WordWolf

Drake!

Actually, since it was about a supposed remark disparaging vpw, it applies. Any vpw apologist would jump in right where you did. (You're a grown adult-you can see this.) Of course, EVERY apologist claims they are "an apologist for truth." And, saying it "had NOTHING to do with Wierwille AT ALL" is not true. Are we supposed to consider it an astonishing coincidence that your posts of apologetics all just happen to arrive when vpw or his doctrines enter the room?

Actually, I prefer actually seeing what the Blue Book says, and what the Orange Book says, then seeing what Juedes said and seeing if they agree. First of all, vpw made it clear that his so-called "law of believing" worked just as well for the Christian as the non-Christian, and worked equally well for things there were no promises of God connected to. vpw's theology of the so-called "law of believing" made God either irrelevant- since either he was FORCED to bring to pass the results of any person's believing- Christian or non-Christian, or the results were equally effective without God, which meant God was superfluous. Thus, as vpw taught and wrote his so-called "law of believing", God wasn't needed- the "LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE" were forced to give people what they believed for. So, that part about Juedes is correct- vpw's system said God wasn't needed to receive- since the "believing" worked equally well without him. That means the system is independent of God, that no God, or god, is needed in the system. (Juedes explained that himself, but Oldies was too busy filibustering him to even CONSIDER whether or not it was correct.) Thus, the system is, technically, "atheistic." It matches other "belief" systems that don't require a God-or a god- to operate. As for working "like voodoo", I think that's an inaccurate representation of what Juedes said- feel free to prove me wrong on that, but be very specific if you claim it. Since Juedes was correct, shame on Oldiesman for continually LYING about it and refusing to admit that Juedes was right. I don't think it's bad for Oldies to have been wrong. His dysfunctional response- HIDE THE ERROR, SHOOT THE MESSENGER, and CLAIM TRUTH for KNOWN ERROR is just plain bad. I wouldn't bring it up, but he's trying to invent errors on Juedes' behalf again. He seems to have convinced someone it's true just through repeating it. That's sad. Oldiesman SHOULD know better, but when it comes to someone correcting vpw's theology, he REFUSES to see it. WD should be able to see the differences, too. However, he's too busy with his apologetics to see it- or possibly he DOES see it and refuses to acknowledge it. I don't think that's healthy for him.

Did I pretend he didn't say it, or was misinterpreted and was correct all along? I said he changed the meaning. I said shame on him. Are you holding out for a tarring and feathering? A) "Peanut gallery" is name-calling.B) I didn't say it, but you're mentioning it in response to MY post, as if I had something to do with it. C) That post began with admitting wc probably never said it, which WAS your point. D) You ARE engaging in "apologetics" for vpw. I don't see how that qualifies as an insult. If someone sees someone use their left-hand, and calls them a left-hander, is that an insult? I still haven't called YOU anything. You may or may not have called me "peanut gallery" or "second grade"- this post certainly suggests you are. Is misrepresenting my posts-and others posts, accusing them and me of insulting you, and calling US names the best YOU have? I adjust my opinion to match the facts, when the facts contradict the opinion. I've been doing that a long time.Even when I don't LIKE the facts. Because they are the facts. It gets tiresome to keep hearing the fiction that I keep trying to have "all things TWI" called "bad." Since I've pointed out, many times, I was glad I got IN AND glad I got OUT, I can't tell if that's someone skipping MANY of my posts, someone rewriting my posts in their mind (like adding comments from another person's post into mine) or someone intentionally distorting my posts (like adding comments from another person's post into mine.) BTW, I STILL don't see "name-calling"- except "like a grade-schooler" IS one. What are YOU trying to take the spotlight off at the moment? Oh, and what the books state do a fine job of discrediting what the books state.

"WHO'S 'scruffy-looking'?"

