WordWolf

The lists were extensive, and included words that were barely ever used, even in slang. Conclusion? The lists were not intended specifically to make it easier for the students to counsel others. Furthermore, there was never a set of requirements that excluded non-ministers, the neophyte who just finished pfal, nor the 13 year old who just took pfal. 13-year olds were able to take that class-and many did. Some have posted here about it. I agree it was to get people to be willing to discuss sex. WHY it was desirable to have people willing to discuss sex is another matter entirely. What's indisputable to me is vpw showed the early classes a bestiality video, and that included MINORS. What's indisputable to me is that vpw described the bestiality video to the classes who didn't see it. What's indisputable to me is that vpw used that class to teach that the "original sin" was masturbation- and went on to say that NOW it was perfectly fine, but THEN it was enough to kick them out of paradise- and spun that out of VERY thin reed. What's indisputable to me is that LONG lists of terms rarely even used in slang were given to talk about sex and body parts. What's indisputable to me is that large portions of the class were a simple hygiene/sex ed class to which stills from pornographic movies were added. What's indisputable to me is that a man who had no training in biology, no training in counseling, was teaching this class-when those who WERE qualified were sitting it out. What's indisputable to me is that it's been reported here that vpw had brought a pornographic pen to one class, and had one of the young women come up to see it. That's the intro. I can go on, with specifics. :)

For those interested in a side-discussion on abortion, we had one once in the Doctrinal forum titled "Abortion. What does God say?" http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=11237 Feel free to start a NEW doctrinal thread on the subject, as well.

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=283

Us heavier-weight comic mavens couldn't confirm this specifically to Ben Grimm. Possibly calling someone "greasespots" but not the "midnight" part at all. Now, THAT phrase I can find references to, at least in conversation.

lcm BEGAN by using it to refer to something that was a major failure. Around 1980, SNT 1055 was him teaching "Believing Images of Victory." He was explaining that when he tried playing football in college, it was a LOT more involved than high school football. In college, techniques were taught and expected to be used, but in high school, he was used to just relying on brute force. So, when he first tried to adapt to college football, he would get creamed in the first scrimmage. "Greasespot by midnight. They'd pick me up with a whisk-broom and a dust-pan." Where vpw ripped off learned Christians, wise Christian, or anyone he thought would impress, lcm ripped off folksy expressions.

Some people DID buy it. One of the tapes, I forget which, was called "Power for Abundant Living is the Word of God." The idea put forth was that the concepts were, in effect, one concept. Of course, they were also putting forth that twi's view of both were correct AND they were one concept.

Tools-AddOns-Extensions. There's thousands of "AddOns"/"Extensions" to add features to FireFox. Everyone's got their favorites. If you want to add security, it's worth the effort to get to learn to use NoScript. AdblockPlus, once set once, will screen out ads, and you can add more things for it to screen out for you. Download Helper, DownThemAll, FlashGot, MediaPirate add downloading features, as does DownloadManagerTweak. Flashblock stops Flash animation from running until you click on the button that replaces it. This makes pages load faster, cuts download bloat, and trims out distracting, blinking spots on pages. (Add this to NoScript and there's another layer preventing automatic Flash.) IETab allows you to simulate IE use on a page, so you won't need to open IE again except to download Windows Updates. ;) ImageZoom allows you to zoom on any image. NukeAnythingEnhanced allows you to remove any object from your screen. Redirect Remover allows you to go straight to the page at the end of a redirect, and skip the pages in between. There's more, but those I actually recommend.

Margaret Mc Donald keeps getting blamed for doctrines she never spoke, and Darby keeps getting blamed for passing along doctrines he never taught, based on the doctrines Margaret Mc Donald never spoke. That aside, there is nothing in Scripture that says "the Kingdom of God is different than the Kingdom of Heaven." Rather, the terms are used interchangeably. It's foolish people who have claimed they meant 2 different things. vpw photocopied Bullinger, but Bullinger was not inerrant, and in this instance, was completely wrong- although he could really put together a flowery claim that he was right.

