Leaderboard

BTW, we've previously discussed and whether or not he was completely a fraud. That is, was he even a Christian at all, or was it all an act from the beginning? Was he a Christian once whose sins dominated his ministry, or was he a fraud from the beginning of his career? We know- by his own wording- that he chose ministry out of 3 possible careers, besides business or entertainment, and it was a toss-up. The only indications he was actually interested in God before his decision was 2 anecdotes- and vpw lied a lot. One anecdote was when he was a kid. A preacher showed up and preached at his local church. When the preacher asked him what he planned to be when he grew up, vpw supposedly said he wanted to be a man of God like the preacher. vpw followed this up with saying that he'd thought that he himself wasn't serious when he said it. "You know how kids talk." So, even he didn't believe that story. The other story was that he would shirk his chores as a kid and run off into the woods for hours. When there were no witnesses, he supposedly was off "preaching to the trees" and practicing how to preach. Naturally, nobody came forward and said they ever saw him do it, even once. Even more naturally, vpw- most obviously a big plagiarist- plagiarized that story as well as all the others he plagiarized. ORAL ROBERTS preached to the trees. He fought his own stage fright by going among trees and got used to addressing them as if they were the public, making altar calls and so on. Now, with the internet, that story is easy to find, and easy to trace to Oral Roberts. In vpw's lifetime, it was a LOT harder to catch him plagiarizing, without access to the internet. We know that his efforts in school leading up to the ministry were slack enough that his father had to get involved for vpw to be allowed to continue his education. By vpw's own admission, when he claimed to choose the ministry, his own father pointed out he lacked the discipline to be a decent farmer, and thought the ministry would require MORE dedication. When in divinity school, vpw chose the SOFTEST option available- preaching. He skipped studying church history, church languages, and so on. Later, he pretended to know both, but, as we've seen since. he was awful at both. His area of study was "homiletics"- or putting together sermons. How hard is that? Most of the posters here, if not all the posters here, have done it at some point, when in twi. We called them "teachings" but they were sermons by another name. vpw went to school for it, we did not. That's how soft an option that was. According to vpw himself, when he was first assigned a church to pastor, the local elders gave him almost no instructions. Rather than focus on what his congregation needed, he supposedly spent the entire first month focusing on going completely against what the local elders had said, and mouthed off to them when they confronted them on it. The story rings hollow and sounds made-up because they didn't have him removed and the church locals didn't stop attending when he spent his entire first month focusing ALL of his sermons on giving money to the church. However, as a lie, it shows his frame of mind- that he thinks that this is an appropriate lie to tell of his early days as a preacher. And he didn't spin this as "but I learned better and I thank God I'm not like that any more", he gave that as an example of his frame of mind, that he chafed at authority so much he would preach "up" if he was told to preach on "down,", and focusing all his sermons on talking people into giving him money was fine. Did you think it was a new thing with him that "Christians Should Be Prosperous" (why I should give twi my money) was mandatory reading for all pfal students, a book they paid for with their pfal tuition, a book they paid retail prices for, a book printed in-house for a LOT less than they paid? He got a job editing the sermons and articles of other Christians. Shortly thereafter, he got used to re-preaching whatever they'd worked at. In short, in his entire career, he plagiarized freely whenever and wherever he was able. He himself admitted that he's completed his entire divinity education, and spent his entire first year preaching BEFORE he ever believed the Bible was the Word of God. Is it even possible to believe a man could spend that much time as a GENUINE ministry student and preacher and not have that as A foundation for everything if not THE foundation for everything? By his own admission, TWICE in his first year as a preacher, he considered giving up as a minister. I'm supposed to believe he was a dedicated, GENUINE minister when he kept looking back and considering hanging it all up. What changed everything? All evidence points to him ripping off/plagiarizing BG Leonard's class, and JE Stiles book, both in the same year, and making those the 1.0 version and following of pfal. (The very first pfal class, "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today", was a ripoff clone of Leonard's class in EVERY detail, and remained so until he added Stiles' work, then Bullinger's work.) All evidence points to him being a fraud from the beginning. Every step was calculated as a business move, and none of it was "at the behest of God Almighty." When all of this came up, the counter-argument- the claim that vpw was always actually genuine, was entirely based on four things. A) Everything he taught was accurate, and of God, so he must have been connected to God to be