WordWolf

What are you, new? Mike, 2/2/04, 12:17am, Eastern. "When you see Christ in his glory he will be holding a PFAL book in his hand and teaching you from it." Vickles, 2/3/04, 7:51pm, Eastern. "So, Mike, you weren't kidding about JC coming with a PFAL book in his hand." Mike, 2/3/04, 7:53pm, Eastern. "Totally serious. I've already seen him this way more than once." That's not even counting Mike, 2/3/04, 5:22am, Eastern. "Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman. Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL. He told me so." ==== The idea of Jesus Christ possibly returning holding a kitten or a frilly pink dress was mine, though. Your opinion which would be a more profitable use of the Lord's hand at that particular moment.

WTH has posted some things that are technically accurate. (And some that aren't.) I don't trust it coming from WTH any more than I trust the woman with the familiar spirit just because she claimed that the disciples were men serving the Most High God. It strikes me that this was meant to lend credibility to less-credible statements made later...

He'd mentioned once before that he HAS a router. That's why I just said to remember to connect that FIRST. I would add a software firewall, but this allows him to have security while he's downloading one. Unless he loaded the thing from disk. (Refrains from making another aol joke.)

So, does giving precede believing, and believing precede receiving, or does believing precede giving, and giving precede receiving? I think it's the latter. People believe twi's promises, give money, and twi receives the money.

Frankly, I care little what he does. I keep a general eye for announcements about the splinter groups and their leaders and so on, but I'm hardly riveted for news on any one, nor on JAL in particular. The only real interest I have in him is as pertains to ME. That generally means "as pertaining GSC" or another website. THAT usually means "what has Jeff posted somewhere with JAL's name on it, and has JAL approved this message?" This week, it meant JAL's reply to some discussions about his personal life, and how his only involvements with us always seem to preclude anything resembling a civilized discussion on the board, and how he thinks of us as an unruly mob of gossips. Considering many of us were people he purported to lead in the past in one capacity or another, that probably says something about what he thinks of his CURRENT flock as well. (Or what he says when someone wanders off his pasture.)

So Mike, that it? Master PFAL cause God is using it to "invite us up to His level? I've heard that one before. Let me rephrase that:"... Mike said unto us, ye shall not surely remain a failure: For God doth know that in the day ye mastereth PFAL, your eyes shall be opened and you will be on the same level as God , knowing how to manifest His power." I knew this whole thing had a familiar ring to it.... Can you be more specific in your answer? HCW, take WTH's aimless ramblings as a compliment. Whenever Mike faces posts like this one you posted here, someone like WTH shows up to obscure the discussion, almost as if Mike asked them to show up out of nowhere and waste our time to take the heat off of him. We've had a number of odd coincidences like that before...

