WordWolf

"Who is it?" "It's Idi Amin!" "And then Depression set in." "Tito Puente's gonna be dead, and you're gonna say, "Oh, I've been listening to him for years, and I think he's fabulous." " "Excuse me, stewardess. Is there a movie on this flight?" "We will do this ourselves." " Sir, those numb nuts can't even tie their own shoelaces." "One of these men may save your life one of these days. You understand that?" "Then again, maybe one of us won't." "Do the words "Act of War" mean anything to you?" " I have a plan." Great. Custer had a plan." "Explain yourselves." "Well sir, we were going to this bingo parlor at the YMCA, well one thing led to another, and the instructions got all fouled up..." "I've noticed you're always last." "I'm pacing myself"

*snip* To most people, it's obvious that, even if it's true that you'd "NEVER be able to do that had the class not been there consistently", and you could "love the Epistles of Paul, and see them as Jesus Christ's ministry to us in THIS administration", and even be "extremely blessed when first learning PFAL" all of that could be completely true without the notion that God taught vpw.

Adherents to the supposed "law" of believing are inconsistent about this- mainly because it's so inconsistent in results (mostly due to it being bunk.) In one instance, they say it works equally well, positively or negatively, and it's universal. vpw himself taught it was as fundamental as scientific fact- that 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom make up a water molecule. He said outright that God would have to rewrite The Laws of the Universe if He didn't want The Law of Believing to work. In another instance, the slightest lapse of dedication in kissing twi's @$$ will surely result in devils overtaking the person, no matter how strong they continue to believe. To leave twi is to leave God's Protection regardless of Believing, and to be a "greasespot by midnight." Midnight has come and gone, and we're doing fine. I remember a friend who suffered the sudden loss of his wife. IIRC, she died in her sleep, without warning. (Heart attack or something.) Part of his suffering was in the rude awakening in how the supposed "Law" of Believing had failed them- how he and she had very positively believed that they would be in excellent health and so on, and others believed that for them and so on, and yet, the Laws of the Universe didn't intervene and save her life. If nothing else, it shows that the supposed "Law" of Believing is nothing of the sort. Oh, what killed vpw? The man chain-smoked for decades, and drank all day for decades. The heavy drinking has been shown to suppress the immune system. Smoking has been linked to a variety of cancers, including cancer of the eye (it's exposed to the smoke.) vpw got cancer of the eye, which spread and killed him. vpw CLAIMED that the 2 weeks of filming pfal with studio lights decades earlier are why he got eye cancer. Studio lights do not cause eye cancer. We are not getting regular reports of stage actors, singers, dancers etc getting cancer after a 9-month tour under stage lights (which are at least as bright as the old studio lights.) There have been a few reports of people who neglected using a WELDER'S MASK when WELDING and later got eye cancer. There's no reports of stage performers dropping of cancer by the hundreds. If vpw wasn't such a habitual liar, there might be some kind of question here. Why did he lie so completely about how he got cancer? 1) It helped distract from his inability to Super-Believe and blast the cancer out of his eye. vpw liked to have people portray him as some super-believer whose prayers and Believing affected the whole world at once- but in reality, it couldn't even affect his whole EYE at once, or the cells individually. Word-Faith preachers, in general, don't seem to live long lives, they wear glasses, and often seem in poor health. These are strange things for the preachers to believe FOR! 2) It turned two of his VICES (addiction to strong drink, addiction to tobacco) into appearing virtuous. Instead of dying because he was a slave to his expensive vices (paid for with your ABS), he was dying because he filmed pfal decades before and now his eye was suffering for it. Yes, the lights had been bright. Yes, they'd hurt his eyes- but that is hardly the same as them giving him cancer. Bright lights do not cause cancer. 3) Those seeking to make a martyr out of vpw never blame his vices nor his faulty believing for his death. They blame EVERYBODY else, and I mean EVERYBODY else. The story is that vpw was perfect, but everybody else was flawed and messing everything up all the time, and finally vpw got tired of pulling THEIR weight all the time, so he got tired of believing and "tired of the fight", so what killed him was "EVERYBODY ELSE." No, I'm NOT making any of this up.