He did a fine job in both the episode "Space Seed" and "Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan." Some often-deleted scenes show his character (in "Space Seed") to be rather clever and manipulative, showing he's more dangerous than he appears. He will be missed. Of course, I also miss his "Fantasy Island". (And the other one, for that matter, but this is about him.) Yes to all that. Steve! is up.

It's a fundamental error in both YOUR theology and in vpw's theology. If you really want to discuss it, make a new thread, and I will gladly break it down in all its glory. In fact, since it's a fundamental error of vpw's theology, I'd appreciate a chance to highlight it. Instead, I'll be expecting you to mislabel it "unjustified criticism", blowing it off, pretending I never said it, and declaring victory a few months later. Feel free to surprise me. Now we get to the issue. Let's posit a theoretical church- a formal local organization with a building and a congregation. They have an official name, and an official set of rules. They will, perforce, begin with SOME set of rules, SOME standard. That's the nature of organizations. How AUTHORITATIVE is this? Perhaps I have an advantage over you in having been involved in drafting rules for an organization, interpreting standing rules for an organization, and AMENDING standing rules for an organization. Groups that cover all their bases make a notation in their practices, to the effect that anything they did not include will default to a generic set of rules like Roberts Rules of Order (specifying the edition.) That allows them to encounter things they never considered, and bring in SOME sort of rule to operate by. Adopting a set of rules is necessary for an organization- we agree on this. We disagree on the ROLE of such a set of rules. Adopted rules are not GUARANTEED to be the PERFECT set of rules for that group. That's why all formal constitutions and bylaws include a set of rules to cover how to CHANGE the set of rules. That's true in the US Constitution, and many other places, some of them having adopted them from the US Constitution. To have an UNCHANGING set of rules in an organization, a set of rules that CAN'T ever change, will, in the LONG term, enforce conformity- there is ONE set of rules and any thinking that doesn't line up is discouraged or PUNISHED, depending on the group and the specifics. To have an UNCHANGING set of rules in an organization, a set of rules that CAN'T ever change, will, in the LONG term, enforce increasing problems as external events are unable to be adapted to. It's like having an animal like the dodo, and introducing hunters with guns to shoot them down. If the dodo can't change- and the dodo can't (certainly it DID not) - it's going to be wiped out. Its UNCHANGING aspect guaranteed that external change would erode it. I am a person who says that rules are good. (Try driving through an area with lots of cars and no TRAFFIC LIGHTS.) I am a person who says that rules, policies and procedures must be INTERPRETED based on the situation. That's why this country has courts of law, where a professional expert (an arbitrator or a judge) interprets the application of laws, what they say concerning a specific situation. Some laws work for a time, and then it becomes necessary to abolish them or annul them. There's laws on the books concerning the behavior of the drivers of automobiles that concern horses. A driver is supposed to stop at a crossroads and fire a shot into the air to ensure carriages and riders are aware he is approaching. This is on the books as a law- except where it's been removed since it's a bad idea to do this NOW. Rules are a good idea, but I hold they are inferior to the people they are written for. In fact, I consider that to be one of the fundamental differences between YOUR approach on life, and MY approach on life. I hold that the law is for the people and less important than the people, and I think you hold the Rule to be more important than the people, and the people are less important than the Rule.