Your Honor, I am outraged! This court has not even considered the possibility that Nicole killed OJ! ====== A) Bullinger died in 1913. vpw was born in 1916. Bullinger could not have "borrowed" (or plagiarized) work that wasn't in existence while he was alive. B) Leonard had never heard of vpw. According to vpw's OWN accounts, vpw heard of him and took his class. Later in the same year, vpw FIRST taught "his" class, "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" (later renamed pfal.) According to Mrs W's own accounts, the classes were virtually identical- graduates of Leonard's class were AUTOMATICALLY considered graduates of vpw's class. This agrees with Leonard's account, by the way. C) Stiles had never heard of vpw. Supposedly, vpw met with him, and-according to vpw's OWN account- Stiles worked with him for a few hours. Later in the same year, vpw's book "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" is written, with material straight from Stiles' already-in-print book, complete with all Stiles' own phrasings. In the beginning of the first edition of "his" book, vpw alludes to Stiles without naming him, saying he found a man who made the Scriptures on that subject fit together. (Later editions drop the reference, and say vpw made the Scriptures on that subject fit together.) etc. Those reading our posts can tell we're concerned with the TRUTH being reflected-that vpw was a STUDENT of Leonard for a time, and a STUDENT of Stiles for a time, and bought all Bullinger's books, and then produced classes and books that were amalgams of the works of those Christians. We're not "pitting" anyone against anything. The plagiarism vpw did from the works of the other men has been demonstrated beyond any REASONABLE doubt. The only thing "pseudo" here is the idea that there's any REASONABLE question otherwise. And there's no "rivalry" when one person plagiarizes another-the plagiarizer is a "thief", the plagiarized is a "victim of a crime." They were never in the same room at the same time.vpw never stood as an equal with any of them when he interacted with Leonard and Stiles- he was purely a student. In the case of Stiles, he was a REMEDIAL student. vpw never met Bullinger and never met Kenyon-he just read their books. So, this meeting around a table is imaginary. As for the characters, there's no confusion. Leonard's class was taught for years before vpw heard of it OR took it. Leonard's class had Henry, Maggie and Johnny. Leonard mentioned them in the class vpw took. vpw retaught Leonard's class and told the students it was vpw's class, and used the same names. Is this in and of itself the most offensive thing? No, the entire criminal action is offensive. That he stole the names needlessly shows a lack of CARING about the CRIME he knew he was committing. (He'd been taught that in high school, college, and in Princeton Theological Seminary.) There's no argument, confusion, or disagreement when REASONABLE people look at what happened. It's EASY to follow the timeline. When a man can't understand that a man who died before a second man was born can't plagiarize the second man, I don't see the point in even TRYING to educate him on copyright and trademarks, or even "common knowledge."

Shame on John. He should have known that taking something, and changing its meaning to match your theology and say "this is what it really meant" is the exclusive domain of vpw. Even as an innie, I thought he was saying things the verses didn't say when he provided his "literal according to usage" things. Small wonder people would make up things and call them "translation according to misusage." Of course, lcm did it. I wonder if lcm STARTED it or just jumped on the bandwagon. In its own way, when he did it, it was a bit more honest, since it was obvious he was just saying whatever he wanted. One of lcm's examples: Galatians 5:9 (King James Version) 9A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. lcm's self-identified "translation according to misusage:" "A little leaven lumpeth you up good. He then went on directly to talk about when "you get your lumps." There was no smokescreen of "I wish you could see it in the original."

It is indeed!

When he said that, he was not being entirely deceptive. He was STILL deceptive, because we ALL learn a little here and a little there, which is what he said. What he DID was to take entire chapters, paragraphs and sentences, and reprint them with his name on them. That's not "learning" from others. And saying "lots of stuff I teach is not original" is so vague it conveys no information. ANY teacher teaches lots of stuff that's not original. The idea that he told us he lifted Leonard's class, Stiles' book, and nearly everything he taught fromthe book or class of another Christian- which IS what he did- rather than just say he learned a little from this person but had to add the Bible to it, and that one, but take out all the error is, simply, a fairy tale. He'll say it every chance he gets for life. vpw said different, contradictory, things to different people. He didn't think he'd get caught. And, during his lifetime, he wasn't caught to any real degree.