There's always a minority opinion. Of course you can accept that he agreed with you on anything- now he's going to be cited as an "expert" that "agreed" with you on what that meant. Actually, the literal was correctly explained before- that the Scriptures (which are God-breathed) were contrasted with the work of several men including vpw. One thing I didn't mention now- but have before- is vpw's tendency to vaguely imply things without saying them outright. That way, he could technically say he didn't say something, but had people believe he did because he IMPLIED it, he deceived by implication. He did this when he got people to believe he played for the Sheboygan Redskins basketball team. One document claimed he did- but their source for that was the sentence where he IMPLIED it, and the writer mistook the meaning, not realizing it was deception. He said he was CONNECTED WITH THEM. He never even said he handled the ball or practiced with them- but he got people to believe he HAD said that. So, similar weasel-wording could leave well-intentioned people to believe that he'd actually said some of what he wrote or taught would be God-breathed- when he left it unstated but with enough IMPLICATION that people would THINK he said that and go along with it. The grammar of the passage says otherwise, but if one fixates on the implication, that is easily ignored. Then we start to get several rounds of "of course he implied it, he hid it as secret information so that we could find it decades later and God wants us to think this" and so on. For someone determined to go down with the ship- and insist it's not only not sinking, but is handling exceptionally well on the ocean, this sort of thing is EXPECTED.

C) The alleged promise was based on ignorance. twi's system shares a trait with the Mikean system- they're both Gnostic systems based on secret knowledge. The twi system-which was vpw's system, set up by him and used by him all the time- was that study of the verses was the key to God (plus the "Law of Believing"),. So, the more you study the verses, the more "godly" you can become, especially if you study it the twi way. We've all seen far too many horror stories of twi "masters" who partly memorized vpw/twi materials and were bigger schmucks if anything. Geer spent hours going over vpw's teachings in between drugging women for vpw to rape and preparing to throw himself over vpw as a human shield if anyone tried to shoot him. But, let's expose the IGNORANCE in the alleged "promise." How DID the 1st century Christian church know God's Word? They knew the Torah/Old Testament. They knew the SPOKEN word, They knew The Word BY EXPERIENCE AND POWER. Think about it. They were getting converts left and right while being a disciple was ILLEGAL and punished by imprisonment, murder, or both. They got LOTS of converts with that going on. No amount of charismatic demagoguery can make up for the risk of being killed or imprisoned. You might get a few disaffected outsiders. Saul of Tarsus joined them - a former persecutor and murderer of Christians (he didn't put his hand on the knife, but he ordered it done.) Did the Greeks hear good speeches then run out and conclude that their gods walked among them and prepared to offer blood sacrifices? They SAW something. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. However, provide the extraordinary proof, and the claims stop looking extraordinary-at least in comparison to the proof. The 1st century Christians preached-but were known because they had power and could deliver where they spoke. Lots of people preached and didn't get significant converts. Theirs was a pragmatic, direct, power-based ministry. twi was never that. They were study-based, and TALKED ABOUT power lots of times, then considered "Kojacking" a significant witness of "power." 1st century Christians were never centrally-controlled nor organized. twi bore no resemblance to 1st century Christianity except where twi CLAIMED they did. But all the claims don't mean reality matches a claim. The 1st century Christians probably didn't have access to the entire New Testament ANYWHERE. All documents had to be hand-copied. With no printing press and no scanners and PDFs, that was a laborious process and few copies circulated for the 1st century AD (certainly relative to now.) So, twi has NEVER had "The Word as it was known in the 1st Century." because vpw NEVER had "The Word as it was known in the 1st Century." vpw might have known that when he phrased the promise he was supposedly given, but he skipped over "Church history". So, he was likely to make such a mistake where God Almighty would not. vpw made up the alleged 1942 promise. and it's easy to show all the errors. There was no such promise. There's no real, sensible reason to laud vpw or "his" books. They don't comprise "revelation." It was easy for vpw to fool impressionable kids about this sort of thing, since they lacked the education to see how obviously incorrect it was. It's the kind of mistake someone makes when they skip over learning any "Church history", and the kind of mistake kids can miss. To miss it now, even after it's pointed out, is more than sloppy thinking, it's willful ignorance. Why would someone remain willfully ignorant in the face of what's clear and obvious? Well....