Confusing ALL of life with precisely calculable things like Math, Physics and Chemistry is a pretty consistent error of the twi system. That's why things like "you should believe God and trust God" was transformed into "If you decide that you'll be dead by this time next year, God would have to change the Laws of the Universe to stop you". It's also a common quibble with the "Social Sciences" and even the Biological sciences, since there's elements of UNPREDICTABILITY in dealing with both. Some people with narrow minds dismiss Psychology and Sociology as fields of study, since they can't be calculated to decimal places like the "hard sciences." There's no "one rule" for either Psychology or Sociology. I'm sure some will say that means they are "confusion". That, of course, will either indicate a bias, or a rank ignorance, on their behalf. *** You opined it on another thread. Your opinion that "this is new learning for most" was a blatant falsehood and a blanket insult. That you're unable to see the difference between Physics and Chemistry, and the things of God IS a "101" level of error. Even vpw himself knew the difference SOMETIMES. He asked what laboratory you could take "love" to and measure it. "As I said before, a young man in love with a lady. He can't take that love, bring it to a laboratory, stick it under a Bunsen Burner and come out with 'hot love.' You just don't get it that way, I suppose." (For those paying attention, the Bunsen Burner would go under the 'love' in this example. I'm considering this a simple slip of the tongue, and including it in the interest of accuracy.) Oh, and since our advocate of a supposed single unchanging source of truth, a supposed single unchanging source of rules for faith and practice, himself DOES NOT HAVE ONE EITHER, I consider this discussion rather limited.

"Thank you, Lads." "We've got to get Franklin out of there." "You've changed the resonator array... only three phase inverters..." "You were saying earlier that you were on your way to the Norpin Colony when you had a warp engine failure..." "That's right. We had an overload in one of the plasma transfer conduits. The Captain brought us out of warp... we hit some gravimetric interference and then there it was, as big as life..."