[Here we go again.... WTH in original, WordWolf in boldface as always.] Some doctor of theology wants us to accept this statement as being the whole truth, but then neglects to answer (if the statement were true) what made VPW change his mind about tithing then? [WTH wants us to accept this partial quote as being the whole truth, but then neglects to include the answer to his own question-what made VPW change his mind about tithing.] WordWolf, 3/15/05, 4:18am [ So, then, did I leave out why VPW reversed his position? Or did I say it was that the money was "coming to him" and "in his financial interests" to teach tithing? If I included it, why did WTH claim I didn't? Error or intent to deceive?] One can readily see we are not being told the complete truth but only part truth. [ I agree. WTH told a partial truth. ] God’s Word says we are to put off lying and speak every man truth (not part truth) with his neighbor (Ephesians 4:25). Perhaps some would accept the statement as true if they never met VPW. [Or if they did their homework.] I never heard VPW teach it was wrong to tithe or to give. [Whether WTH heard VPW teach something or not is NOT the determinant in whether or not VPW taught it. ] That’s a new one. [No, that's an OLD one. It's one of the charges VPW levelled at his old denomination when he was looking for ways to make them look like villains. He said it was wrong for them to demand the tithe, and that he wasn't going to go along with their villainous practices. *insert villainous organ music here* That was long before WTH ever heard of VPW. ] The more honest question would be: Does the bible ever teach us it is wrong to tithe or give? [ A REQUIRED TITHE-which is ANY TITHE, since a tithe, by DEFINITION is a required 10%-is NEVER given for Christians. They collected funds at need, those with abundance gave, and it was distributed to the POOR so that there was no LACK. That's NOTHING like VPW's tithe.] In some situations it does. The bible says we are not supposed to give grudgingly or out of necessity. That would certainly be one situation (1 Corinthians 9:7). But the bible doesn’t teach us that we are not supposed to give at all - as some ‘doctor of theology’ here wants to teach it. INCORRECT. Setting up the strawman "he says we should NEVER give" when what I said was "God does not require a mandatory 10%" is intellectually dishonest and lying. If it was accidental, it would be inferior workmanship. If it's intentional, it's deliberate deception, which makes Baby Jesus cry.] The Greek word for necessity in that verse is: anagke, which means: must or need. One could use the word MANDATORY and it would convey the same meaning. What we are supposed to understand is some doctor of theology here is now teaching us it is MANDATORY not to give. [No, as any adult reader of English should be able to see, I said God did not REQUIRE a MANDATORY 10%. Therefore, it is wrong to teach you MUST give. Giving should be done out of thankfulness and out of one's abundance. It is dishonest to distort my clear communications deliberately in that fashion. God does not like DIShonesty.] Well, that’s just as hypocritical as someone teaching you if you don’t give at least 10% (preferably more) God won’t bother to spit in your direction - or whatever direction you want Him to spit in! [What's hypocritical is lecturing us about honesty while prolifically using a variety of DIShonest methods to teach it. THAT's hypocrisy.] [Aaaand, on cue, here comes WTH's hypocritical lecture on honesty, which he's worked hard to shoehorn in once more, even if he had to lie like a rug to bring it in...] That’s all these “Doctors of Theology” people want to teach other people how to do - how to lie and be a hypocrite, and how to grieve the holy spirit and how to be a slave to money like they are. Well, you’re just as much a slave to money by not tithing or by not giving as you are by giving out of fear! You know: If I don’t give at least 10% or more God won’t spit in my direction! OH PHBTTTTTTTTT to all that bull-ony! [is anyone BESIDES WTH seeing any of this program on THEIR tv channels? I'm watching a different show from him. I didn't see ANYONE mentioning ANY of this except WTH. Is he posting in the wrong window or something?] You say you can’t afford to tithe or give? [No, I say that when you get ahold of some real premium sh* like you've been smoking, you're supposed to SHARE so the rest of us can see the groovy colours also (Bullinger). ] Look, you’re supposed to be a faithful steward of that which God has given you. If you’re telling yourself you can’t afford to tithe or give from what ever little it is you have now, what makes you think you can do it when you have more income? You’re just lying to yourself (thereby grieving the holy spirit) saying you can only afford to tithe when you have more income. What you’re really saying is (and is truth) is that you’re a lousy steward of what God has already given you! But nobody ever wants to hear that coming from somebody else – let alone admit it to themselves. More money is not the answer to your problems as most people think it is. The truth is, more money would only cripple and crush you because the more income one has the more is required of them to faithfully steward what they have. That’s not just WTH blowing smoke up your … whatever - that’s the Word of God! See Luke 12:42-48 (especially noting verse 48). That’s right. Unto whom much is given, of him much will be required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. [sp, those leaders who abused their offices, much will be required of them, right? Glad we agree.] I’ll let you all in on a secret, that is, if you don’t know it already. MONEY is not the most valuable possession you have. TIME is your most valuable possession. Money can be recovered: time can not. [ Right. I'd sure redeem more of it if I didn't have to defend my reputation from smear jobs by some a-hole determined to distort my every utterance.] I don’t know when the lord will return [Neither do I.] or if he will return with a PFAL book. [There's an actual difference of opinion as to whether or not this is a possibility?????] The Word of God doesn’t mention the exact time and what he will return with. [so he might be carrying a kitten, say, or a frilly pink dress, also.] All I know is today is closer to that appointed day than yesterday, and tomorrow will be even closer still. You and I only have “so much time” and it is also valuable time that none of us can recover. [And yet, you chose to post this....] The clock is constantly ticking and all of our time here on this earth is rapidly running out. Scientifically I have learned it is now running out at an exponential rate. If you want to argue and squabble in a debate about it, I might find the time to put you in touch with the scientists who conducted the study. I don’t have to argue with them because I realize it from God’s Word anyway. Whether or not someone wants to spend their time mastering PFAL is really up to them. I can’t argue somebody into doing it or out of doing it for that matter. Nor can you. These PFAL threads go on forever it seems. [Posts like this contribute markedly to the amount of space wasted on the subject, in fact...] I can only be the master and the steward of my own life. I can’t be the steward of anybody else’s life nor can you. That is why you will never change anybody by arguing with them. [so, you agree these threads are a waste of time altogether? Great!] You can only change yourself. You will find it easier to change yourself than to get somebody else to change by arguing with them. I will say, if you have been taught the integrity of God’s Word to any degree, you better be prepared and be prepared well. Why? Luke 12:47 “And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.” Now many people might read into that verse and believe it is the lord who will beat them for not preparing. No. If you don’t prepare yourself with the truth of God’s Word, it is the world that will beat you with its many stripes! [Welcome back to the Blame The Believer Show! See? If you have tribulation in the world, it's not because your Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ said that in the world you will have tribulation, it is YOUR FAULT for not believing right! It was the FEAR...in the HEART....of that WOMAN..... someone STILL BELIEVES THIS Horse Manure Masquerading As Divine Doctrine?] The whole key to the more abundant life lies in stewardship – stewardship of your time, your money and of everything else. So if you aint got “it” you can’t blame VPW, LCM, TWI, PFAL or anybody or anything else for the lousy stewardship of your affairs. [Actually, the Better Business Bureau, the Dept of Consumer Affairs, and the Courts of the United States beg to differ. If someone advertises they are a good steward, and you hire them in good faith, you can sue them for damages. If you claim to teach how to be a good steward, and your techniques fail, and your seminars are just an excuse to drug and rape some of the attendees, AND YOU ARE CAUGHT, you're going to be stewarding your time from within a prison cell and try to figure out how to keep Bubba from molesting YOU. Nice try saying lcm, vpw and their criminal gang didn't commit felonies, though.] But that’s exactly what most people do. Then they quit and go looking for another ministry or some other ‘doctor of theology’ or somebody else who will lead them into this “more” abundant life. They go looking for “more” thinking “more” will solve all their problems. [Actually, YOU'RE the one who made this a hypothetical example of some "more abundant life", so it's unfair for you to claim your example was wrong, unless you're lecturing yourself.] Then they lay the blame on somebody or on something else whenever it doesn’t. If you want to see “more” of the more abundant life, start looking at the last place where few people ever dare to look – themselves. Thinking some ministry or minister or some doctor of theology, or a psychiatrist, or by having “more” money and owning “more” things etc. will make you feel “more” secure in life when you can’t steward your own affairs is lying to yourself – plain and simple. And lying grieves the holy spirit – remember? I’ve learned the more abundant life doesn’t exist in the questioning of other people or other things, [Nice try shoehorning in the "you're not allowed to hold leaders accountable" stuff. Didn't work for the ENRON executives, you know. ] as much as it does in questioning myself and my stewardship – of my time, my money and everything else that comes along in my life. Just some ‘spiritual food’ for thought here. {Spiritual rice cakes. You can eat it, then belch, and it won't remind you of anything....]

