we don't have to ask Heavenly Father for anything, just thank him for it because it is a done deal. NOT!!
Heavenly Father has billions of children the idea that you can say,
"I thank you God for letting me get that car" (knowing that a car is being given away nest week) and you will get the car, completely ignores the fact that down the street and across town people with a need just as dire and just as worthy are at that very moment offering prayers to God on the same subject.
When the winner is announced, Am I to believe that the losers, were less worthy, less devote, less deserving, because some how or other their "believing" was off??
I use the phrase "Available List" to refer to the written promises of God addressed to us.
When God promises something to us then we can claim it by believing. This is the first half of Session One, that seems is still needing to be mastered.
SO what promises has GOD made that aren;t available to us?
And since Praying for our needs/wants is stressed through out scripture , is the available list restricted to just the written promises specifically enumerated above?
So is it your position that the only things Available to us are the specific written promises of GOD
And is it further your position that not all the promises of God are available to us?
IF this is the case what happens to "Ask and ye shall receive?"
There is no law of believing, there is prayer, there is fasting, there is scripture, there is planning, there is Working toward a goal, But just sitting around"exercising your brain cells and expecting "manna" to fall from the heavens NO.
Nice one, Mo. Jesus certainly prayed, fasted, planned, while working toward a goal --- but I never do see scripture saying that He operated something called a *law of believing*. I've heard others say that He did, even offering scripture as *proof*, but without seeing that phrasing in the bible -- it can be nothing more than one's private interpretation. (Just an IMO -- but one I will hold to.)
It's just a label Dr gave it: the law of believing.
What about the ideas behind it?
The idea of availability as Dr taught seems to be missing in you as well as many others here, and if so, then I have my answer. You can't object to what you are unaware of.
So what is it?
Are you aware of the ideas, and specifically for this moment the idea of availability?
Or are you aware, but object to it. If so, then why?
I'm a bit baffled here.
Were you just tired last night when you brought up world peace and believing?
I'm having a hard time understanding what you and several others here understood from Session One.
It seems the idea of availability never registered.
You seemed to dodge my question by changing the subject, and with ANOTHER misunderstanding.
Fortunately, this one is easy to clear up.
I have never *dodged* your questions, nor did I here. The only *dodging* you see me doing, is in your mind. Sorry you see it that way -- my questions (like all the other's here) to you have been straightforward, and uncomplicated -- asking you about something you had just stated.
You are the one making this complicated, and doing the dodging -- not me.
repost since I seem to have gotton lost in the scuffle er.. I mean shuffle er... a shuffling scuffle???? :blink:
Mike
SO what promises has GOD made that aren;t available to us?
And since Praying for our needs/wants is stressed through out scripture , is the available list restricted to just the written promises specifically enumerated above?
So is it your position that the only things Available to us are the specific written promises of GOD
And is it further your position that not all the promises of God are available to us?
IF this is the case what happens to "Ask and ye shall receive?"
Your questions are readily answerable. I had to work hard today in anticipation of rains for the next two days, so I must be brief. I'm very tired, typing slow, and missing many keys, needing to constantly correct.
I’d love to answer all your questions, most of which I can. However, what troubles me is the same thing that bothered me so much about dmiller and his question on world peace.
Tomorrow, if the rains come, I’ll have the time and energy to answer, but I’ll still be troubled. I’ll be essentially repeating the class for you. Please don't be offended. There's no soft way I can say this, other than warn you to brace yourself a little. I can only speak what I see and I'm too tired to figure out a diplomatic way to say this. Your questions here indicate to me that you have virtually no retention of the main ideas of the first half of Session One. I can understand you dozing off in segment 16 and completely missing that material about us having no manuscripts, but what about Session One?
Why are these questions to you? I’m troubled. Dmiller’s question was also a no-brainer. What HAPPENED to you guys?! Why do you not know these things?
You’re not the only ones. I just posted to allan about something that he should have known was in PFAL, that we cannot just ask for whatever we feel like. He should have known that Session One would have satisfied his objection if he had remembered it.
Even WordWolf, who has repeatedly bragged about his mastering PFAL and acing the AC test, indicated a profound lack of understanding of what “available” was all about when he posted: “...red drapes are on the ‘available list.’ Oddly enough, so is killing your kid.” Neither are.
What is going on here?
