Nathan_Jr

Right! or..... DEFLECT IT

No. This was just a few years ago. I was born in the 70s.

Thank you, Word Wolf! Victor plagiarized poetry ALL. THE. TIME. The first time I noticed this was in a fellowship meeting that was held forth in our house because the coordinator's house was briefly occupied by devil spirits. Instead of the coordinator holding forth with his own teaching, he played a tape of one from vp. Victor opened the sermon with an unattributed poem. The official TWI supplemental printed materials also included the poem with no attribution. Victor never claimed he wrote the poem he read, but he never gave credit, honor or tribute where it was due, either. The way the poem was read, how it was situated strategically in the sermon, the context... EVERYTHING about victor's reading and reprinting this poem implied and suggested that it was written by the little man reading it. I remember asking the "leaders" and "teachers" about the poem's author - was it vp's? They shrugged and changed the subject. I looked it up on my phone to find it was a woman. The sycophants, still reeling from Vic's tremendous holding forth, became obviously irritated with my finding. Their urge to lovingly correct me was palpable. Apologists for vp's serial plagiarism usually cop out with, "What does is matter?" Well, it matters EVERYTHING! Plagiarism is a lie. It is thievery. It is deception. Why do this? Why choose to prove you are the liar, the thief, the deceiver?

I remember the earlier post on Moody. Thank you, T-Bone, for all you've done here over the years. The claim to not remember the past is a hedge used to mitigate potential exposures in the future. Almost every "sermon" or "teaching" from vic contains one or more of these hedges. They are subtle. One doesn't need to manufacture this cunning feature of deception, but one needs to pay attention and be vigilant. His con game runs so deep, it's pathological. The word salad is so fluffy and distracting, it leaves one's head spinning - this is by design. I thought renewing of the mind was about toeing the line, conforming to Way think, filling the mind with the program. Would he use believing faith or would he operate the manifestation of believing to renew his mind for improved memory?

It is an ATHLETIC spiritual competition.

Holding forth is the how (H-O-W) to teach. Teaching is rubbing in by repetition, and you rub in by holding forth. It all fits like a hand in a glove embroidered with credentials.

This is an example of their private interpretation. It's like unlocking a door without a key. If you don't know what to do with that key once you've got it, what use is it? I mean, c'mon people!! Death doesn't happen naturally or even by serpent seed. That just doesn't make any sense. And it's your job to MAKE it make sense, if you want to stand while walking. That's right. Death comes when you stop what? [BELIEVING!] Death comes when you stop believing. That's riiight. And can you stop believing when you're holding forth with great intensity? [NO!] No you cannot. You can only stop believing when you get tired. The word tired here should be the word fatigue. So an accurate translation, according to usage: "Holding forth until his fatigue in 1985."

"As parents, it is our responsibility to teach, or rub in by repetition." This is NOT what it means to teach. This is NOT how (H-O-W) to teach. This error is so obvious, depraved and sinister, it is vomitous. And they aren't even trying to hide it. This is NOT teaching. This is brainwashing, programming. This is darkness.

Thanks for this, Rocky. It's hard to tell if this is a victory, though it seems like a baby step in the right direction. Publishing that database is huge, but so is concealing it for years. It's like pulling teeth to hold accountable anyone in this country who can get themselves called reverend. I live in the heart of Southern Baptist country at the buckle of the Bible Belt. None of this surprises me. And Southern Baptists aren't the only ones guilty of this type of widespread, systemic abuse in the Church. Sex crimes against children or the disenfranchised is partly about sex, but it's completely about power and control. These cases are especially sinister because they are executed by those in positions of authority who claim to know God or his word better than anyone else. This sad song has been on repeat for thousands of years.

Wow. Thank you, Waysider for sticking around all these years to help pull back the curtain and stand for Truth. And for humor. Seriously, thank you. It can’t be overstated how important GSC is.

Wow. Fresh word salad for sale. Pure bull$hit. This is astonishingly funny. Thanks for pointing out this distinction. Who can keep up with this spider monkey with rickets doctrine? One who manifests the law of believing through believing faith which is distinctively different yet not the same as operating the manifestation of believing? Which one would I use to get a parking space? Which one would I use around Easter or Pentecost to bring about Christ's return? (I was actually exhorted to do this very type of believing, but isn't that God's business?) Which AC syllabus? '71 or '79?