I'm skipping the whole "death/paradise" thing because that would take up a whole thread on its own, and we STILL wouldn't all agree. I think it's wrong of the writer to blithely declare the case for that is open and shut, when intelligent Christians can intelligently disagree on it (as we do here, sometimes.) As to the definition of "precious", I think of "precious" gems as well as "semi-precious" gems. The "precious" gems are more costly. That which is more costly is more highly valued. Two Christians own copies of Bullinger's Companion Bible. One owns the hardcover, one owns the leatherbound version. The hardcover is cheaper. Which of them puts the book away in its little case every night? The latter. Why? Because it cost as much as 3-4 other reference books put together. A man owns a Ford Pinto and a Ferrari Testarossa. Each one is damaged by falling concrete. Which one does he freak out over? Right-the Ferrari. It's more costly, and "precious", and it's more treasured by him as a result. I say that the writer did NOT successfully refute the translation of that word as "costly". His "argument" fit that definition just as well. Finally, why have a cow over the Gordon Ricker-Berry Interlinear from the Stephens Text being used, when it's the one people can actually FIND in stores? I happily use it side-by-side with Marchall's Interlinear from the Nestle Text. Considering how many SERIOUS problems there are with vpw's errors, I find it problematic that someone would camouflage them by making THESE look like the most legit criticisms they could find.

