WordWolf

Mike said (7/13/03 5:31pm) "The 9/11 and SARS "fear" you pointed out I see as worry and concern. For SOME people, these worries and concerns can grow to fear, but it takes time and repetition, just like full-blown believing." =============================================== Let's take this chronologically. I mentioned the 50's, and FEARS of "the bomb. There were water rations in the 50's, in preparation for a possible a-bomb. Everybody knew where their local "fallout shelters" were-"there were signs all over the place". I bet you remember growing up with those signs, still up many years later. I did. They were up into the 70's and 80's. People-LOTS of people-build PERSONAL fall-out shelters, for a LOT of money. The doctrine of "mutually-assured destruction" ("MAD") started back then-people thought that it would be the end of the world, since the planet could be bombed into oblivion in a few hours. You said "it takes time and repetition". Well, a 10-year period isn't "time"? ============================================= The Y2K crisis was recent. Didn't people make preparaions in your area? In mine, in the last week of December 1999, you could NOT find a flashlight or a battery ANYWHERE. Ditto bottled water. Everybody HERE knows twi went batty for that time-period also. People were told to pull their money out of banks. I know people who made sure they were in the countryside, expecting rioting. They spent lots of money and MONTHS preparing. (I went out and had a good time.) Ask people who work in the airline industry about SARS FEAR. You call it worry and concern. Their industry lost millions of dollars due to FEAR. These were all FEAR exhibited over extended periods, by many, many people. IF fear was a LAW, then there would have been mass suffering due to mass results of each FEAR incident. ============================================ Rafael already addressed the "soft blame"HMMADD. (Job was BLAMELESS, not free of "hard blame".)

*applauds SirGUess' post* Bravo! You got the point! Rafael has pointed out, on numerous occasions, that God calls Job BLAMELESS. Those who place the blame on JOB, therefore, contradict God. "Why did Job's kids die? Oh, Job was afraid." For those of you who somehow missed it, that's BLAMING JOB. ---------------------------------------------- BTW, just for fun.... A few months after the 9/11 attacks, people in NYC were more than a little hesitant to congregate in groups. In fact, the Halloween Parade that year was feared to be an excellent target for a terrorist attack. (I won't go into the reasons, but you can figure them out yourself.) As a result, a LOT of people who were all set to attend, even those with ready costumes, cancelled their plans. They stayed home, indoors, afraid with their families. In fact, malls in general were deserted that Halloween because of a rumour of an attack. So, millions upon millions of people were afraid there was going to be terrorist attacks, either at the mall, or at the parade. (That includes family of people who cancelled and family of people who attended.) What was the net result of all that fear? Lowered attendance at the parade. People stayed home. What about the amassed fear of an attack? Well, didn't result in anything, no matter how many people feared it. My favourite costume that year? A guy with his head dressed like an Osama bin Laden puppet, in prison stripes, wearing a barred cage around the "prisoner". :)--> I'll tell you, though...it was the FEAR....in the HEARTS...of the people....that made it easier to move thru traffic. SARS, anyone? How about that flesh-eating bacteria from years ago? Or getting AIDS off dirty toilet seats from before that? Or the absolute TERROR of Y2K in 1999, or "the bomb" back in the '50s? Tens of millions of people in the US alone feared all those.

Folks, As Mike promised at the top of this page, (7/10/03, 2:33pm), that was Mike "outwitting" me. ------------------------------------------ Mike, Let me clarify what I meant by saying that I cited vpw's books. I did NOT mean I just said " vpw talks about this on page xx". I did NOT mean "vpw, on page xx, means this." What I meant was that I posted extensive quotes from the pages in question, AND I provided the name of the book, and the page number. Therefore, anyone claiming that I had misrepresented its contents could do 2 things: A) Read the lengthier quotes and see what they SAID. B) Go back and look at the pages and see if the context really does reflect that. I'm unclear if you're saying the books didn't say that at all. However, it seems your response is to say "well, the context negates that." Um, Mike? I posted a direct quote, THEN offered an opinion. You offered an opinion. When pressed, you dropped a page number, then offered an opinion. Mike? Why is anyone going to BELIEVE your opinion if you do not provide a quote to support it? If the context of a quote negates its meaning, by all means, cite the quote and explain HOW it does so. Don't just drop numbers or opinions. Anybody can offer opinions and drop numbers. You've offered no reason to indicate the numbers you mentioned have anything to do with your points, and, if I only had your track record to go from, I'd certainly not extend you the benefit of the doubt, even so much as to look them up. Do your own work. ============================================ Actually, the "Law of Believing" is simply stated. If it is a "Law", it does not NEED lengthy codicils and provisos. Its meaning can be stated in one sentence. Claiming it needs support by pages and pages of provisos is to call it a guideline or a good idea, but not a "LAW". Either believing is a LAW and ALWAYS works, or it is a rule-of-thumb and does NOT always work. This subject has been beaten to death on other threads already, by people more erudite on the subject than myself. As we have seen, it does NOT always work as stated. Even quoted briefly on this thread, we see it does not work. (Rafael is still alive, other people believing to stay alive are dead.) Claiming they needed to believe more is that famous evasion Rafael has ALREADY pointed out. ========================================== I noticed that you quoted some of MY quotes of vpw's books, then announced they were separated from their contexts. Well, duh! I provided the lengthier quotes, WITH THEIR CONTEXTS, in my post, THEN I provided the short list. Want to see their context? Scroll up a bit! ======================================= BTW, nothing in vpw's work in the blue book OR the orange book, WHEN MENTIONING THE LAW OF BELIEVING, indicates the explanation is in any way deficient or leaving anything out. Nothing indicates "well, this only applies when the Bible is a factor, and is meaningless when trying to apply it to something else." I have now placed the "burden of proof" on you. I have claimed that the statements of the "LAW OF BELIEVING" never make a certain claim (stated in the previous paragraph I wrote.) To disprove me, you will need to go to at least one place vpw stated his "LAW OF BELIEVING", cite the law, then cite the statement I claimed doesn't exist. To do otherwise is a misdirection meant to hide the fact that such a comment doesn't exist. =============================================== BTW, the explanations I gave on the "Law of Believing" were consistent to EACH quote of vpw's books, as everybody ELSE can see. In making comments about trusting God, vpw FIRST stated his "LAW". He explained it. He then went from the general to the specific: believing as a LAW to believing GOD'S PROMISES. Those are similar subjects, but he was trying to establish causality. God's promises do not come true because we focus our minds like a camera, get our needs and wants parallel, or anything else WE do. God's promises come true because GOD IS TRUSTWORTHY. We never claimed God's promises shouldn't be believed. We claimed vpw's esoteric claims and