Was the wording of the supposed 1942 promise sensible? It was not. B) The alleged promise was a lie. Supposedly, God Almighty promised He would teach like it hadn't been known since the 1st century AD. If this were true, there would be a complete disconnect with what was being taught and known elsewhere in 1942 EVERYWHERE and what vpw later taught (because we know he taught others.) However, even those who idolize vpw agree that the material he taught was already taught by others. A paper trail can be traced for virtually all the twi material vpw taught. vpw took Leonard's class, and a few months later, taught 100% of the same material. vpw bought Stiles' book, then typed up a book with the contents- later adding the contents of books by Bullinger to flesh it out more. And so on. So, either God Almighty lied when giving this promise, someone else claiming to be God lied and vpw couldn't tell the difference between a lying spirit and God Almighty, or vpw lied and nobody promised him at all. Which is it, God Almighty lied, someone else (say, a devil) claimed to be God, and vpw couldn't tell the truth so he literally taught the doctrine of a devil for the rest of his life, or vpw lied and nobody promised him anything? Of course, one can ignore the sensible discussion and cling dogmatically to the idea that vpw could not possibly have lied about this, and that God Almighty was somehow right even though factually incorrect at a rather obvious level. One has to lie to oneself to do that, but it's certainly available, and tempting if one insists that to even CONSIDER the possibilities is forbidden and evil.

So, according to Mike, A) Because someone once saw a snow squall that came up once, I'm supposed to believe that's exactly what happened here, despite 1- It supposedly happened in an INSTANT, the sky went from EMPTY to so FULL he couldn't see a few yards away; 2- vpw was shown to have lied about other supposed snowstorms throughout his career, but supposedly THIS ONE was real and the others were fake 3- vpw supposedly saw a sky completely FULL of snow, yet was unable to tell you if the sky was completely BLACKED OUT or was in a complete WHITE OUT. His story went from "the sky was PITCH BLACK" to "the sky was completely WHITE" within a year or so. I expect that, having spoken to people who'd actually SEEN heavy snow, his account of BLACK changed to WHITE once he realized he made up the wrong details. If he'd actually seen BLACK, he would have stuck to his story. If he'd actually seen WHITE, he would have STARTED with that story. If he'd actually have seen either, he'd have remembered whether or not the sky seemed completely white or completely black, and there'd be no confusion whatsoever about the color. When he was asked about another incident where he lied about an imaginary snowstorm, he never asserted he was correct, he immediately adapted the details of his story to what he thought the person in front of him would believe (that he got the most basic details wrong because angels jumped in and deceived him in detail.) The only reason to believe this snow job is if you're determined to discard all sensible conclusions, and dogmatically cling to the idea that vpw wouldn't have lied about it. Why would this be so important? If there's no miraculous snowstorm, there's no 1942 promise. If there's no 1942 promise, vpw was not a great man of God who was delivering a new Bible. If that's not true, Mike's wasted the last decades of his life on a lie. Anyone know what the sunk-cost fallacy is? That's when you double-down on something that is definitely losing, despite it losing, because of all the investment you've already put into it. There was no miraculous snowstorm in 1942. vpw did not hear from God Almighty. pfal was never meant to replace the Bible- which is why it never says it's supposed to- it's a class and a book on KEYS, not REPLACING Genesis to Revelation nor CONTAINING Genesis to Revelation, but keys to UNDERSTANDING Genesis to Revelation.

Not "Tropic Thunder."

"Who is it?" "It's Idi Amin!" "And then Depression set in." "Tito Puente's gonna be dead, and you're gonna say, "Oh, I've been listening to him for years, and I think he's fabulous." " "Excuse me, stewardess. Is there a movie on this flight?" "We will do this ourselves." " Sir, those numb nuts can't even tie their own shoelaces." "One of these men may save your life one of these days. You understand that?" "Then again, maybe one of us won't."