BUT... There's no mention whatsoever of the "same kind/different kind" distinction referenced by the writer. He seems to have reference 53 right, and his refutation of it is on point. Allos and heteros simply don't mean what Wierwille said they mean. This is on the Actual (not merely apparent) Errors list. See the Companion Bible, Appendix 124 for the definitions of heteros and allos (different kind/same kind). It also includes the other definition. I don't see any evidence that Wierwille ever deviated from these definitions. If someone can find it, please let me know. But the writer of this piece simply has it backward and ends up bolstering what he attempts to dismantle. From what LongGone said, this was another place where vpw misspoke on the tapes, but it's corrected in the books. (Again, I find this was correctable, and should have been corrected, but that's a separate, and smaller, quibble.) As we discussed in the ACTUAL/REAL ERRORS IN PFAL discussions, vpw was all over the map here. I'm unsure if Bullinger also(Bullinger) was all over the map and vpw just parroted him, but I'd suspect something like that. Where vpw claimed that allos and heteros made a distinction between exactly two of something, that was error, period. (That's in the books.) Apparently, in the tapes, vpw claimed "heteros" meant "other of the same type" and "allos" meant "other of a different type", and the books say the opposite. The books are correct, as I see it. The fastest illustration I can see for this is Galatians 1:6-7. "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto ANOTHER gospel, which is not ANOTHER;..." "unto another gospel" uses the word "heteros", "which is not another" uses the word "allo". Paul marvelled they removed to a DIFFERENT gospel, which was not OF THE SAME KIND. (Ok, Raf answered my question about Bullinger. vpw just xeroxed him as usual without realizing he contradicted himself in doing so.)

That must be why Wierwille never wrote it. As Mike would say, the written book and the taped class were not identical. I don't know if he misspoke in the class or if you could attribute dishonest motives to VPW for this mistake/error. But I do know that to criticize him for something he corrected (ie, the use of anablepo) is just downright mean, if not ignorant. The writer was hasty in his criticism in a few places, this being one of them. vpw made several mistakes in the taped class due to improv. My favourite example was Paul going to Jerusalem, and one guy "I forget if it was Felix or Festus" said "almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." He couldnt remember which one because it was NEITHER, it was AGRIPPA. (Felix and Festus show up later in the chapter.) I wouldn't claim THIS was a critical error, but it was correctable and sloppy. Similarly, the taped class has "anablepo" and the book has "eidon". The word in the text he referred to IS "eidon" and may carry the meaning he meant. He misspoke on the tape. (All of us good note-takers have notes that contradict the textbook at that spot.) To spend time on THIS dilutes the writer's point-it makes it look as though this is the BEST he can come up with to refute vpw-and that would make vpw look BETTER than he was.