There's two entirely separate issues. A) The sins of a teacher B) Whether or not the teachings had merit Now, it is a tiresome old chestnut that about 3-4 posters consistently claim (suggest, insinuate and imply when not stating it outright- technically, this was another insinuation) that other posters claim that the 2 issues are only one issue- that the teachings turn to dust automatically as the result of the teacher being a poor example of a Christian. Few people IF ANY are saying that. This has previously been cooked up as a fiction stated "you're saying wierwille sinned, and therefore did no good." That's been shown to be an invention of those who never held that position- we had a poll and NOBODY took that position. Here's how it is. It's rather simple- for those people who don't want to grossly distort the positions other people hold. B) Do the teachings have merit? Whether the teachings have merit is a matter reserved to discussion of the material of the teachings. We've discussed a number of them. People have said the following: "If you put it down and look at Scripture without twi, what's true and reliable will still be true and reliable. Giving up the intellectual hobbling of oneself by limiting oneself EXCLUSIVELY to the limitations of any ONE teacher or method is a good thing. So, put it aside for a while and try thinking for yourself a while. Evaluate the works of other Christians. Spend time among Christians with skills you're unfamiliar with. Read it for yourself. What is of God will abide." That's a sensible approach for anyone who's not afraid to think for themself. "When examined, some of it is worth keeping, and significant portions of it are error. Drop whatever is error, which is significant." That's fine for anyone who doesn't require any belief system to be 100% free of error as if it was given by God. (That means only a tiny handful of posters should have a problem with it.) "I distrust whether any material taught by any person who has dedicated large swaths of his life to sin and lusts should be trusted at all." That's a sensible precaution when approaching material. That's a few positions-there are of course others. ===================== Now, discussing the sins of wierwille, we have a few positions that have been represented as well. 1) "Wierwille hardly ever sinned, and was a fine, upstanding Christian." Only the most sheltered, mentally-inbred ex-twi'ers still hold that position. As people begin to look at all the eyewitness testimony, the witness accounts, at the official releases from twi, that position is generally discarded as completely untrue. 2) "vpw sinned quite a bit, but it didn't affect his doctrine, policies, practices, etc." That's held by a minority of people. It's the default for people who want to believe the first position, but reality has prevented them. 3) "vpw sinned quite a bit, and it affected his doctrine, policies, practices, etc, quite a bit." Last poll, 1 in 5 polled held this position. Why would this position have any merit? How could the sins of a teacher affect his doctrine, his policies, his practices? Well, to go by what vpw HIMSELF said, someone can practice error. After a while, if they continue to practice error, then they begin to make a doctrine of it. If that person then begins teaching, that person will speak practical errors, and doctrinal errors. 4) "vpw sinned a lot, and it affected all aspects of his ministry, in greater or lesser ways." Last poll, 60% of the posters held this position. It differs from the previous position in a matter of degree in how MUCH sin, and how much effect it had. How could the sins of a teacher affect his doctrine, his policies, his practices? Well, to go by what vpw HIMSELF said, someone can practice error. After a while, if they continue to practice error, then they begin to make a doctrine of it. If that person then begins teaching. that person will speak practical errors and doctrinal errors. (I repeated myself because I've had people skip over an explanation stated once, and pretend it wasn't spoken at all. Now if anyone wants to pretend it doesn't exist, they have to be more overtly dishonest.) 5) "vpw did no good, but that's not because he sinned, it's because he was 100% fraud." Lat poll, 10% of posters held this one. If one doesn't believe vpw was anything BUT a fraud, then there's no reason to think his teachings or practices would be of benefit, except by accident. ===================== Now then, Do the sins of the teacher "negate" the truths in a teaching? NO. IF there are truths in a teaching, a teacher's sins don't "NEGATE" them. However, one's BEGGING THE QUESTION in this in the first place- by presupposing that the teaching had truths, AND one is misrepresenting what others say by using the word "NEGATE" (the Strawman.) Thus, it's a loaded-and dishonest- reply to legitimate discussion. Now then, do the sins of the teacher "AFFECT" a teaching? According to vpw, they do so. He said "the Correction Epistles" were designed to correct the doctrinal error found after they made a doctrine of the practical error they practiced. Could this have any relevance to vpw's teachings? Some would point out he soft-pedaled the issue of sin with Scripture many times- like downgrading sin to "broken fellowship" (a CONSEQUENCE of sin). Most would point out that comments like "technically, all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king" would be an example of something from the mouth and pen of vpw that specifically was an error that was the result of the Practical error turned Doctrinal error in vpw's life. He downgraded sins of the flesh in his own MIND (to legitimize or soften the sinful PRACTICES he practiced) and in the process, made a DOCTRINE of it, and taught that doctrine. That's a fast example of one of vpw's sins "AFFECTING" a teaching. If he says that in passing in 2 hours of material, does that mean the entire 2 hours is useless? NO- and NOBODY was saying it was. (If "the sins of the teacher NEGATED the truths of a teaching", then they would say so. This claim was an invention of those who made up an imaginary contrary position just so they could object to it and pretend they were being reasonable. Or, in other words, a Strawman.) ========== So, what do the posters here say? Generally, they say "If we knew the 1942 promise and snowstorm were inventions of vpw, and he was completely fraudulent in his claims of selection by God, we certainly would have examined his teachings more closely, his practices more closely, and been MUCH slower to give him 'the benefit of the doubt.' " A question still remains, however..... If, as some people seem to want to believe (but seem slow to come right out and say), that "vpw could sin quite a bit, but that had no effect on his teachings, doctrines, programs, etc", then why do they engage in lengthy processes of distraction when vpw's sins come up? Why is it not a matter of "yes, he sinned a lot. That doesn't matter at all"? Why the efforts to attempt to rehabilitate the reputation of a man who broke the law when he plagiarized and deceived others, broke the law when he drugged and raped women as well as violated his marriage vows and his responsibility as a pastor, who drank and smoked DAILY while criticizing the Corps for lacking discipline, who acquired all sorts of creature comforts at the expense of God's people? If his sins really mean NOTHING to you, why the smokescreen and pretend they don't exist? That claim was made in response to THIS post.... And a concise, honest reply to the attempt to change the subject:

Please fork the side-discussion. I think one poster may have been TRYING to push the thread into Soap Opera.