C) The alleged promise was based on ignorance. twi's system shares a trait with the Mikean system- they're both Gnostic systems based on secret knowledge. The twi system-which was vpw's system, set up by him and used by him all the time- was that study of the verses was the key to God (plus the "Law of Believing"),. So, the more you study the verses, the more "godly" you can become, especially if you study it the twi way. We've all seen far too many horror stories of twi "masters" who partly memorized vpw/twi materials and were bigger schmucks if anything. Geer spent hours going over vpw's teachings in between drugging women for vpw to rape and preparing to throw himself over vpw as a human shield if anyone tried to shoot him. But, let's expose the IGNORANCE in the alleged "promise." How DID the 1st century Christian church know God's Word? They knew the Torah/Old Testament. They knew the SPOKEN word, They knew The Word BY EXPERIENCE AND POWER. Think about it. They were getting converts left and right while being a disciple was ILLEGAL and punished by imprisonment, murder, or both. They got LOTS of converts with that going on. No amount of charismatic demagoguery can make up for the risk of being killed or imprisoned. You might get a few disaffected outsiders. Saul of Tarsus joined them - a former persecutor and murderer of Christians (he didn't put his hand on the knife, but he ordered it done.) Did the Greeks hear good speeches then run out and conclude that their gods walked among them and prepared to offer blood sacrifices? They SAW something. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. However, provide the extraordinary proof, and the claims stop looking extraordinary-at least in comparison to the proof. The 1st century Christians preached-but were known because they had power and could deliver where they spoke. Lots of people preached and didn't get significant converts. Theirs was a pragmatic, direct, power-based ministry. twi was never that. They were study-based, and TALKED ABOUT power lots of times, then considered "Kojacking" a significant witness of "power." 1st century Christians were never centrally-controlled nor organized. twi bore no resemblance to 1st century Christianity except where twi CLAIMED they did. But all the claims don't mean reality matches a claim. The 1st century Christians probably didn't have access to the entire New Testament ANYWHERE. All documents had to be hand-copied. With no printing press and no scanners and PDFs, that was a laborious process and few copies circulated for the 1st century AD (certainly relative to now.) So, twi has NEVER had "The Word as it was known in the 1st Century." because vpw NEVER had "The Word as it was known in the 1st Century." vpw might have known that when he phrased the promise he was supposedly given, but he skipped over "Church history". So, he was likely to make such a mistake where God Almighty would not. vpw made up the alleged 1942 promise. and it's easy to show all the errors. There was no such promise. There's no real, sensible reason to laud vpw or "his" books. They don't comrpise "revelation."

B) The alleged promise was a lie. Supposedly, God Almighty promised He would teach like it hadn't been known since the 1st century AD. If this were true, there would be a complete disconnect with what was being taught and known elsewhere in 1942 EVERYWHERE and what vpw later taught (because we know he taught others.) However, even those who idolize vpw agree that the material he taught was already taught by others. A paper trail can be traced for virtually all the twi material vpw taught. vpw took Leonard's class, and a few months later, taught 100% of the same material. vpw bought Stiles' book, then typed up a book with the contents- later adding the contents of books by Bullinger to flesh it out more. And so on. So, either God Almighty lied when giving this promise, someone else claiming to be God lied and vpw couldn't tell the difference between a lying spirit and God Almighty, or vpw lied and nobody promised him at all.