I remember JAL having nearly the same beef as allan, and when I showed JAL about ten places in the class where Dr taught what they both thought was missing he just stared off into space and couldn’t see it.
Templelady, that same segment 16 that you missed crucial details from, I saw in 1988 that a Region Leader was severely lacking awareness of too.
I’m troubled. How am I ever going to get into advanced, advanced class stuff like seeing Jesus when so many people here seem to be totally lacking any understanding of Session One, even though some of them were here for Round 1 where all this was dealt with, or so I thought.
Tom Strange, can YOU answer templelady’s questions? I know I can.
How about you, doojable? You said you worked the books to a kind of mastery that satisfied you. Can YOU answer templelady’s questions?
Templelady, think hard. Even if you don’t agree with Session One, can you remember at all how Dr answered them?
How about if I PM you the transcript to Session One? Would you read it and report if there is an answer there? Even if you don’t believe it, there most certainly is, and that will be the answer I will be giving you. How about it? Will you accept that kind of answer? Otherwise it will just be me paraphrasing it.
I’m troubled.
Is there anyone who can answer templelady who took the class?
I can answer these questions but I'm not sure I will.
I know what the class says but I'm never sure how you're going to interpret the class. You say that the Bible is not the Word of God whilr Dr said that the Bible contained the revealed Word and will of God. Forgive me for not entering in here.
Your questions here indicate to me that you have virtually no retention of the main ideas of the first half of Session One.
[No. The question is-what does MIKE say it says?
We know what it says.]
Why do you not know these things?
[Only Mike knows what's in Mike's brain.
So, when we ask Mike, we get 3-5 paragraphs of obfuscation
that do nothing to actually answer the question.
That's why we don't know the answer.
Anybody ELSE could have passed along everything
about their positions within a year, let alone 3...]
Even WordWolf, who has repeatedly bragged about his mastering PFAL and acing the AC test, indicated a profound lack of understanding of what “available” was all about when he posted: “...red drapes are on the ‘available list.’ Oddly enough, so is killing your kid.” Neither are.
[Actually, according to vpw-who supposedly made up
the rules you're going by-they MUST be on the 'available list.'
According to the rules, if something is not available,
you can't receive it.
DUUUUUUUHHHHH.
If you can receive something, it IS available.
DUUUUUUUHHHHH.
If I had a cup of coffee this morning, it was available....
I couldn't beam myself around yesterday like in Star Trek
because "transporters" are not-what, class? available.
According to the class, vpw said that someone received
fire-red engine drapes. If they received them, then they
were available. Someone else received the death of
their child. If she received it, then it was available.
Who's got a "profound lack of understanding" here?
Either they received them, or they did not.
Since they received them, then they were available
TO be received.
Otherwise, you call vpw a liar for saying they received
them.
Remember?
The woman "had a need, and the need was,
they might as well be red drapes."
That's right out of Session One.]
I remember JAL having nearly the same beef as allan, and when I showed JAL about ten places in the class where Dr taught what they both thought was missing he just stared off into space and couldn’t see it.
[i think the rest of us are getting more of a hint of how
this meeting with JAL went....]
I’m troubled. How am I ever going to get into advanced, advanced class stuff like seeing Jesus when so many people here seem to be totally lacking any understanding of Session One, even though some of them were here for Round 1 where all this was dealt with, or so I thought.
[Actually, with you completely glossing over the
fundamental errors in Session One,
it makes addressing more detailed information difficult,
templelady, the post below was being written as you posted above. I'll now read yours.
doojable,
You wrote: "I can answer these questions but I'm not sure I will."
So, you can see that the class answers them, at least?
I don't think the God-breathed issues enters in here.
I'm just amazed that grads would even HAVE these questions or objections or issues or positions regarding this very elementary subject matter to THIS degree.
It's one thing to not believe Session One, and I can even understand it after all we went through, but I can't understand how such complete ignorance of what was taught in Session One can occur in so many people.
Add to this the fact that just weeks ago all this was covered in Round 1, and STILL the issues, questions, objections, and positions remain.
I don't know if I should give up or start all over and re-teach the class.
Maybe I should only discuss this with people who are familiar with the subject matter. Doojable, you say you think you can handle these things, but are not motivated. I wonder if anyone else here has any inkling of what's Session One.
Tom Strange? You want to weigh in and handle these matters for templelady?