In many cases, vpw lifts Bullinger word-for-word. In other cases, vpw lifts Bullinger concept-for-concept. If there were no Bullinger, there would be no "Are the Dead Alive Now", no Orange Book, and the White Book would be thinner. Mind you, vpw also lifts Bullinger's MISTAKES. The claim that "God directed vpw to plagiarize all the correct stuff from Bullinger" ignores that vpw lifted errors that sounded good. One obvious example is "the kingdom of heaven" vs "the kingdom of God". Bullinger gave a detailed explanation of their differences in the Bible. vpw lifted his detailed explanation of their differences in the Bible. Both were wrong-in the Bible, the terms were interchangeable, and still are.

This is new to you. If you'd been exposed to 5 or more years of posts like this, it would be less shocking.

Well, you're incorrect, in that you're judging his statements based on a single source- the pfal syllabus- and pretending that was the SOLE source of comments from vpw. As has been pointed out before (by HCW), some books were transcripts of vpw speaking, that were then EDITED by people better at writing than vpw. Don has made this same point the other day. vpw said them lots of times, lots of ways. We all heard them. Pretending you somehow missed them is silly. Well, OJ pleaded 100% absolutely not guilty, so....

Actually, the order was, bring them where vpw was going to abuse them (office, motorcoach, whatever), THEN drug them, not the other way around. He did this to enough people that we've been able to put together a modus operandi for his criminal acts.

I've been trying to come up with the details of some episode. I'm not sure, but it might have been one of those famous Orbs that transported Kira back in time to Terak Nor when it was still an ore-processing plant. She met her mother- and Dukat had claimed her mother had been a "comfort-woman" to some Cardassian officer or something. That's the best I can do for now.

*snickers* I miss Tony Randall.

Of course you are! Of course you did! Good DAY, sir! Here's how the quotes went.. "I've just decided to switch our Friday schedule to Monday, which means that the test we take each Friday, on what we learned during the week, will now take place on Monday, before we've learned it. But, since today is Tuesday, it doesn't matter in the slightest." Charlie's teacher. (My favorite quote from the movie.) "No, no, don't speak--for some moments in life there are no words." Wonka, to Mike Teevee's mom, when she went incoherent after the incident with her son/ "We must remember there are many more important things, many more important things . . . off hand, I can't think of what they are, but I'm sure there must be something." The television news anchor, discussing what happens after the 5th ticket will be found. "So shines a good deed in a weary world." Wonka at the movie's climax. "That's right, you don't know because only I know. If you knew and I didn't know then you'd be teaching me instead of me teaching you, and for a student to be teaching his teacher is presumptuous and rude. Do I make my self clear?" "Yes, sir." Charlie's teacher again. "Is it my soul that calls upon my name?" "Oh, you should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about." "The suspense is terrible. I hope it'll last." "Where is fancy bred? In the heart, or in the head?? "99...44...100 percent pure." "Across the desert lies the promised land." "All I ask is a tall ship and a star to sail her by." 'Round the world and home again, that's the sailor's way!" "A small step for mankind, but a giant step for us." "Invention, my dear friends, is ninety-three percent perspiration, six percent electricity, four percent evaporation, and two percent butterscotch ripple." "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." "A thing of beauty is a joy forever." All Wonka, himself quoting a number of sources (Oscar Wilde, the Bible...)

Also, supply and demand act inversely. If there is nearly zero supply, demand will drive up a price. If there is HUGE demand, but supply is even HUGER, price will drop. The seventh Harry Potter book was easy to buy at a discount- the enormous demand was exceeded by an even more enormous supply. Thus, a few DOZEN people buying books can make it look like there's a huge demand-since they exceed the miniscule supply.