Of course I am. The claim was about THAT avenue of learning-that it came from the works of other people. If it did NOT come from the work of other people, there would be no plagiarism. I stayed on topic when answering that post. Exactly what the rest of the sentence said-by revelation. He didn't plagiarize the books of others and say "I wrote this." You're making some progress now, Sherlock! We all knew this, didn't dispute this, and considered this "common knowledge" around here. I'll give you another one for free: triangles have 3 sides. Well, since he was proven beyond a REASONABLE doubt to have gotten it from the books of other people, books whose authors all had the information before 1942, and most were in print by 1942, the supposed 1942 promise (scroll up a few posts for it again) was proven to be invalid. All the information was KNOWN since the first century-they were known in the 20th if not sooner. I'll give you another one for free. If you'd read a little more, you'd see I'd actually "run the numbers" on how divine revelation would have figured in on this one- and said the most LIKELY approach- IF-and ONLY IF- God Almighty was running the vpw show directly- then the easiest answer that accounts for what God tells man to do, would be to give text by revelation.

"You were the apple of the public's eye as you cut the ribbon at the local mall A mirage for both you and us. How can it be real?"

I'm reasonably sure this is the original series, but I'm not the best person to pick out most of the episodes.

This was one example where vpw redefined a word. In pfal, he said outright that in "apologetics" you "apologize" for being Christian. In actuality, the only one who took that phrase there was vpw. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics "Apologists are authors, writers, editors of scientific logs or academic journals, and leaders known for taking on the points in arguments, conflicts or positions that are either placed under popular scrutinies or viewed under persecutory examinations. The term comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογία), meaning a speaking in defense." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics "Christian apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of Christianity. The term "apologetic" comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογία), which means in defense of. Therefore, a skilled person involved in Christian or Bible Apologetics is a defender of Christianity. Those who engage in Christian apologetics are called "Christian apologists". Christian apologetics have taken many forms over the centuries, starting with Paul of Tarsus, including writers such as Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, and continuing currently with the modern Christian community, through the efforts of many authors in various Christian traditions such as C.S. Lewis. Apologists have based their defense of Christianity on favoring interpretations of historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, and other disciplines. This Classical Greek term appears in the Koine (that is, common) Greek of the New Testament. The apostle Paul employed the term "apologia" in his trial speech to Festus and Agrippa when he said, "I make my defense" (Acts 26:2)" http://www.carm.org/apologetics/intro.htm "The word "apologetics" comes from the Greek word "apologia," pronounced, "ap-ol-og-ee’-ah." It means, "a verbal defense." It is used eight times in the New Testament: Acts 22:1; 25:16; 1 Cor. 9:3; 2 Cor. 7:11; Phil. 1;7; 2 Tim. 4:16, and 1 Pet. 3:15. But it is the last verse that is most commonly associated with Christian apologetics. "....but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" (1 Pet. 3:15, NASB). Therefore, Christian apologetics is that branch of Christianity that deals with answering any and all critics who oppose or question the revelation of God in Christ and the Bible. It can include studying such subjects as biblical manuscript transmission, philosophy, biology, mathematics, evolution, and logic. But it can also consist of simply giving an answer to a question about Jesus or a Bible passage. " =================== Did vpw not know that there was a specific meaning to "apologetics"? He graduated from Princeton Theological Seminary, a respectable school, for his Masters. Am I supposed to believe they NEVER taught him what "Christian Apologetics" is? Am I supposed to believe he graduated but didn't understand what "Christian Apologetics" is anyway? That's like getting a Masters in Psychology and being unable to explain the difference between Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. Is it more likely that vpw was educated in Christian Apologetics-at least the basics, knew what the word meant, and decided to claim it meant something else, in order to convince people that places like Princeton Theological Seminary (he called seminaries "cemetaries", remember) didn't have the answers they wanted, but HE had them instead?