WordWolf, you completely flunked this test. I may explain later. I’m sure you won’t learn from it though. You do NOT have the correct understanding of what Dr meant by available nor me, judging from the short post I cited last night, and even more from your more expanded post this morning.
I’m seeing that the need to come back to PFAL and master it was much greater than I had previously thought. People here seem not to even be able to recall the most fundamental of ideas.
Maybe I should go through the transcript here in a way that honors the fair use rules.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
104
50
72
59
Popular Days
May 5
39
May 3
38
Apr 4
34
Apr 3
28
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 104 posts
templelady 50 posts
Tom Strange 72 posts
dmiller 59 posts
Popular Days
May 5 2006
39 posts
May 3 2006
38 posts
Apr 4 2006
34 posts
Apr 3 2006
28 posts
WordWolf
But red drapes are on the "available list."
Oddly enough, so is killing your kid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Mike,
I have read a lot of Tom's posts and I just simply do not agree. You are coming off as arrogant here.
Sorry - but that's how I see it. YOu tell Tom that You are calling the shots and not him......Wow! I can't even begin to tell you how that sets my nerves on edge.
I ran this all by my hubby - the lawyer. He seems to think that with as much thought as you've put into the subject, that you ought to be able to give people a reason to do what you say. Dr did this. You seem to want to get "your message" out - but you limit folks so much...almost like you're setting yourself up to fail...
Think about this:
I don't know if there are ANY records in the Bible of men who lead God's people, then went on to betray God's people, then abuse God's people; -then God says - "Oh BTW, his message was a good one, You should listen to it (him)."
David - nope - he repented. And he paid a big price for his indescretions - Israel ended up really in the toilet by the time his grandson Rehoboam came on the scene - it was a looooooooong time before Israel was able to receive the Word again - and it obviously wasn't David doing the speaking - nor was it really David's message.
Paul - nope -he got he message after he changed and never looked back.
My main objection is and will remain that if God were to have wanted to really breath this message into a man - he would not have chosen someone who He knew in His foreknowlege would become so distasteful, so difficult to believe and trust. This leads me to believe that either Pfal wasn't really god-breathed - and God would not ask US to go back to it if it were. Its' still too soon, too raw. You know that even in your own life there are people that you would not want to have to "listen to" - even after all these years.....the wounds run too deep.
I know you think we should move on from this point - but it seems like the starting point. Can't move on to "Go" and collect $200 without this point being really taken care of.
You seem to ignore the fact that God doesn't send the same message or the same messenger to the people that were hurt by it in the first place. I heard that in the Corps. So why would God ask any of us grads to return to the teachings of a man that has proven to be questionable at best? A man that really harmed many - physically and emotionally and spiritually? This is not in keeping with Godly-logic. God is not a fool, nor is he ignorant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
The return of Gravy... (me in bold):
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Mike,
Sorry but if this quote of your's was anymore of a straw man argument it would be singing, "If I Only Had a Brain!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
MIke,
AVALABLE
obtainable or accessible and ready for use or service
World peace is available. All that is required is that each individual not fight. The fact that it most likely won't happen, in no way make it unobtainable. All it takes is each person on the planet controlling their behavior. Do I think it will happen, probably not ,but that doesn't mean that it can't happen. The necessary" tools" are in place in each of us. Not choosing to use said "tools" is our exercise of freedom of choice which in no way changes the fact that we could at any time use the "tools" provided.
WHO came up with the "available" list
Chapter and verse (scripture not VPW)
"All things are possible through Christ Jesus....."
There is no law of believing, there is prayer, there is fasting, there is scripture, there is planning, there is Working toward a goal, But just sitting around"exercising your brain cells and expecting "manna" to fall from the heavens NO.
One of the most insidious thing I have had to clean from those Little gray cells in my head is the notion that we don't have to ask Heavenly Father for anything, just thank him for it because it is a done deal. NOT!!
Heavenly Father has billions of children the idea that you can say,
"I thank you God for letting me get that car" (knowing that a car is being given away nest week) and you will get the car, completely ignores the fact that down the street and across town people with a need just as dire and just as worthy are at that very moment offering prayers to God on the same subject.
When the winner is announced, Am I to believe that the losers, were less worthy, less devote, less deserving, because some how or other their "believing" was off??