outlines of a "LAW OF BELIEVING" were contraBiblical and not truly a law. ============================================== Oh, that's novel. VPW made charts for use. VPW made a syllabus for use. VPW wrote books. VPW did classes. Each session builds on the previous ones. Each session does not NEGATE the previous ones. ============== VPW uses several charts with specific outlines, which HE EXPECTED US TO MEMORIZE. The "Listening With A Purpose" questions guaranteed we'd do exactly that-they REQUIRED the exact responses. We were REQUIRED to walk out of Session One with the following information MEMORIZED: 1) What is the greatest secret is the world today? The greatest secret in the world today is that the Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God. 2) To receive anything from God, what five things must we know? a) What is available b) how to receive it c) what to do with it d) needs and wants must be parallel e) God's ability equals God's willingness 3) What are the two sides of believing? Negative and Positive beleiving 4) What defeats the promises of God? Fear. 5) What is the difference between 'apistia' and 'apitheia'? ============== Each session had ONE page in the main syllabus. The title, verse references, and Listening With a Purpose questions took up about 1/2 the page. For Session One, the entire other half of the page is taken up by a single chart. This chart says, across its bottom in BIG LETTERS: "BELIEVING EQUALS RECEIVING". The rest of the chart contrasts confidence, trust and faith with doubt, worry and fear, clearly labelling both as believing, clearly setting them in diammetric opposition, and clearly indicating they work exactly the same. ===================================== The purpose of the chart is to guarantee that EVERY student think of Believing as a LAW, (answer 3, both sides of believing). According to that page, each side of believing is equally powerful, and equally effective. Further, question 2 indicates that we need to "have our needs and wants parallel" to receive. (Your own quote echoes this.) VPW specifically intended us to believe this, else he would NOT have SHOVED IT DOWN OUR THROATS in Session One, as well as explaining it in the blue book and the orange book, in exactly the same way. Gee, you think he was trying to tell us something, or did he want us to subordinate all this, at some later point, to the idea that ONLY God's promises work that way? BTW, your lengthy quote (which addressed one sentence with a multi-page quote) also asserts that we must have "our needs and wants parallel" to receive from God. It claims that the red curtains were "proof" that she had her needs and wants parallel, and uses that "proof" that the needs and wants parallel is a legitimate rule. "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." First of all, most apartments do not come pre-furnished with curtains. Second, furnished apartments can have venetian blinds or any colour curtains. A NEED is a place to live. A WANT is a specific COLOUR of the place to live. If you had an immediate need for a place to live, and the need was filled immediately with an apartment coloured PUCE, would you say your needs had not been met? "No but she had a need, that need was that they might as well have red drapes on, that's what she wanted." This tortured sentence is the sole linchpin for saying this had something to do with vpw's made-up rule about needs and wants. "The need was that they might as well have red drapes on" A need is for an apartment. A need is for something to block the window. A need is not "they might as well have red drapes". "MIGHT AS WELL" is not a need-it's a LUXURY. "That's what she wanted." Well, that much is true. She wanted red drapes. She did not NEED red drapes. (She needed an apartment, and she needed to block the windows.) Her needs and wants were not "parallel". She did get what she asked of God. "She must have had her need and her want parallel." That's what vpw believed, but the facts fail to line up with the theory. Please also remember this was the specific example vpw used to illustrate the "needs and wants parallel". Therefore, this was the BEST, most DIRECT example of his rule. ============================================ You said that in "many places" vpw said the promise of God was "mandatory". "Suppose I found TWO. Would that satisfy you?" No, and it shouldn't. If you found it in EACH place vpw shoved it down our throats in the blue book and the orange book, that would get my attention for sure. If he said it in SOME places, but established his rule somewhere else, that means he remembered to include God PART OF THE TIME. THE FIRST MENTION OF SOMETHING IN GOD'S WORD EXPLAINS ITS USAGE, according to the orange book. (I quoted this already.) In the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, etc. mentions of the "LAW OF BELIEVING", vpw clearly laid down his explanation. That was in the blue book AND the orange book. Therefore, all later explanations must be IN LIGHT OF THE UNDERSTANDING OG THE EXPLANATIONS THERE. Unless the pfal books are not actually "THE WORD OF GOD", which is your assertion. So, you'd have to find it in THOSE places. =========================================== vpw said "the law, simply stated is that what we believe for or expect, we get. This applies in every realm: physical, mental, material, spiritual." Mike said "So, remember, this is an abbreviated version." WordWolf replies "No-this is a 'simply stated' version. There is a big difference between the two." As to claiming I took the numerous references out of context, see above. My comments on Elijah were to illustrate you don't know your way around the Bible. Why is that an insult to you, since you consider the Bible superceded by pfal? My comments on Session One were more significant to this thread. You seem unfamiliar with the MAIN POINTS of Session One. That's after FIVE YEARS. Session One is the foundation for the other sessions. (Sessions work in succession-that's why they're in that order.) Therefore, unfamiliarity with them is unfamiliarity with the BASIS of EVERYTHING ELSE vpw taught. ========================================= You're quoting what vpw said now! How nice! Sadly, you missed the point each time. As has already been pointed out previously, if vpw quotes a verse of the Bible, then says "if you just believe this is vp talking", it doesn't necessarily mean he's saying EVERYTHING he's saying is the Bible. The most obvious, most direct, most straightforward understanding is that when we quote the Bible, correctly, it's NOT just us talking-it's the promise we just read. If I read Psalms and add our understanding, and add meanings that don't exist there, then what we said is NOT the promise of God. This was explained plenty of times, by plenty of people, every time you've done that. ======================================= You also said "How do you know your citations weren't buried in the threads before I could get to it?" You made a flip comment to the part of the same post that did NOT cite Session One. I'll fetch the page, date and time if I can find it. It might be on this or another one of your threads. So, it was not 'buried'. You READ the thing. You CHOSE not to reply. ======================================================== "Again I sense the air of a desperate man?" Mike, I based my statements on evidence. I provided the evidence, laid the foundation, provided my rationale, THEN formed my conclusions. ANYONE reading the thread could follow them step-by-step. That's similar to what attorneys do, and is called 'disclosure'. I've confined my evidence to what YOU'VE called canonical and what you have easy access to-the pfal books. I've invoked THEM, not secret messages. That's why everybody else can see my points. "The air of a desperate man?" Not me. My theology isn't the one that's failing to hold up to scrutiny on many grounds.