WhatTheHey, Apr 17 2008, 3:39 PM (pg-6) vpw, "The Way, Living in Love", pg-177. "I was praying. And I told Father outright that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on. And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others." Waysider: WTH: Actually, if you UNDERSTAND what he says, that IS one of the things he says. I shall explain. If you're learning something that is UNKNOWN, then you until you learn it, ZERO people on the Earth know it. We can all count to zero. If there are people who ALREADY know it, even ONE person, then it is not UNKNOWN. Therefore, if he claimed to learn something "as it had not been known since the first century", then he's saying that no person alive knows it, which means there's no authors WITH BOOKS IN PRINT for him to learn from (alongside the other readers of the books, alongside the people the authors taught personally....) Some people consider legitimate issues, and pretend they're not.

"You were the apple of the public's eye"

[WordWolf responds in boldface and brackets.] Skipping over the patronizing tone that added unnecessary padding to your post, I could SEE what you were trying to say. I disagree that this does anything to "evaporate" any claims of plagiarism. God says to obey the law. If you forget where and when it says that, I can provide the chapter and verses. If Kenyon puts words in print in the US, legally, the words belong to Kenyon. Kenyon can choose to retain his copyright, or he can voluntarily choose to release it into the Public Domain (which still retains certain legal obligations.) How does God feel about the law saying it's Kenyon's? God says to obey man's laws, so God's ok with it or actively approving. IF God later came along and said "I gave that passage to Kenyon, and now you take it. I want you to place that passage right after another passage that was given by revelation to Stiles and finish that latest collateral", then God would include "here's how you include Kenyon's legal due- WHICH MAN COULD HAVE TOLD VPW, let alone GOD ALMIGHTY". If God supposedly said "Don’t worry about the human ownership," then God would be expecting vpw to be prepared to go to jail over the matter. Men of God, facing difficult decisions, have been prepared to go to jail or be executed in order to obey God. That's old, old news. In your scenario, God has four possible courses of action: A) send an angel to Kenyon and send an angel to Leonard, announce what He will do, and get them to agree beforehand so they legally give their permission in writing. Then they pass along the written agreements to vpw. B) Give completely different words to vpw that cover the same subjects. If God Almighty gave a passage to one person, it's just as easy to give a completely different passage to another, and still do it within the laws of man He's said to submit ourselves to. C) Prepare vpw to go to jail because God has chosen to do neither. D) Have the human laws changed entirely. God CAN do any of those. Each of them accounts for the laws we're supposed to obey. Would God tell vpw to break the law? Well, some people have spent time in jail as "political prisoners" because they believed God wanted them to act as they did, and this broke the law. That includes people struggling to end slavery, or to stand up for human rights in different countries. For the sake of discussion, let's suppose each WAS doing the will of God. That means God was clear with them that they would face legal consequences for breaking man's law, and they would have to deal with them-whether that meant jail, torture, slow death, or any of a number of things people had done to them for obeying God. In each case, it was because the other option was to act within the law- and permit evil to thrive. In this case, there were plenty of ways for God to accomplish His Will without encouraging evil AND within the bounds of the law. (The 2nd one I named was the easiest.) So, if I were to look at the theoretical situation (go from inspired Kenyon and Stiles to inspired vpw) I find YOUR scenario is not the most consistent with God's behavior, nor the most efficient course to get His Will done.]

When we were young, and life-and answers-were simple, it was a great comfort to have all the answers, and be able to rattle off answers to solve any problem. twi leaders can rattle off solutions to foreign policy problems, the budgets of countries..... the rest of us could tell EVERYONE how to fix all the problems in their lives- quickly. Life is rarely as simple as twi-and all harmful religions- make it.