that correct. vpw claimed to work by revelation, so he must have been working by revelation. As it turns out, the main reasons to believe he worked by revelation were his own claims he did so, and certainly all claims everything he taught was accurate run the same way- since we've examined some of his work and found errors all over it. Understandable as human error, but a problem if supposedly it was ALL by revelation, and so on. B) vpw claimed "the 1942 promise." vpw claimed God Almighty spoke to him, and that was the basis for his preaching, and of the material he presented later. It didn't take a lot of work to show that these claims didn't hold water. They fell apart easily when examined. Once again, vpw, a chronic liar, had lied to his congregation. C) I feel really blessed when I hear his teachings, and I felt really blessed when I was in twi, so vpw must have been genuine. Well, genuine Christians were in twi, and there was genuine, plagiarized material. I could see either blessing someone, even if vpw was a complete fraud. Furthermore, by vpw's own admission, feeling really blessed when he himself taught meant nothing- some people make similar claims about sitting on a Psychiatrist's couch (something he denigrated, probably because he was in competition with Psychiatrists who completed medical school.) So, those claims don't hold water, either. D) vpw sounded really sincere when he taught for decades, and supposedly nobody could sound sincere faking it for decades. YES THEY COULD. Now, none of US could do that, because we have a conscience. A true sociopath (like vpw) could brazenly go for decades, presenting things he didn't believe, to people who did believe them, in order to bring in the money. Certainly, any half-decent actor- or any half-skilled CON ARTIST- could do it for an entire sermon, given the right materials (like being able to plagiarize all the materials, the presentations, and so on, from real preachers.) So long as it was clear it was all for the stage, any decent actor could keep doing it- like Steve Martin performing in the movie "Leap of Faith". But his conscience would bother him if he pretended to be real while faking it and actually preaching at the pulpit. Heck, early acting exercises have actors practicing to speak convincingly while speaking literal gibberish. Any number of politicians have gone and given speeches they didn't really believe, and delivered them with gusto, as if they believed them. (No examples, please, politics is off-limits at the GSC.) I once saw comedian/actor John Candy deliver an example of that. He got onstage pretending to be a member of the Canadian Parliament. All of the MPs are supposed to be bilingual in English and French, but many don't know much French, and that was the basis for the joke. With lots of florid hand gestures and looking "genuine", he delivered a speech in French- in poorly-pronounced French. The subtitles clued English-speakers in on the jokes. "Good evening and welcome. I do not speak French. This speech was written for me by someone else, and I don't understand a word I am saying. I am a fat English pig." The entire time, that was delivered every bit as if he was giving a genuine speech. It's the example I know best, but it's common enough for actors. Faking it can be done if someone's conscience doesn't stop them. So, the only remaining objection doesn't hold water, either. Oh, there was also the "argument" that vpw was real because he spoke in tongues. No matter what twi said and says now, speaking in tongues can be faked, speaking in tongues with interpretation can be faked, word of prophecy can be faked. We had some heavy discussions as to whether or not they WERE ALL faked, or if they simply WERE faked LOTS OF TIMES. We know some were faked because some of us faked them at the time- all while trying to be genuine and meaning well, but faking it anyway because that's how we were taught. Now, I actually changed my position as a result of these discussions. I once believed it was all real, and now believe all the "speaking in tongues/interpretation" of twi and that style was and are all faked. (I'm convinced most of the "word of prophecy" was faked, but not all of it, I believe some of it was genuine.) Nobody is required to agree with me, but it's clear enough that SIT CAN be faked. So, the idea that vpw should be believed to be genuine because he was seen to SIT doesn't hold water either- it can be faked. Why do people believe it can't be faked? That's what we were taught by vpw- a man who lied to us all the time. Do you know the difference between "sincere" and "insincere"? vpw didn't. He said that the man who tries to sell you a toothbrush with only one bristle has to BE really sincere. UNTRUE. The man has to FAKE sincerity, he has to APPEAR sincere. Unless he is a complete moron, he would have to know such a product is defective and useless for its proclaimed purpose. He would be trying to con you, and APPEAR sincere while he FAKED his sincerity. Why would vpw be unable to understand such a simple distinction? It was part of his character. To him, there was no difference between BEING sincere- meaning it from the heart- and FAKING sincerity- looking like you meant it from the heart but faking all of it, making a performance with a genuine appearance. All evidence points to vpw having been a fraud from Day One. Oh, perhaps something, somewhere was genuine, but being 100% fake and being 95% fake pretty much look the same.