All right, how many ways can we show this 1942 promise failed? We've done it lots of times before. A) The miraculous snowstorm never happened. There was NO report of actual snow anywhere near where this allegedly happened. When it supposedly happened, he didn't even tell his own wife it happened. Come on, that would have been the first words out of any spouse's mouth that evening. ("Honey, you'll never believe what happened to me today...") He never claimed it until decades later. He couldn't keep the details of the miraculous event straight, even. When he first began making this claim, he said the sky looked BLACK with all the heavy snow. This, BTW, isn't what it looks like for even the heaviest snow. Later-probably because he learned that doesn't happen- he switched to saying the sky was WHITE with snow. I'm sure details can get lost over time, but if a miraculous event that turns the sky all one color, you'd at least remember the color. Finally, this wasn't the only time vpw claimed a miraculous snowstorm. In fact, he did it whenever it was convenient. When he added special significance to the minister's conference where he met Stiles, vpw claimed that the entire city was snowed in completely. He was unable to get out because planes, trains and buses were all stopped due to heavy snow conditions, a blizzard. This was a rather big lie, and one that was checkable. When someone spoke to him about it, he didn't say "I was there and saw the snow and walked in it, check again", he immediately switched his story to prevent trying to contradict the weather report. He immediately began claiming the snow was an angelic apparition- angels made him see snow that wasn't there, and when he phoned transit places, angels answered the phone and lied to him. (He would rather have us think angels lied than that he lied.) In reality, not even a single FLAKE fell from the sky in that city that day, and the temperature didn't reach freezing. This wasn't the last time vpw made up a convenient snowstorm, even. A poster here once noted that vpw was supposed to visit their area. Instead, he phoned and said that he WANTED to fly there, but he was located at a bad snowstorm and he was told it was unsafe. The poster checked the weather in vpw's area at the time, and there was neither snow nor storms predicted. So, the entire snow part was a lie. Without that, there's no 1942 promise. However, even if it was possible for there to have been a snowstorm (it's not possible), the other problems with his story would be enough to discredit it. There WAS no 1942 promise. vpw was NEVER some great one. pfal was NEVER some great class nor great study materials. It was all built up as a con-and not the most secure con, either. It needed lots of outside help to prop it up.

Everything Mike says depends on the supposed 1942 promise being correct. Every now and again, someone still claims that pfal and twi were special. Their reason for this is the claim that vpw was special. Their reason for this is the 1942 promise. vpw claimed he received a promise from God Almighty in 1942, and he used this claim to justify thinking of "his" books and classes to akin to the Bible itself. The supposition that pfal was of significant long-term benefit hangs primarily on the alleged "1942 promise." That promise, as stated by vpw, was that God spoke audibly to vpw, and promised that God Almighty would teach vpw God's Word like it hadn't been known since the first century (AD) if vpw would teach it to others. vpw supposedly asked God to confirm this by a miraculous snowstorm. All right, how many ways can we show this 1942 promise failed? We've done it lots of times before...

Next movie. "Who is it?" "It's Idi Amin!" "And then Depression set in." "Tito Puente's gonna be dead, and you're gonna say, "Oh, I've been listening to him for years, and I think he's fabulous." "

Barbarella Marcel Marceau Silent Movie Thank you, I'll be here all week.

You are, but you're helping me agree to watch the shows at all. (I think I'm going to catch up to "Moon Knight" first, since I was a big fan of his long ago.)

If you want me to do another, give me a bit more time...

I don't know anyone who's played all of those roles before. Just going from their range, I'm going to guess "GARY OLDMAN" because he's willing to sit in a chair for hours each day to play any of those roles.

|"Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what 'Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed." As was pointed out long ago, this sentence- when read in its entirety, is clear and straightforward. vpw HIMSELF said that the word "BUT" puts into contrast that which precedes it and that which it precedes. (Anyone who doesn't know this needs remedial English.) After this was "the Scriptures- they are God-breathed." This is placed in very obvious contrast with what precedes it, which is NOT God-breathed. For the student who needs remedial English, I will point out that figures of speech exist in English as in other languages, and exist in 3 types just as in other languages. There's figures of addition, figures of subtraction, and figures of substitution. You don't need their names to recognize them. All of them have the purpose of emphasizing something. In the case of this sentence, we had a figure of subtraction. The sentence, written out plainly but awkwardly, would have been: "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed, not all that Calvin said was necessarily God-breathed, nor all that Luther said was necessarily God- breathed, nor all that Graham says is necessarily God-breathed, nor all that Roberts says is necessarily God-breathed, but the Scriptures- they are God-breathed." That the phrase is shortened is obvious when you look at the entire phrase, since it included dead authors in the past tense and living authors in the present tense. The sentence was specifically contrasting "the Scriptures"- and in pfal in both forms, that was used for Genesis to Revelation- with the words, whether spoken or written, of various Christian writers, teachers or speakers. The exact same point would have been made, more grammatically and making the exact same point, if it were phrased thusly, with no added meanings whatsoever: "Although the Scriptures are God-breathed, not every writing or speech of Wierwille, Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Graham, Roberts (or any other Christian writer) will be God-breathed." If Wierwille himself hadn't stressed the use of contrast by "but", and if he hadn't been so obvious in drawing a contrast here, there might be room to insert one's own ideas here. However, it's the poor student of English- or of wierwille for that matter- who can bring himself to do so. THAT'S why it doesn't come up. Few students are this slipshod or in need of remedial work. wierwille could have phrased himself more clearly- if his use of English was more precise. He was never that accomplished a writer, speaker or linguist, so his phraseology remained mediocre. So long as one isn't reading too closely into it, this is not a problem. Reading too closely into wierwille's exact wording when he was never that exact- as if wierwille's writings were "God-breathed", is as sure to cause problems as wrangling extensively over the exact phrasing of 450-year old wordings in the KJV when the Greek texts read differently.