MJ, too soon to tell. I think "A" is unlikely. Could be "B" or "C". (Or the longshot "A".) ------------------------------ Aw, Goey, I was hoping you'd post a 'recap'. At least you've got them handy. Please fix the typos when posting. I would have, but I didn't review that many pages when posting. I would have edited them when I realized, but I wanted to avoid accusations I might have made major editing changes. They would have been without merit, but or resident student of misdirection might have capitalized on any chance to distract. *skims the above posts* Oooh! He's going to "outwit" me! You heard it here first, folks...

Goey, part of the reason my post on page 33 (32?) quoted so much of the blue book and the orange book was so that those who wanted to quote directly from them could do so, complete with the context. vpw's "definition" of "law" was in there, and consistent with what everybody else means by "law"-something immutable and sovereign, not a general guideline or a good idea. Mind you, this is consistent with your understanding of what vpw said. I agree with your definition, explanation and exposition. I just object to you saying you only had Rafael's post to draw from, when I spent all that time typing in my previous post. So, if you cut-and-pasted the direct quotes from vpw's books and the discussion we did on the other page, and added what you and Rafael said on the subject, I'd be amenable, even grateful. It's all the same subject. In fact, I suspect Rafael saved himself 45 minutes and just cited the previous page. =============================================== For everybody else, Mike said (7/09/03 7:39pm) the following: ==== "About the word 'law' it seems that you have certain criteria that you apply to determine that it is not a law according to your definition. But it is Dr's definition that we need to determine. I simply have not yet done that." "The best I understand SO FAR about laws is that they apply to every person, in every place, at all times, and they're relatively simple. That's some of the most important elements that go into defining laws in the realm of science, but I'm not sure yet as to what degree Dr defines 'law' this way too." ======== Ok, Mike's understanding of 'law' doesn't seem to be that far from what vpw was saying. (As originally cited a page or so back.) I'd like to point out, however, that Mike has freely admitted he doesn't know what vpw said about "laws". What vpw said about "laws" was all over Session I, the Blue Book, and the Orange Book! (See previous citations from same about a page back if you don't have yours in front of you.) Some time ago, I cited the first Session of pfal, "The Greatest Secret in the World Today", and how its main points contradicted his main thesis. That's also the same session where vpw outlines his doctrines on believing and laws and all that. As we saw (from my earlier post), the collaterals (Orange, Blue) said the same in them. (From Rafael's post, we know the other books include this doctrine also.) A page ago, Mike utterly mangled the story of Elijah, whose name he couldn't even get close to remembering. (He didn't even confuse him with Elisha, which would be understandable.) This is especially strange, since vpw taught on Elijah. This is partially understandable, since Mike has proudly proclaimed the inferiority of the Bible, and, as such, might well not have opened the book for years. So, what does this tell us? This tells us: A) Mike doesn't know his way around the Bible. Many of the church-Christians Mike would view as having an inferior understanding have a greater understanding of the Bible than he does. (Since he doesn't care what it says, this should not be seen by him as an insult.) To those of you wondering if he's using the Bible as criteria for determining things or ANYTHING ELSE, the answer is "no". Mike doesn't KNOW the Bible, and doesn't use it for anything. B) MIKE DOES NOT KNOW THE CONTENTS OF PFAL. Mike periodically makes assertions that vpw said certain things, or "never" said certain other things. Mike never seems to cite the orange book, the blue book or any other book in doing so. This is especially peculiar, since Mike's theology holds that these books hold the same position that the Bible held to those of us who paid attention in pfal. So, when we quote PAGE AFTER PAGE of material that vpw wrote, it becomes obvious what vpw said. We looked at several pages of vpw's writings a few pages back, more than once. These quotes were diametrically opposed to what vpw said. (They said the OPPOSITE what Mike SAID they said.) Mike's response was NOT to amend his thinking to match the pfal materials (which would be internally-consistent to Mike's STATED theology). Mike's response was ALSO not to cite another place in the same books, trying to refute the previous quotes. What was Mike's response? Well, way back when I cited Session One originally, Mike's response was to pretend I didn't, and hope the points would go away if he never acknowledged them. More recently, his responses to DIRECT QUOTATIONS from vpw's writings was to say 'vpw didn't teach that', or claims vpw's quotes were misrepresented. First of all, I cited the books and pages. If vpw DIDN'T teach that, it would be VERY SIMPLE to turn to those pages, and find that when I said "this is the entire content of page xx", it said something else entirely. A simple posting of the true material would certainly have discredited my post. So, vpw DID teach that, and SOME of the pages where he did so were listed, and posted. Second, again, I typed in several pages, often including CONTEXT. I cited the page numbers each time. If the context utterly invalidated my points, it would be a simple matter to turn to the pages, cite the context where the opposite was said, and discredit my points. Mike's defense was to distract, dodge and evade, not to bring in EVIDENCE which would have been very easy to find. (I posted the page numbers.) Mike holds to his POV even when it is obvious that vpw taught the opposite, and, according to Mike, it's vpw's writings that are the greatest way to understand what God said. I mentioned this in passing, but I didn't think about the implications of it until Steve mentioned it as well. Mike does not know the contents of the Bible, and Mike does not know the contents of vpw's books. Personally, I'm curious if he even has a copy of them at present, or if he's relying on his memory of what he thinks the pfal books said. Mike's theology is in no way based on the Bible. Mike's theology is in no way based on vpw's pfal books. This has been pointed out, in parts, many times. At the moment, we can see that we probably grossly misunderestimated the degree to which Mike is ignorant of the contents of the books upon which he claims to base his theology. ======================================= I shall now make a prediction. Mike will react to this post in one of 3 ways: A) Stop posting for a while, then, when he resumes posting, pretend this post never existed. (Denial is not just a river in Eqypt.) B) Resume posting immediately, but post on completely unrelated subjects, pretending this post never existed. (Denial is not just a river in Egypt.) C) Resume posting immediately, making attacks on my character, attempting to discredit my post while UTTERLY FAILING TO PROVIDE A QUOTE FROM VPW'S BOOKS. This will fail to address my main point, but will serve his main technique in discussion, as he stated once. "Dodge, distract, evade. But never admit an error is an error." Of course, in this case, admitting an error is an error would admit his entire theology is in no way based on vpw's books. Any bets on which of the three he's going to use? He's used them all against my posts before...