"I've just decided to switch our Friday schedule to Monday, which means that the test we take each Friday, on what we learned during the week, will now take place on Monday, before we've learned it. But, since today is Tuesday, it doesn't matter in the slightest." "No, no, don't speak--for some moments in life there are no words." "We must remember there are many more important things, many more important things . . . off hand, I can't think of what they are, but I'm sure there must be something." "So shines a good deed in a weary world." "That's right, you don't know because only I know. If you knew and I didn't know then you'd be teaching me instead of me teaching you, and for a student to be teaching his teacher is presumptuous and rude. Do I make my self clear?" "Yes, sir." "Is it my soul that calls upon my name?" "Oh, you should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about." "The suspense is terrible. I hope it'll last." "Where is fancy bred? In the heart, or in the head?? "99...44...100 percent pure." "Across the desert lies the promised land." "All I ask is a tall ship and a star to sail her by." 'Round the world and home again, that's the sailor's way!" "A small step for mankind, but a giant step for us." "Invention, my dear friends, is ninety-three percent perspiration, six percent electricity, four percent evaporation, and two percent butterscotch ripple." "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." "A thing of beauty is a joy forever."

Could God make it snow for any of us? I believe all the Christians here will say "yes". (I'm supposing that you mean the "snow on the pumps". The Tulsa snow job was confirmed to be a untruth in great detail.) There's several sub-issues here. Was this supposedly REAL snow, or a VISION of snow? All indications SEEM to be that it's supposed to be REAL snow. If it WAS, then it arrived in exactly ONE spot, with some of it instantly on the ground, and some of it heavy in the air. It then VANISHED. Could God do that? Well, yes. Whether you think God would go thru all that trouble when a VISION would work as well is a matter of opinion. If it was a VISION, then this goes back to the original question- which it would anyway. The supposed snow was to confirm that God would teach vpw God's Word like it had not been known since the 1st century, if vpw would teach it to others. The teachings and practices vpw taught and instituted bear NO resemblance to the 1st century church. They decentralized authority-he concentrated it in one person-himself. They spread out the money where there was need-vpw concentrated it at hq, where it STAYED. Their leaders led austere lives, Paul working a secular job at one point. vpw piled up luxuries for himself of nearly every kind. Their emphasis was on spiritual basics. vpw emphasized intellectual study. They had signs, miracles and wonders as day-to-day events. vpw-well, I suppose he saw a FEW here and there. Furthermore, "The Word like it hadn't been known since the 1st century" is a FICTION. In the 1st century, they had the Old Testament (the Torah), and a few of the letters where they could be found. It sounds like such a neat slogan, though..... Finally, although vpw taught others, EVERYTHING he taught (95% at the bare minimum) can be traced DIRECTLY to the work of ANOTHER Christian which was ALREADY in effect at the time. pfal was an cut-and-paste of the work (primarily) BG Leonard- whose class vpw copied over word-for-word originally, and thus it was known to all students of BG Leonard before vpw came around- (secondarily) EW Bullinger-whose books had been around for perhaps half-a-century before vpw heard of him, thus it was known to all his readers- (tertially) JE Stiles-whose work and book on the holy spirit were ALSO in effect long before, and whose book "Gifts of the Holy Spirit" was copied over almost word-for-word into the 1st edition of the White Book. Thus, the only things that had not "been known" before vpw ripped off the works of others was a handful of names-"manifestation","administration"-if those weren't a direct ripoff of someone else as well. Thus, the entire 1942 promise completely failed to come to pass. vpw taught others, but at no point did he teach them "God's Word as it has not been known since the 1st century" (for all the reasons I just gave.) Since God does not fail His promises, the logical conclusion is that this was NOT a promise of God. According to Scripture, if a man claims to speak in the name of the LORD and what he says does NOT come to pass, then he is a FALSE PROPHET. The only question then remaining is: Did vpw invent this 1942 promise? or did vpw receive a vision from a source other than the True God? The possibility of him actually receiving this as revelation from God, as you see, is excluded based on its phrasing and its results. Given that BG Leonard wrote something similar, vpw read his book, and, some years later began making this promise, it is most likely that vpw intentionally made it up based on BG Leonard's writings.