Mike: "I'm curious how they will handle PFAL page 83 where it says: "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed."" =========================================================== I'm not. As Goey pointed out the first time you mentioned this sentence, long ago (even wierwille would have dinged you for isolating it from its context- as in "why don't they ever read the next verse?" ) , vpw was contrasting "THE SCRIPTURES"- which he said are "GOD-BREATHED" - with his own writings and the writings of a number of men. Looking for HIDDEN meanings in sentences with OBVIOUS meanings takes one down the rabbit hole very quickly.

Wagon Train aired from 1957 to 1965. Gene Roddenberry claimed that Star Trek (TOS) was meant to be "Wagon Train in the stars". A wagon train takes a journey as a group to a distant location, through dangers and undeveloped territory, which was nothing like Star Trek. BATTLESTAR GALACTICA (the original) was definitely this and meant to be this. It had a fleet largely of civilian vessels in a long-term convoy, representing 12 planets of humans, seeking their lost colony's planet, the legendary colony of EARTH. ("Fleeing from the Cylon tyrrany, the last Battlestar, Galactica, leads a rag-tag fugitive fleet on a lonely quest, for a shining planet known as Earth.") Star Trek's original run was over long before Battlestar Galactica premiered. Roddenberry sued Universal over copyright infringement over BG. With no obvious similarities, they said it looked like Roddenberry was claiming he had copyright over TV shows taking place in space. (Seeing no other similarity, I agree.) Wagon Train was black-and-white, Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica were color shows that were also well-known. BTW, Roddenberry claimed that ST-TOS' pattern of traveling, having new encounters and solving new problems made it similar to Wagon Train, despite being a single ship sent by a government on a 5-year open-ended program of discovery and exploration but not colonization. I like TOS, but it's not what Roddenberry imagined- in fact, if it wasn't for Geen Coon's contributions, Roddenberry's dream probably would have resulted in a "cultural phenomenon" that became a cult classic and a niche show that appealed to dozens of fans across the US, but not more.

The answer IS "WAGON TRAIN."

As far as I know, this show hasn't been in syndication in a long time. (I haven't even seen 1 episode.) However, it was famous in its time. The part that confuses me is how, later, 2 completely-different TV shows would air- shows in a different genre than this show, shows that had marked differences from each other but shared a genre, and it was claimed that both were meant to be inspired by this show. The first of those shows, IMHO, didn't sound like it resembled the original show at all. The second of those shows, IMHO, looks to have been some sort of adaptation or closely inspired by this show. Despite the 2 shows not airing in the same years as each other (NOT COUNTING SYNDICATION, one ended before the other began), the second show was sued for supposedly ripping off the first show. Some of us think the people who did the first show were claiming that to make a TV show in the same genre was automatically ripping them off because the shows really didn't resemble each other. What I want is the name of the ORIGINAL show. BTW, it was a black-and-white TV show, but the other 2 were not. Both of the color shows were well-known as well.

Busy week, busy weekend... give me 12 more hours....

Christopher Lloyd Addams Family Dan Hedaya