(somehow, this was a double post) [This message was edited by WordWolf on July 08, 2003 at 10:36.]

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, youmust 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." ----------------------------------------------- Mike said "Dr never taught that random, personal or 8-ball wishes could be indulged with this law." "It's not just any old random desire that can be believed, it has to be a promise of God, and this is stated over and over in PFAL." "This is the second big lie about Dr propounded in those years." VPW said "What we believe for, we get." "Our lives are molded by our believing-both by positive and negative believing." "What we believe equals what we are." "What one believes in the depth of his soul absolutely appears in his life." "You bring to yourself whatever you believe." "The law of believing works equally effectively for both sinner and saint" "The picture that you carry of yourself with clearness and concern is what you are. This law works for positive and negative thinking alike." "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 those things you do not want." WordWolf, commenting on VPW, said of VPW's teachings in PFAL, "As stated, God is irrelevant, and so is the content of what is believed." Mike said of WordWolf's comment, "Wrong, wrong, wrong! You're propounding the same lie now." Really, Mike? I say the references to God, and prayer are incidental in the instructions on believing. As you saw, the requirements to receive involve BELIEVING, and focusing your believing. At no point is a REQUIREMENT made for your believing being believing a promise of God. It was believing and your mental focus and picture that determine success or failure to receive. At NO point is it said that if you believe, but what you believe is NOT what God promises, you won't get it no matter how much you believe it. BTW, the Foundational class syllabus (which you got when you took the Advanced class) mentions a few of these things, and says: "What you fear, you will receive-it is a law." ------------------------------------------- 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." --------------------------------------------- Mike said "It's not just any old random desire that can be believed, it has to be a promise of God, and this is stated over and over in PFAL." We just saw what PFAL said. Oakspear said "Mike, are you also unfamiliar with the section of PFAL where Wierwille states that if a man believes that he will die within a certain time frame that God would have to rewrite all His laws not to accomodate him? What promise of God guarantees that people will die if they believe to do so?" Ok, we saw the account. Sure enough-that's what PFAL says in the orange book. (Page 44.) Shazdancer brought up the red drapes. I don't know if it's in the books, but we ALL remember the "fire-engine red" curtains mentioned in the PFAL class. Shazdancer said "are red drapes a promise of God?" Mike said "Dr never taught that random, personal or 8-ball wishes could be indulged with this law." So, Mike, the "fire-engine red curtains" mentioned in the live class, the redness was not "personal"? ============================================== As VPW taught it, believing IN AND OF ITSELF appropriated results, REGARDLESS OF THE CONTENT OF WHAT IS BELIEVED. "The law, simply stated, is that what we believe for or expect, we get. This applies in every realm: physical, mental, material, spiritual." Mike said "Dr teaches over and over that God's promises are a MUST in the law of believing.... The page references are numerous." Really, Mike? We just SAW "numerous" references. BTW, Mike, don't pretend I said vpw said God's promises are irrelevant, or that we shouldn't believe God. He did say we should believe God, and to believe His promises. What I AM saying is that as vpw taught it in pfal, the CONTENT of what is believed is incidental to appropriate it. The page references are numerous AND GIVEN ABOVE. =============================================== Please stop speculating on the contents of the pfal books when it's obvious you're rather unfamiliar with their contents. Finally, Looks like you owe me an apology for saying I misrepresented the contents of the pfal books. I'll put it on your tab. =============================================== Other than Mike or seaspray, does anyone out there Mike was correct on pfal's points on believing, and that I was INcorrect? If so, please speak up. (If you think I'm wrong, please cite some evidence.) ================================================ Oakspear, now THAT was my full attention on a post. :)-->

Goey: If memory serves, you have a background in philology, or at least a firmer grounding in the languages of the Bible. Please explain the term "condesensio" from the Latin and explain precisely WHY its not a license for us to be snide and arrogant with each other. (I'm amazed it even has to be said.) It came up on the bottom of page 32 (the page where I quoted the orange and white books' explanations of how they came to be.) As any student of pfal should have been able to remember (let alone an afficionado of same), the figure of speech "condesencio" (Latin) is also called "anthorpopatheia (Greek) or 'derech banai Adam" (Hebrew). It describes the attributes of humans. The Greek name of this figure was said to mean literally "pathos of man". Anyway, Goey, please explain it more fully, in that manner in which you are rather qualified. ----------------------------------------------- Mike, It doesn't surprise me that you're seeking to wiggle out of the direct, obvious and expressed meanings of the relevant citations of the orange and white books as to how we got them. Both pretty much tell the same story. VPW had a background with lots of work of people who tried to explain the Bible. He concluded that the proper solution was to discard what they wrote (3000 volumes, according to the orange book). Once he had done that, he then did all his OWN study, using only the Bible. It would be appropriate to consider TRANSLATIONS of the Bible-interlinears, texts in Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin, concordances- to be included in this (or at least fair), since they don't constitute commentaries, just translations of the same book. (Or an index, in the case of the concordance.) Your attempts to try to depict "The Word" as referring to "the Bible, and specific commentaries"-Stiles, Bullinger, Leonard, Kenyon- as opposed to all other commentaries, which were discarded as useless, is without merit. We can wrangle exact meanings of this in the orange book, since there are few words discussing this in the relevant passage. The white book is another story. Just going from the preface (quoted in its entirety on page 32 of this thread), VPW was VERY specific, excruciatingly clear, notably unambiguous, concerning the contributions of others to the contents of that book. The best thing he could say of ANY other Christians when seeking material on the subject was that they were "sincere", then saying the famous quote "sincerity is no guarantee of truth". This means that the nicest thing he said about other Christians was that they meant well, but they did not have the correct information. He did not say "most of them don't know, but a few DO understand", or say, "only a bare handful of Christians teach anything of substance on this subject". He said rather clearly that