That is devilish and insidious
More VPW cut from whole cloth
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
templelady,
I use the phrase "Available List" to refer to the written promises of God addressed to us.
When God promises something to us then we can claim it by believing. This is the first half of Session One, that seems is still needing to be mastered.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Written promises of GOD From Scripture
SO what promises has GOD made that aren;t available to us?
And since Praying for our needs/wants is stressed through out scripture , is the available list restricted to just the written promises specifically enumerated above?
So is it your position that the only things Available to us are the specific written promises of GOD
And is it further your position that not all the promises of God are available to us?
IF this is the case what happens to "Ask and ye shall receive?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Nice one, Mo. Jesus certainly prayed, fasted, planned, while working toward a goal --- but I never do see scripture saying that He operated something called a *law of believing*. I've heard others say that He did, even offering scripture as *proof*, but without seeing that phrasing in the bible -- it can be nothing more than one's private interpretation. (Just an IMO -- but one I will hold to.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
Is it merely the phrasing that you object to?
It's just a label Dr gave it: the law of believing.
What about the ideas behind it?
The idea of availability as Dr taught seems to be missing in you as well as many others here, and if so, then I have my answer. You can't object to what you are unaware of.
So what is it?
Are you aware of the ideas, and specifically for this moment the idea of availability?
Or are you aware, but object to it. If so, then why?
I'm a bit baffled here.
Were you just tired last night when you brought up world peace and believing?
I'm having a hard time understanding what you and several others here understood from Session One.
It seems the idea of availability never registered.
Which is it?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Whoaaaaaa!!! Back up Nellie!!!!! Did you just say what I think I read??????
The *Law of Believing* is JUST A LABEL DR GAVE IT??????
and here you are touting it as God-breathed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
You seemed to dodge my question by changing the subject, and with ANOTHER misunderstanding.
Fortunately, this one is easy to clear up.
I wrote: “It's just a label Dr gave it: the law of believing.”
Here the word “just” can be replaced with “merely.”
It's merely a label Dr gave it: the law of believing.
Looks the same, doesn’t it. You can latch onto the same misunderstanding with this sentence too.
But not so fast. What does the word “merely” refer to (or “just” if you object to this swap)?
Does it refer to “label” or to “Dr gave” ?
If you WANT to find a contradiction in my post (and it seems you do) then you will answer “It refers to “Dr gave.”
But that’s not what I meant it to refer to. Pardon me if my grammar is wrong here, but I think it’s not.
“Merely” refers to “label.”
The phrase “the law of believing” is a mere label Dr, by God’s inspiration, gave to it.
Mere relative to what? The ideas behind it.
Compared to the ideas behind it, the phrase “law of believing” is merely a label.
I asked you if you objected to the mere label or to the ideas behind it, most specifically the idea of availability.
Do you want to dodge this question again?
Do you have ANY understanding of the idea of availability Dr taught in Session One?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Hey there "Dodger" Mike... why don't you address any of Mo's points?
Why don't you answer any other questions?
Fake. Fraud. Charlaton. Poser. Wannabe Prophet.
Edited by Tom StrangeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom,
Time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Time? So far you've taken almost three years that I've known of... and you said you were doing prior to that.
How much more time...?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I have never *dodged* your questions, nor did I here. The only *dodging* you see me doing, is in your mind. Sorry you see it that way -- my questions (like all the other's here) to you have been straightforward, and uncomplicated -- asking you about something you had just stated.
You are the one making this complicated, and doing the dodging -- not me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ok, then I'll apologize. I'm sorry I thought you were dodging.
What are your answers to my questions on availability today and late last night?
Let's take the latest one first:
Do you object to the mere label "law of believing" or to the ideas behind it, most specifically the idea of availability.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
repost since I seem to have gotton lost in the scuffle er.. I mean shuffle er... a shuffling scuffle???? :blink:
Mike
SO what promises has GOD made that aren;t available to us?
And since Praying for our needs/wants is stressed through out scripture , is the available list restricted to just the written promises specifically enumerated above?
So is it your position that the only things Available to us are the specific written promises of GOD
And is it further your position that not all the promises of God are available to us?
IF this is the case what happens to "Ask and ye shall receive?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
templelady,
I am troubled.
Your questions are readily answerable. I had to work hard today in anticipation of rains for the next two days, so I must be brief. I'm very tired, typing slow, and missing many keys, needing to constantly correct.