I'm skipping over the old saw of twi that everything they have is "the best", like your Dad's letter, which was also "the best" because I wanted to note this little gem. I think this exposes a fatal personality flaw, the quote I pulled up. Read it again. Bob finds it distasteful to deal with things that don't conform to cold, rational numbers. Economics is dynamic and fluid, like dealing with PEOPLE. Mathematics is cold, like the bottom line. People don't add up, but numbers do. Worse, look closely, and review the connection between "unchanging" like mathematics, and "God's Word." What's this contrasted with? Fluidity and economics. Anyone else see the "economics vs God's Word" contrast, or am I the only one?

Does anyone know where it "clearly says" this? And, if this is so "clear", why was in-depth research needed?

Back in 1994-1996.....LCM ranted on and on that a mortgage was debt. According to twi's president, the research HAD ALREADY been done. In Bob's syrupy letter of 2001..... he states that "our biblical men are working on (it)".... is he just stringing Belle along here or is twi RE-considering their position????? Now, its 2005.......are they STILL "working on it" ????? I wouldn't doubt it. Unbelievable, Bob...........unbelievable !!!! --> Duh, he was stringing Belle along. twi tries very hard not to give a straight answer on anything it thinks it could get in trouble over, rather than just not say anything stupid. Therefore, they have a policy on debt, and they never had a policy on debt, and they've been studying it out for 20 years, and the research has all been done. It's like the story of the tall, fat, skinny little man.

No advice on buying, no. Just the usual when setting her up. Install Windows Service Pack 2 from an installer disk before connecting her to the internet, and connect thru your router to use her firewall, then proceed directly to download your security software. Since some pcs apparently come out of the box with spyware, adware or viruses, you'll want to scan for each first chance you get. But you already knew all that. That and defrag as soon as you're done downloading everything.

There's no point whatsoever in posting to JAL here. When he feels there's a public outcry, he makes a single post, then splits. He does not consider this forum a venue it is profitable for him to communicate on as an equal. That's why each post preremptorily attempts to silence FURTHER discussion with him HERE while leaving the door open for PRIVATE communication. Speculation as to why he would feel the need to control the medium of communication and paint us as "taking potshots" at him and his organization (I, for one, haven't posted on this thread until now) is strictly speculation. However, since he's refused to play with the other kids on equal terms, he can't say it comes as a surprise.

Bingo. The requiem Maleva says is over her son Bela (Bela Lugosi) when he's killed by with the silver walking stick, and at the end of the movie, when Larry Talbot faces the same end. Actually, the movie isn't bad if you can discount the special effects. Your turn, Pirate.

Technically, ONE movie, not several, although Raf seems to know of more than one where is was quoted. Its immediate sequel did not quote it. Oddly enough, its sequel was an early forerunner of those movies where the monster/villian gets killed and keeps coming back so long as there's money in the sequels. (Although this one at least made an effort to resolve that in the main plot.) As I mentioned, although Maleva is remembered having said that more famous quote, several characters say it at different points in that movie. So, what was that movie's rather simple name?