the material contents were the result of work alone. You can NOT say that he was using the term "The Word" to mean "the Bible and a handful of other books I found useful" here under anybody's definition. That's because he was more specific in his description. (However, the orange book's answer is clear to everyone except you.) In the white book, he said he made "THE BIBLE" his textbook. (Feel free to review the preface) He was very specific about the work of other Christians on this subject-they were clueless- and he was specific on his research texts for the white book-the Bible, and that's it. It is fair to expect that small asides-like the properly-accredited Lamsa notes in one appendix-do not invalidate this claim. After all, a minor quote hardly counts as the bulk of the work. I'll reply to your characterization of me in the appropriate manner at a time convenient to me. You have until then to anticipate my reply. (Which you should have no difficulty doing, as it is very predictable.) I will say this much at this hour- my use of the term "miracle" and the term "instant" as nearly interchangeable was per VPW's definitions of "miracle", in that miracles occur "instantly". That's per the Advanced class and was taught by VPW on a number of other occasions. The one that springs to mind for me is from the keynote teachings of ROA '76 (Healing), the night he taught on the man at the temple gate beautiful (Acts). Let me know if you need me to dig out the precise quote on the subject. (If you have that tape, it is right where he claims that all 9 manifestations are shown in that exact account.) ------------------------------------------------ For those of you curious about copyright law (something that all Christians except, apparently, vpw and Mike think is a legitimate legal, ethical and moral issue), you might want to check out the following links for a little background (what does it mean, why does every country subscribe to them, etc.) http://www.iccwbo.org/home/intellectual_pr...ntation/wwh.asp http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Mike: A) I'm not going to keep pushing the anomalous references in OMSW, since you refuse to get the most likely reason for it. That's ok-anybody ELSE could see it. So, I'll move on to some fun stuff... :)--> B) I had said "The point was that vpw deliberately gave the impression that, regardless of any other person out there, the orange book and the white book were the results of his OWN work, and NOT primarily the contributions of others." You replied (7/5/02. 10:46pm, this page) "WordWolf, I don't know how you can say [that]. Dr never made a point of his originality..." Well, since I was addressing the orange and white books, I thought I'd direct you to what the ORANGE AND WHITE BOOKS say on the subject..... -------- Power for Abundant Living, pages 119-120. "For years I did nothing but read around the Word of God. I uesd to read two or three theological works weekly for month after month and year after year. I knew what Professor so-and-so said, what Dr so-and-so and the Right Reverend so-and-so said, but I could not quote you The Word. I had not read it. One day I finally became so disgusted and tired of reading around The Word that I hauled over 3,000 volumes of theological works to the city dump. I decided to quit reading around The Word. Consequently, I have spent years studying The Word-its integrity, its meaning, irs words. Why do we study? Because God expects us as workmen to know what His Word says." ---------------------------------------------- For those of you following along at home, if he read FOUR books a week (as opposed to "2 or 3" as he said) every week, every year, it would take 15 years to make it thru 3,000 volumes-without rereading any. (4 books times 52 weeks is 208 books a year. 15 years at that pace would make it thru all those books.) Considering he had to be either completing his education, working, or both during this time, and including things like a trip to India interrupting this, this would be an INCREDIBLE pace to maintain. (Of course, if you think he was at the pinnacle of human ability, this is not an unreasonable feat.) Just thought you guys would like the numbers crunched. Ok, back to the main point. He contrasted "reading 2 or 3 theological works"-his past behavior-with his current behavior. After he dumped "over 3,000 volumes" , he "decided to quit reading around The Word." He contrasted reading 2 or 3 theological works a week with "spending years studying The Word." In plain English, what would a normal reader make of this citation? He or she would say that vpw has just claimed that he gave up reading commentaries and other books ABOUT Scripture, discarded his entire library of such books, and set about reading only The Word, and no commentaries. Yes, that's not what YOU'RE going to say it says, but that's what anybody without a vested interest in the sentence would take its meaning to be. (Anybody know where he kept such a collection of books? If he could fit 25 books on a shelf-which would mean they are pretty small books-he would need 120 shelves. If he could fit each shelf in a 3-foot space, and stacked the shelves 7 high, he would need over 40 stacks. This would require at least 2 regular rooms just to store all the books, or one room with 48' on 2 walls, and 12' on the other 2 walls.) -------------------- So, if we are to consider the orange book AUTHORITATIVE and CANONICAL, we MUST accept vpw's statement at face value- he had such a storage space for that many books, he had that many books IN that space, he had read all of them over a period of time 15 years or more (more if he read "2 or 3" every week), he made the deliberate decision to trash them all and forsake commentaries, and he then spent the next several years studying The Word while forsaking any further commentaries. Do you DARE contradict the "clear meaning" of that passage? If the orange PFAL book is canonical-The Word of God-and perfect, as The Word of God MUST be, and its own explanation as to how it is to be read is to be accepted (more than 80-85% of The Word of God read plainly, just as it's written), then we DARE not claim vpw did anything other than forsake all commentaries and study ONLY The Word. ----------------------------------------- If you are prepared to claim the orange book is WRONG on this, and that it is NOT The Word, and perfect, then you can discard this passage, but you must forsake your theology as well. ----------------------------------------------------------- So, the orange book PLAINLY claims it (the orange book) was the results of his OWN work, and NOT primarily the contributions of others. In fact, its claim is that the work of others is the ANTITHESIS of its contents-it is the OPPOSITE of a book containing work of others-studies of other theologians, scholars, etc. I don't know how you can claim otherwise- if you TRUST the orange book's testimony of itself. --------------------------------------------------------- What about the WHITE book? Does the white book contain such a claim as well? ------- The white "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" book... The preface, pages ix to xi (the ENTIRE preface.) "When I was serving my first congregation, a Korean missionary asked me, Why don't you search for the greatest of all things in life which would teach Christian believers the HOW of a really victorious life?" This challenge was the beginning