The Blue Book, page 29. "What We Believe = What We are The law of believing is dynamically powerful, yet so simple. The law, simply stated, is that what we believe for or expect, we get. This applies in every realm: physical, mental, material, spiritual. Thus it is this law which basically controls the abundant life. Only if we believe and expect abundance will we ever realize abundance in our lives. 'The Synchronized Life' shows that our lives are molded by our believing-both by positive and negative believing. This law is further explained and proved in 'The Law of Believing' so that we will become aware of our own thinking and then be able to control our thinking so as to manifest the abundant life which is promised in God's Word." says the following on the subject of believing: (page 28) "WHAT WE BELIEVE EQUALS WHAT WE ARE" (pg-29) "What We Believe = What We are The law of believing is dynamically powerful, yet so simple. The law, simply stated, is that what we believe for or expect, we get. This applies in every realm: physical, mental, material, spiritual. Thus it is this law which basically controls the abundant life. Only if we believe and expect abundance will we ever realize abundance in our lives. 'The Synchronized Life' shows that our lives are molded by our believing-both by positive and negative believing. This law is further explained and proved in 'The Law of Believing' so that we will become aware of our own thinking and then be able to control our thinking so as to manifest the abundant life which is promised in God's Word." -----------------------------------====== That was the entire contents of both pages. except for the last 2 words of the second page, God doesn't enter the picture. (page 31) "Chapter Four. The Synchronized Life Whatever a person believes is directly reflected in what he confesses. What a person confesses in his innermost being is what he brings into manifestation in his life. If a person goes through life confessing that he has great need, he will definitely have great need. If he confesses sickness, he will continue to be sick and afflicted because of the law that what one believes in the depth of his soul absolutely appears in his life. The "synchronized life" is simply stated by this formula: confession of belief yields receipt of confession." pg-43 and 44. "The law of believing brings phenomenal results to all those who apply and practice the principles. You may believe rightly or wrongly. Believing works both ways, and you bring to yourself whatever you believe." pg-44."Fear, worry and anxiety are types of believing. If you worry, have fear and are anxious you will receive the fruit of your negative believing which is defeat. The law of believing works equally effectively for both the sinner and the saint..." pg-8. "How have you mentally pictured yourself for the past week, month, year, ten years? The picture that you carry of yourself with clearness and with concern is what you are. This law works for positive and negative thinking alike." pg-6 and 7. "A camera offers an appropriate analogy of the means by which you can get results to prayer and find release from your prisons. If you want an answer to prayer, first get your object in mind. You select what you want in your picture. This is step one: you're CLEAR on what you want. Secondly, you use the range finder and focus the subject properly. Then consider the length of exposure of the picture so that all factors may work together for a perfect picture. After all this, shoot the picture. When you are focused on the picture of what you want, keep your mind stayed on it. If you allow something else to come in and take precedence over that picture you will get a blurred answer to prayer; you will not get the results you desire; you will not get release from the prison which is encasing you. If you want to get rid of something today, you must focus, dwell on what you want. It is the introduction of light that dispels darkness, not the dwelling on the darkness that introduces light. If you want more business, better relations between employer and employee or a better job, get your desire in mind, focus on it and then determine the exposure time needed to accomplish the task. If you want to get out of your prisons today, immediately change your thinking about your situation: change your subject of focus. As you change your thinking, you will draw a mental pattern for the things you DO want in your life, which in turn will dispel and root out all those things you do not want." The Orange Book: page 32. "The law of believing is the greatest law in the Word of God. As a matter of fact, it is not only the greatest law in The Word, it is the greatest law in the whole world. Believing works for saint and sinner alike." page 35. (after referencing Mark 11:23) "This is the great law in the Word of God. 'Whosoever...' It does not say Christian or non-Christian; whosoever means whosoever. "Whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removes, and...cast into the sea and shall not doubt...but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.' In other words, say it, believe it, and it will come to pass." "The law of believing is the greatest law in the Word of God: whosoever says it, whosoever believes, will act and receive." ------------------------------------------- page 38."If one is afraid of a disease, he will manifest that disease because the law is that what one believes (in this case, what one believes negatively), he is going to receive." his law of negative and positive believing works for both Christian and non-Christian. When we believe, we receive the results of our believing regardless of who or what we are." Mike, the blue book "the Bible Tells Me So" says the following on the subject of believing: (page 28) "WHAT WE BELIEVE EQUALS WHAT WE ARE" (pg-29) "What We Believe = What We are The law of believing is dynamically powerful, yet so simple. The law, simply stated, is that what we believe for or expect, we get. This applies in every realm: physical, mental, material, spiritual. Thus it is this law which basically controls the abundant life. Only if we believe and expect abundance will we ever realize abundance in our lives. 