I’d love to answer all your questions, most of which I can. However, what troubles me is the same thing that bothered me so much about dmiller and his question on world peace.
Tomorrow, if the rains come, I’ll have the time and energy to answer, but I’ll still be troubled. I’ll be essentially repeating the class for you. Please don't be offended. There's no soft way I can say this, other than warn you to brace yourself a little. I can only speak what I see and I'm too tired to figure out a diplomatic way to say this. Your questions here indicate to me that you have virtually no retention of the main ideas of the first half of Session One. I can understand you dozing off in segment 16 and completely missing that material about us having no manuscripts, but what about Session One?
Why are these questions to you? I’m troubled. Dmiller’s question was also a no-brainer. What HAPPENED to you guys?! Why do you not know these things?
You’re not the only ones. I just posted to allan about something that he should have known was in PFAL, that we cannot just ask for whatever we feel like. He should have known that Session One would have satisfied his objection if he had remembered it.
Even WordWolf, who has repeatedly bragged about his mastering PFAL and acing the AC test, indicated a profound lack of understanding of what “available” was all about when he posted: “...red drapes are on the ‘available list.’ Oddly enough, so is killing your kid.” Neither are.
What is going on here?
I remember JAL having nearly the same beef as allan, and when I showed JAL about ten places in the class where Dr taught what they both thought was missing he just stared off into space and couldn’t see it.
Templelady, that same segment 16 that you missed crucial details from, I saw in 1988 that a Region Leader was severely lacking awareness of too.
I’m troubled. How am I ever going to get into advanced, advanced class stuff like seeing Jesus when so many people here seem to be totally lacking any understanding of Session One, even though some of them were here for Round 1 where all this was dealt with, or so I thought.
Tom Strange, can YOU answer templelady’s questions? I know I can.
How about you, doojable? You said you worked the books to a kind of mastery that satisfied you. Can YOU answer templelady’s questions?
Templelady, think hard. Even if you don’t agree with Session One, can you remember at all how Dr answered them?
How about if I PM you the transcript to Session One? Would you read it and report if there is an answer there? Even if you don’t believe it, there most certainly is, and that will be the answer I will be giving you. How about it? Will you accept that kind of answer? Otherwise it will just be me paraphrasing it.
I’m troubled.
Is there anyone who can answer templelady who took the class?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I can answer these questions but I'm not sure I will.
I know what the class says but I'm never sure how you're going to interpret the class. You say that the Bible is not the Word of God whilr Dr said that the Bible contained the revealed Word and will of God. Forgive me for not entering in here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Bingo.
This simple fact is what's puzzling Mike this morning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[WordWolf in boldface and brackets again.]
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Mike, I already know what PFAL says
What I want from you is the scriptural foundation for the claims that VPW makes in PFAL
Not his Version of "what scripture really says" or any of the rest of that ,but simple easy to read direct quotes from the scriptures,
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
templelady, the post below was being written as you posted above. I'll now read yours.
doojable,
You wrote: "I can answer these questions but I'm not sure I will."
So, you can see that the class answers them, at least?
I don't think the God-breathed issues enters in here.
I'm just amazed that grads would even HAVE these questions or objections or issues or positions regarding this very elementary subject matter to THIS degree.
It's one thing to not believe Session One, and I can even understand it after all we went through, but I can't understand how such complete ignorance of what was taught in Session One can occur in so many people.
Add to this the fact that just weeks ago all this was covered in Round 1, and STILL the issues, questions, objections, and positions remain.
I don't know if I should give up or start all over and re-teach the class.
Maybe I should only discuss this with people who are familiar with the subject matter. Doojable, you say you think you can handle these things, but are not motivated. I wonder if anyone else here has any inkling of what's Session One.
Tom Strange? You want to weigh in and handle these matters for templelady?
WordWolf, you completely flunked this test. I may explain later. I’m sure you won’t learn from it though. You do NOT have the correct understanding of what Dr meant by available nor me, judging from the short post I cited last night, and even more from your more expanded post this morning.
I’m seeing that the need to come back to PFAL and master it was much greater than I had previously thought. People here seem not to even be able to recall the most fundamental of ideas.
Maybe I should go through the transcript here in a way that honors the fair use rules.
Any suggestions?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.