of a search which led me through many, many hours of examining different English translations, the various critical Greek texts, and Aramaic "originals", looking for the source of the power which was manifested in the early Church. Finally I realized that the experience referred to as "receiving the holy spirit" in the Scriptures WAS and IS actually available to every born-again believer today. I believed to receive the gift og holy spirit and I, too, manifested. Ever since receiving into manifestation the holy spirit, I have had the desire to put in written form the longings and fears that were mine regarding the receiving thereof. I believe that sharing my quest with the believers who are today seeking to be endued with power from on high may be instrumental in leading them to the answer of their hearts' desires. I knew from the Bible that what God sent at Pentecost was still available. It had to be, for God does not change. I knew that the receiving of the power from on high on the day of Pentecost had meant increased ability for the apostles and disciples years ago, and that I needed and wanted the same blessing. I knew that if the Church ever needed the holy spirit in manifestation it needed it now. Throughout my academic training in a college, a university, four seminaries, from the commentaries I studied, and from my years of questing and research among the various religious groups claiming adherence to the holy spirit's availability, there appeared many things contradictory to the accuracy of the recorded Word of God. I knew their teachings were sincere, but sincerity is no guarantee for truth. The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook. I did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for, the Word of God being the will of God, the Scripture must fit like a hand in a glove. If you are a Christian believer, I sincerely encourage you to study this book. Do not allow your past teachings or feelings to discourage you from going on to receive God's best. If you need power and ability to face up to the snares of this life, you may find your answer while reading this book. It is my prayer that you may be edified, exhorted, and comforted. For those searching the Scriptures, desiring to know the reasons why, how, what or where, I suggest you do a carefult study of the introductions as well as the appendicies in this volume. For those who simply desire to receive, read chapters 1 through 5 and enjoy God's great presence and power. II Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. To his helpers and colleagues every writer owes a profound depth. This seventh edition has been read and studied carefully by men and women of Biblical and spiritual ability. To all of these I am most grateful." ---------------------------------------------------------- Ok, that's a lot of writing. The meaning is straightforward, however. The preface says that this book is the result of vpw's own personal search for "the source of the power which was manifested in the early Church." This search was prompted by a question from a Korean missionary, and was conducted through "translations", "Greek text", and "Aramaic". This personal "quest" "put aside" everything he had "heard" from "college, a university, four seminaries", "commentaries", and "various religious groups claiming adherence to the holy spirit's availability", "sincere" thought they were. This personal "quest", instead, was conducted with the Bible only, as "handbook" and "textbook". So, in plain English, this book was the product of vpw's studies in the Bible, and contains nothing from religious groups, commentaries, and so on. In case you are wondering, the introduction and appendicies do NOT invalidate this claim. There's 2 footnotes on Lamsa in the LAST appendix, and NO mention of Stile, Leonard or Bullinger in them at all. So, that is what the white book clearly claims of itself. It is the byproduct of the work of one man, vpw. This one man consulted with Lamsa on a few points in the last appendix, and several other people proofread the finished work and latest edition, but NOBODY else wrote the material upon which the book is based. That's the plain meaning of the preface, as anyone CAN clearly see. (Whether or not everyone would ADMIT to it is a different story.) -------------------------------------------- You said "Dr never made a point of his originality." vpw clearly wrote the opposite in RTHST. Now, if RTHST is The Word of God and canonical, you DARE not contradict its claim to be an original work. If you dare to claim otherwise, you must repudiate your claim it is canonical. (Either it is wrong, or you are.) ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------- BTW, you said of Stiles, Bullinger, Leonard and Kenyon, that they didn't mind that vpw plagiarized them. "It seems that the men Dr utilized text templates from were also operating in Daddy's family, and that neither they nor Daddy minded. It's you who inappropriately bring into God's family your worldly ethical system for students, professors, writers, reporters, and the like. I see some wisdom in their application to the respective arenas from which they were devised. Within the family of God, I completely reject your worldly system of man-made ethics." ------- First of all, Mike, Bullinger was DEAD when vpw added one of his books to the RTHST book in one edition (and all successive editions), and could hardly endorse this from the grave. Second of all, Mike, you're speculating wildly when you say the other men didn't mind, and neither did God. Neither such endorsement was ever given. That's mainly because none was SOUGHT. VPW claimed it was his own work, then kept it carefully from public circulation. Stiles probably never heard of RTHST before HE died, and Leonard added elaborate copyright warnings to all his work after he learned of it. So Leonard, at least, DID mind, quite a bit. Perhaps it was because he was mindful of fellow Christians that he did not seek to recover damages, as he was legally entitled to do. A "worldly ethical system" would try to "get away with whatever you can". An ethical system for the family would seek to treat each member respectfully, whether they be present or not. The fact that all OTHER Christians besides YOU are mindful of copyrights and respecting the property and work of each other does not move you, I suppose. I suppose you think this disregard makes you more "spiritual" somehow. (I am a little curious how you'd feel if someone else rereleased vpw's books and claimed to be the author of original works. No, don't answer-I don't expect a truthful answer to that one.) ========================================================== ========================================================== In case you missed it, side-comments made in a few tapes here and there don't absolve one from responsibility of giving proper credit where it is due. Several editions were made of BOTH books. In ANY of them, credit could easily have been added. vpw CHOSE not to do so. Since we were unaware they were not wholly original books, we didn't pry when he made comments that he learned a few things here and there from other Christians. We believed vpw would never lie to us, and that if his books contained work by someone else, he'd CERTAINLY have told us. We were trusting fools that way. Never again. ----------------------------------------------------------

"Is that the red or the white?"