'The Synchronized Life' shows that our lives are molded by our believing-both by positive and negative believing. This law is further explained and proved in 'The Law of Believing' so that we will become aware of our own thinking and then be able to control our thinking so as to manifest the abundant life which is promised in God's Word." -----------------------------------====== That was the entire contents of both pages. except for the last 2 words of the second page, God doesn't enter the picture.] (page 31) "Chapter Four. The Synchronized Life Whatever a person believes is directly reflected in what he confesses. What a person confesses in his innermost being is what he brings into manifestation in his life. If a person goes through life confessing that he has great need, he will definitely have great need. If he confesses sickness, he will continue to be sick and afflicted because of the law that what one believes in the depth of his soul absolutely appears in his life. The "synchronized life" is simply stated by this formula: confession of belief yields receipt of confession." ---------------------------------------------- pg-43 and 44. "The law of believing brings phenomenal results to all those who apply and practice the principles. You may believe rightly or wrongly. Believing works both ways, and you bring to yourself whatever you believe." pg-44."Fear, worry and anxiety are types of believing. If you worry, have fear and are anxious you will receive the fruit of your negative believing which is defeat. The law of believing works equally effectively for both the sinner and the saint..." Chapter One, "Release From Your Prisons". pg-8. "How have you mentally pictured yourself for the past week, month, year, ten years? The picture that you carry of yourself with clearness and with concern is what you are. This law works for positive and negative thinking alike." pg-6 and 7. "A camera offers an appropriate analogy of the means by which you can get results to prayer and find release from your prisons. If you want an answer to prayer, first get your object in mind. You select what you want in your picture. This is step one: youre CLEAR on what you want. Secondly, you use the range finder and focus the subject properly. Then consider the length of exposure of the picture so that all factors may work together for a perfect picture. After all this, shoot the picture. When you are focused on the picture of what you want, keep your mind stayted on it. If you allow something else to come in and take precedence over that picture you will get a blurred answer to prayer; you will not get the results you desire; you will not get release from the prison which is encasing you. If you want to get rid of something today, you must focus, dwell on what you want. It is the introduction of light that dispels darkness, not the dwelling on the darkness that introduces light. If you want more business, better relations between employer and employee or a better job, get your desire in mind, focus on it and then determine the exposure time needed to accomplish the task. If you want to get out of your prisons today, immediately change your thinking about your situation: change your subject of focus. As you change your thinking, you will draw a mental pattern for the things you DO want in your life, which in turn will dispel and root out all those things you do not want." ------------------------------------------- The orange book ALSO addresses the subject of believing. page 32. "The law of believing is the greatest law in the Word of God. As a matter of fact, it is not only the greatest law in The Word, it is the greatest law in the whole world. Believing works for saint and sinner alike." page 35. (after referencing Mark 11:23) "This is the great law in the Word of God. 'Whosoever...' It does not say Christian or non-Christian; whosoever means whosoever. "Whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removes, and...cast into the sea and shall not doubt...but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.' In other words, say it, believe it, and it will come to pass." "The law of believing is the greatest law in the Word of God: whosoever says it, whosoever believes, will act and receive." ------------------------------------------- page 38. "If one is afraid of a disease, he will manifest that disease because the law is that what one believes (in this case, what one believes negatively), he is going to receive." his law of negative and positive believing works for both Christian and non-Christian. When we believe, we receive the results of our believing regardless of who or what we are." page 42-44 cover the story of the woman whose fear "killed her son". page 44. "What one fears will surely come to pass. It is a law. Have you ever heard about people who set the time of their death? When somebody says 'Well, this time next year I will not be here," if you are a betting man, bet your money, you are going to win. If a person makes up his mind that this time next year he is going to be dead, God would have to change the laws of the universe for the person not to be accomodated." [Missing from the book, but present in the taped class (where it's harder to evaluate something) is this little gem. A woman supposedly operated these principles to get red drapes in her new apartment.] "People, she must have had her need and want parallel. Look at this. All right! She rented a furnished apartment and it had to have drapes on the window, right? Does it make God any difference whether the drapes are green or red or pink? No, but she had a need, that need was that they might as well have red drapes on, that's what she wanted. She got her need and her want parallel."