I'd say it is LIKE high-functioning autism. (All I know IS what I've gotten from online, but that's pages and pages.) It's easier to see the difference between autism and Asperger's when you think about the computer world and Asperger's. It's believed in some circles that Bill Gates is the most famous person with high-functioning Asperger's. He relates a LOT better to things than people. There are also jokes that Silicon Valley is Main Street USA for Asperger's, and the subculture there is optimized for the comfort of them. :)--> Something I found interesting was a Harry Potter fan's statement. She said that she's certain the character Luna Lovegood (From Order of the Phoenix) has Asperger's Syndrome, because HER daughter has Asperger's, and her daughter acts EXACTLY like Luna Lovegood. Asperger's has sparked some interesting discussions online. Everybody knows that autism, MOST of the time, is a disadvantage. However, some people with autism can demonstrate AMAZING abilities (Rain Man in Las Vegas, keeping track of ALL the cards in a 7-deck shoe.) Autism is determined by neurology-people with autism have it based on how they're "wired". So, under specific conditions, autism is an ADVANTAGE. Similarly, Asperger's is determined by neurology, and is a disadvantage in some circumstances, and an advantage in others. This has sparked discussions on alternately-functional neurology. You can be "wired" different, think different, act and react different, and yet it's not "bad" or "a problem". Your nervous system works to your ADVANTAGE in some situations. It's a little like how men and women are wired different (and how!) yet neither is wired "wrong". That's my contribution to this discussion. As I said, that can all be found online.

I'm looking for the "original" black-and-white, of course, where Maria Ouspenskaya gets to say the first quote-twice, including the close of the movie, and everybody except the extras gets to say the second quote. If you can, please finish the sentence as well. (For bragging rights.)

Oh, that one's easy, HCW. WTH here, unless he's changed positions, is a Mikean. Therefore, he despises the suggestion that vpw ever did ANYTHING wrong, and goes out of his way to discourage discusssions of vpw plagiarizing molesting/raping/slipping a Mickey Finn teaching error Today, he's focusing in that rather than trying to claim pfal is God-breathed. In doing this, he's attempted to claim that God disapproves of us exposing the evil deeds of men, and gone off at great length on subjects that have nothing to do with the GSC, with imaginary people who've never visited nor posted here. According to his imaginary people, my thinking processes are not sound. That strikes me as mildly ironic. He's also set himself up as an authority on honesty and integrity at the moment, and will make his points, even if he has to lie and wildly misrepresent what everyone says here while he lectures on honesty and integrity. Try not to follow his "logic" too hard-it only makes the head hurt after a certain point.

WordWolf references WTH's post 3/14/05 12:48am Eastern, responding to his own response.....and trims his responses and the original posts to minimize rambling... So, to sum up, WTH says that God says its wrong to expose error in pfal, and felonies by vpw and twi staff. All the times pfal failed you, it was your fault. To sum up FURTHER, WTH is trying to NOT say it was wrong when Jesus exposed error but it is wrong when WE do it, and that warning others of dangers is tantamount to poking thru the bushes looking for demons to shoo away. Finally, WTH is party to some lenghty ongoing problems with some bizarre Christians somewhere who are honest about lying to him, and lie to him to advance the truth. He might want to ditch them-most of us have sane acquaintances than that.

[WordWolf in boldface as usual...] So, to sum up, WTH says that God says its wrong to expose error in pfal, and felonies by vpw and twi staff. All the times pfal failed you, it was really your fault. WTH seems to spend his time offsite with hypothetical Christians who are upfront and honest with him about loving lies and telling them all the time. ======= Out of curiousity, does anyone offhand recognize what document or teaching WTH transcribed here in an attempt to sound wise? It is wrong of him to plagiarize, but to a degree, it's consistent. He thinks it was perfectly fine for vpw to plagiarize, and he thinks it's perfectly fine for himself to plagiarize.

Hm. Didn't mean to paralyze the thread. I posted the second most memorable quote from that old movie. The MOST memorable begins "Even a man who is pure at heart, and says his prayers at night...."

Here's the link for the original Nigeria scam.... http://www.snopes.com/crime/fraud/nigeria.asp Here's one Paypal scam.... http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/scams/paypal.asp Here's an example of "your credit card has already been charged"... http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/scams/moneynow.asp Here's one of the Citibank phishing scams... http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/scams/citibank3.asp Here's the "phishing" index... http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/scams/phishing/phishing.asp Forewarned is forearmed, and remember, something for nothing notices will cost you an awful lot of money....

[WordWolf comments again in boldface as usual.]