Mike, this may come as a surprise to you, but so far, nobody's posted that anybody is the be-all and end-all guy, EXCEPT YOU. You've said that about vpw. Nobody's "looking with big goo-goo eyes" at Bullinger, Kenyon, Leonard, Stiles or anybody else. We learned the hard way that making any man EXCEPT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST the be-all and the end-all is bad news. (At least, those of us HERE learned that.) BTW, yes, I read the passage. I didn't say vpw made Leonard out to be a lightweight. I said he made out that Leonard was a lightweight CONCERNING SCRIPTURE. (Please read my posts as carefully as I read yours.) The point was that vpw deliberately gave the impression that, regardless of any other person out there, the orange book and the white book were the results of his OWN work, and NOT primarily the contributions of others. You can compare that with your copy of "Babylon Mystery Religion". All over that book are the citations to "the Two Babylons". BMR was basically a reworking of the book TTB. When I read BMR, I was thankful for it, AND I was thankful for TTB. I went out and bought BOTH. I was thankful for BOTH and I read BOTH. (The fact that they were later proven wrong doesn't invalidate this.) Woodrow never claimed to originate the material. NO edition of RSHST references Stiles or Leonard. (I'd have to check of they reference Bullinger's book.) As has been shown by people doing line-by-line comparisons, there were whole sentences, paragraphs, and section outlines taken from each author. If I had done that, I would have had NO difficulty citing each, and mentioning each author in the acknowledgements (among other places.) I've never presented anyone else's work as my own. Once, I did a Bible study on a subject. Once I was done, I checked the Companion Bible to see what Bullinger had to say on the subject. As it turns out, he made the same point, and superceded mine. I taught the fuller version, citing Bullinger. If he had made the SAME points, I would have left Bullinger out-he did NOT add to the teaching. That was in front of a handful of people. When something is in print, there's a greater responsibility, legally, ethically and morally. You seem to be unable to distinguish between plagiarism, similar work and contributions. If Rascal and Mike each do a study on Galatians, and both (somehow) come up with the same points independently, that's NOT plagiarism. If Rascal and Mike each do a study on Galatians, and Mike later takes sections of Rascal's study and publishes a book with his own study, NEGLECTING to cite Rascal, then it's plagiarism. If Mike publishes the SAME book and acknowledges what work is Rascal's, there might still be copyright issues, but it is NOT plagiarism, nor is it morally problematic. Further, while I wouldn't lose sleep over a thick book having a sentence somewhere being the work of a contributor, or an assistant compiling data later used for an analysis, it is NOT customary, nor is it legal, to take an assistant's work-or a staff's work- and slap your name on it after making a few minor changes. You may put list yourself as the "editor", but not as the WRITER. If vpw had simply listed himself as the EDITOR of the weightier books, that even you admit were the work of the research staff, and gave their names, say, in the acknowledgements if no where else and said "this is their work" there, then, again, it would be legal and correct. Every time Leonard's name is mentioned in one of "American Christian Press"'s books, his knowledge of SCRIPTURE is slighted, NO citations of his books or classes are given, and the impression given by vpw (and Mrs vpw, in one citation) were that vpw had to go find the verses covering the material Leonard taught. BTW, it is not "SURELY the case" that the other authors used the work of others and neglected to cite them. Plagiarism is not a matter of speculation-it is a matter of PRINT and RECORD. If you have even ONE uncited source for work by Stiles, Leonard, or Bullinger, go ahead and present it. Otherwise, to SUPPOSE they engaged in the same illegal and immoral practice is sloppy. (And also libel, BTW.) --------------------------------------- This is an issue of honesty and integrity. It's a character issue, and, if I really wanted to be petty, I'd have contacted the holders of the copyrights to the materials. It is not an "ego trip". (How would it make ME more special to point out someone else's illegal activity?) "Dr was a mere servant, and he served you a good product." Ever see the movie "the Road to Wellville"? Someone makes a breakfast cereal. At one point, someone else intercepts his delivery truck, takes the cereal, and repackages the cereal under his OWN label. It is EXACTLY the same product, with the SAME nutritional value. Would a consumer, then, be wrong to want to know that it was the OTHER product repackaged? Whether or not the material we were taught is any good is an entirely different subject from whether or not it was illegally lifted from other authors. Again, if the EXACT SAME BOOKS had been printed with the proper citations, acknowledgements and footnoting, this would not be an issue. Children are taught to do this in elementary school. Teens are taught this in high school. Young adults are taught this in college. Are you telling me that vpw-a man who received a Masters degree and a Doctorate (regardless of the source) was NOT aware this was both legal AND fair? I mean, perhaps my schooling was superior to his at the elementary and high school level (which, considering my education at those levels, is statistically likely), but at the collegiate level, that gets hammered into any student trying to graduate, in the subject of his major. I am NOT complaining that vpw or anyone ELSE has or had a function in The Body. Was it beneficial for him to disregard the legally proper way to conduct himself? BTW, the distribution of vpw's books was tightly held. Only innies had the books. He never circulated them popularly. I take it that the possible benefit that millions of Christians could have received-and possibly followed back to TWI for more books-was circumvented by other concerns. (It couldn't be money, because even a poor seller would have made a lot. It couldn't be criticism, since he was already being criticized by some organizations as a cult leader. If he'd released quality books into the mainstream, it would have gone a long way to silencing his critics.) I know you find it inconceivable that he'd consider the possibility of his books comparing poorly with other books out there, and withhold the books on that basis or other reasons-but some of us think that may have been the reason, or A reason. BTW, Mike, you missed my point about OMSW. It's my assertion that the anomalous appearance of a citation there would be the act of the EDITOR. Since vpw was dying during the book's compilation, I hardly think he was pausing to spend hours on it, editing. Cancer is a painful, debilitating illness. If he tried to do that while in the finals stages, he'd be unable to do much editing. "Why don't you find out what YOUR glorious part in the body is? I'm sure God has more in store for you than being an internet Lone Ranger fighting off bad guys and evil doctrines for truth, justice and the American way!" Mike? Who said my time on the GSC was my MAIN job for God at present? It's a sideline. Trust me-if it was, I'd spend a LOT more time here and post a LOT more weighty material. I'd also give my posts here more attention than I do. (Trust me-this is usually my 2nd-best effort, not my best.) --------------------------------------------- Oakspear, you caught that, eh? If it disagrees with Mike, it was "TVT". If it disagrees with Mike, it's hearsay. If it agrees with Mike, it's "facts". (Even when it's opinion.) Oakspear, I bet you didn't even lose track of the points that I made that Mike has failed to address from a few weeks ago, when he asked me to stop focusing on him. (I have more of those points that I'm saving for the appropriate time. Also, I'd rather see him try to address the original points first.)