[in other words, there's no fundamental difference between a spy engaged in a military operation, and thus attempting to save lives of the people of his country, and a supposed author claiming he wrote work that was copied from others, and lying and telling people "I wrote this." That's Mikean thinking. Is it the kind of thinking others here want?] ["SOME OF THE WORLD'S TOP". I had enough of these "I just happen to know the top men in the world in that field" from vpw, thanks. I don't need another person engaging in less-than-honest statements of that type.] [This is a MUCH simpler subject than you want people to understand.It is wrong for a person to lie and say "this is my work" when it's someone else's work.] [in other words, there's no fundamental difference between letting (or telling) your small child believe in Santa Claus and presenting the work of other authors to adults and saying "I wrote this." That's Mikean thinking. Is that type of thinking healthy?]

[Having seen the way you process the threads we post on, and knowing you're HIDING your specifics, I'm NOT impressed that you've "found" something. Lots of people "find evidence" the US space program is faked, and so on. Someone here kept claiming to "find" "proof" the Holocaust didn't include mass executions.] [it's been shown beyond a REASONABLE doubt that vpw's "writings" were copies of the books of writers thathe had been exposed to before he "wrote" them. That means he PLAGIARIZED. Whatever his MOTIVE for PLAGIARISM is a separate issue entirely. NOTHING makes PLAGIARISM (a FELONY when done at this level) "evaporate."] [Has anyone calculated how many times Mike has changed his story? First there was no plagiarism, then they approved of the plagiarism, then GOD ALMIGHTY endorsed the plagiarism, and shame on the authors for not wanting their books plagiarized. First vpw kept us COMPLETELY in the dark as to the names of other authors -Stiles, Leonard- because "he didn't want us distracted" by their names. Now supposedly we heard about them, and they benefited from the exposure! I think Mike missed his calling-politics is where this level of spin-doctoring is respected- INTEGRITY is respected among Christians- at least Christians who've never heard of twi or vpw. Leonard was never "promoted by the ministry." He was HIDDEN, and Leonard, years later, discovered his work was stolen. He added elaborate notices against plagiarism, and stopped being so trusting of his applicants. Has anyone calculated the DAMAGE to Leonard's ministry by the personal hurt vpw dealt him by his ILLEGAL and IMMORAL dealings?] Mike says a lot of things. Mike says they were given "revelations". Mike says God told vpw to plagiarize them. Mike says the pfal/twi books supercede any Bible vpw ever claimed to teach from.] (edited because I flubbed Leonard's name part of the time.)

I've concluded, using Occam's Razor, that neither of the majority positions is correct, and the answer transcends both somehow. Beyond that, I freely admit that the nature of God is beyond my intellect. I hope to learn something someday that helps me get past this particular "logjam" in my thinking.

Please note that you'll have to look, and you may note that he never actually takes even TWO statements, let alone 22, and say "this is how vpw said pfal is God-breathed." He insists you do all the interpreting yourself, and if you come to conclusions other than his, there's something wrong with you. But, go ahead, follow his links. You've been warned. BTW, here's a direct quote from the beginning of the Orange Book: "This is a book containing Biblical KEYS. The contents herein do not teach the Scriptures from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21; RATHER, it is designed to set before the reader the BASIC KEYS in the Word of God so that the abundant life which Jesus Christ came to make available will become evident to those who want to appropriate God's abundance to their lives." Mike says this is a book replacing the Scriptures from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21. vpw said they are BASIC KEYS to understanding Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21. Mike says that vpw says this is a book replacing the Scriptures from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21. You can see the difference, I'm sure. Feel free to do so, if you want. HOWEVER, please note that a number of posters who opened communication with Mike by phone, by email, by pm have gone on to post publickly, some demanding Mike never contact him privately ever again, and some DEMANDING that Mike stop posting things they confided privately to him. If you care to run the risk of agreeing with them, go right ahead and communicate privately with Mike.

You'll leave them hunting high and low for this one, dooj...

For variety, I'll take a wild shot and guess "Wordsworth".

Right. Your turn.