Is that the verb open? Or the adjective open? "Open the doors of service" or "The open doors of service." These types of distinctions matter. One might have thought they'd learnt that in the original class. *I'll move out of the way*

No, no, no, no... nothing but confusion can come from this old man thinking. The keys are no longer used to interpret - that was already accomplished, literally, according to usage. The KEYS are to Biblical research. Because the door to God's word is locked, like the box, the lock box. There are many keys to Biblical research that will unlock the door to the accuracy of God’s Word, such as learning about Eastern manners and customs, identifying and understanding figures of speech, and knowing how to find the accuracy of the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts. Whoever wrote the copy for this website is a journeyman of the non sequitur. Close to, but nearly not quite, the level of BS mastery set forth by vic paul.

Yeah, this one jumped out like Johnny for me: "our believing faith" WTAF is believing faith? Faith is still considered a curse word by those teaching the original class. I was desperately corrected on this. "Believing is what we do, faith is what we have." I was "taught" we only HAVE but a measure of Jesus's faith. It's the faith OF Jesus's Christ, not faith IN Jesus Christ. It's the subjective/objective genitive debate. It's a traditional theological doctrinal distinction that goes back to "Bible times." I had to find out about this subjective/objective genitive issue through my own research. This was never "taught." One might be inclined to expect victor to teach this type of nuanced grammar, since it seemed obvious the genitive case was his favorite.

Right. Apple autocorrect. Kinda like auto reproof, but not.

Four crucified is conspicuously absent from these statements of belief. I was "taught" in the original denial of the four crucified was tantamount to denying the existence of God.

The Virgin Mary is important to set up Jesus as a bastard Jew. But I remember vic paul making a big deal about "virgin" being an inaccurate translation of young woman from the Hebrew. The point was so belabored, that I never thought TWI believed Mary was a virgin. God's seed for baby Jesus, sure, yet bastard Jew nonetheless. You can't go beyond what you were taught. WE is the nominative case.

"4. We believe that Adam was created in the image of God, spiritually; that he sinned and thereby brought upon himself immediate spiritual death, which is separation from God, and physical death later, which is the consequence of sin; and that all human beings are born with a sinful nature." They've made some significant changes. Physical death is no longer a consequence of unbelief brought on by fatigue. Now it's a consequence of sin. Or is that a distinction without a difference, distinctly separate, yet completely full of prepositions? Hold my spoon...

I didn't decide nor judge. The word tree is not that. I'm not naming it the tree, I'm just observing what is. At least that's what I try to do. Can I look without judging, labeling, forming an image about it and just see it for what it is? A risk of looking for and finding symbols in everything is not seeing what actually is.

Yeah, "contrived" is unnecessary, superfluous. A remnant from the wierwille parody. Just mark it out. There are symbols everywhere. But the symbols are not that. As discussed in another thread, language is symbol. And that's fine and obvious. But symbol isn't everything. The word "tree" is not the tree. Perhaps that is what I'm describing. Which form of the father the father told Abraham to kill his son and then sent an angel to say never mind kill that ram instead? I'm sure it's evident, but this story troubles me. Maybe I just don't understand it.

The Self. I sacrifice myself for my son, but I wouldn't offer my son as a sacrifice to any religious or political ideology. The Bible doesn't bother me at all. As with all Myth I find it fascinating, informative and inspiring on many levels in many ways. It's man's contrived interpretation of it as a way to justify control, obedience and guilt that I find disgusting.

Narcissists view any disagreement with them as abusive. Ignoring or not fulfilling their desire for supply is hurtful to the image they've constructed for themselves. The narcissist's perceived hurt justifies their martyrdom, making those who are actually abused into the guilty abusers. And so the cycle continues. This destructive behavior must not be excused because they are damaged. Human child sacrifice as a burnt offering for the season, the harvest, the war, the disease is a natural occurrence? Ok.

Obviously, any system can be corrupted. Isn't religion made up and developed as an attempt to explain the unexplainable. It isn't intended to harm, but it often does in spite of itself. This entire site is witness to that. Victor and his minion harmed many in the name of God. The harm and destruction persist today far from New Knoxville one family at a time. The doctrines of original sin and vicarious redemption were systematically developed over time. Human child sacrifice is one of the oldest, longest running religious practices, older than developed systematic Christian theology. Who came up with these ideas? Who invented them? God or man?

Yes. I do. Wow. I didn't mean to come off as insensitive, but I see that's what it looks like. Or that's what it is. Though, that's not who I am. "Religion make otherwise good people do and say wicked things." So can resentment and anger. This site is about a religious cult I was making a point about religion and theology and also parodying victor. Claiming to know what God wants, or that God wants, is a way cults and charlatans have manipulated earnest seekers of God for thousands of years. There are better threads to make that point