Oh, Mike? You ARE aware that "Order My Steps in Thy Word" WAS published posthumously, right? That the editing process was NOT overseen by VPW, right? You ARE aware that the main editor of "OMSW" was possibly the ONLY "OLG" to ever invoke the name of BG Leonard, even in passing, right? So, you ARE aware that there is a VERY STRONG possibility that Kenyon's name coming up might have been an editorial insertion, right? Supposedly, VPW's style should remain fairly static throughout the years, and major changes in style are likely to be the results of other things, like a complete change of the editorial process. That book has a somewhat different "feel" than the first four-you DID notice that, right?

Fair's fair, Mike. You discard anything we say that's not line-by-line directly out of the books, claiming we have faulty memories, or problems with tapes, and so on. However, you find it acceptable to make comments about things you were TOLD. Come, come! Either hearsay IS admissable in your system, or it isn't. It can't be "only admissable when Mike does it". Amazingly, you missed something in your OWN citation. You claim VPW offered full disclosure in his passing comment in that book, in regards to BG Leonard. That quote makes it clear that he was claiming that BG Leonard was a LIGHTWEIGHT concerning SCRIPTURE, which is the ONE issue VPW claims was uniquely his OWN. He claimed he took what BG Leonard taught and then ADDED Scripture to it, making for a heavier punch. What has been demonstrated was a direct lifting of material from Leonard. If you took out the direct quoted material from BG Leonard, JE Stiles, EW Bullinger, and EW Kenyon, there would be almost no writing in the PFAL books at all. Please cite the book and page where VPW claims that he "assembled" the class from work by the 4 authors, rather than authoring it himself. Again, references to Stiles and Leonard were nearly nonexistent. Considering how much of the PFAL Foundational class was their work, you would think, if he was offering full disclosure, we'd be able to at least single out a handful of doctrines that VPW claimed he learned from them. Instead, we have them teaching him a little here and there in a practical sense, and then him going to the Bible and working the material himself. ------------------------------------------------- On a related subject.... Are you aware that there were whole research teams at hq that produced some of the weightier, "original" books? "Jesus Christ:Our Passover", for example, was a hefty book written by the research dept and edited by VPW. Ever see the words "edited by" on the covers? No? Is it because he didn't know the names of the research team? Is it because they refused to allow their names to be connected with their work? Is it because he just thought the manuscripts just materialized, and he had no idea the research team had done it? Or was it a matter of VPW wanting all the credit? I'm sure you'll have a creative answer to that one that absolves VPW of that, somehow. To the rest of us, it sounds at least somewhat deceptive, even dishonest. It would be like me taking credit for writing all the intelligent rebuttals that Rafael, Goey and Zixar wrote to your doctrines. Somehow, it's not something we can just blow off. -------------------------------------------------

Mike posted (7/02/03, 1:54pm) that the rest of us subscribe to the "one villian theory" and described himself as follows: "Here on your own turf comes this one guy with a seemingly endless supply of surprise moves that you've never had to deal with." In English, the rest of us oversimplified things, and then MIKE rushed in to our rescue, armed with all sorts of clever things we never even considered. Just thought I'd let those of you know (if any of you missed it) how Mike characterizes us. ---------------------------------------------- Mike, if you want to start a new thread, that's your business. Keep in mind that if that one contains silly, illogical or ungodly doctrine, we'll be all over it. ----------------------------------------------- Oooh...we all "blew it on Dr's final instructions". First of all, an inconclusive case has been presented that this WAS his final instructions. Second of all, a number of people here have concluded that if VPW whispered the contents of that teaching to them, and immediately thereafter dropped dead, they would voluntarily choose to disregard them. They think that VPW "blew it" on demonstrating himself worthy of any such trust, so "blowing it" on his instructions is about as fraught with danger as "blowing it" on the final instructions of Mickey Mouse. (7/2/03, 2:42pm)

You guys thought Mike would be fair and even-handed in his index? It's the next attempt in his tries to control the discussion. Honest and open discussion is NOT working in his favour, and appearances of intellectualism result in REAL intellectuals dropping in and pointing out flaws in his logic. So, distract from the current topics (I'm patient, but I WILL repeat myself if he tries to wholly ignore my points, and I WILL post more), and redefine everything to your advantage. Anyone else care to make a REAL index of the thread? (Not just the insults-a FAIR index of all points.) The reason Mike won't post on ex-twi sites is that he's worn out his welcomes there. The reason Mike won't leave here is that he hasn't been kicked out, and he thinks a lot of people will line up with him here. He won't go to non-twi sites because they'll crush his "the Bible is messed up" doctrine like a cardboard box, and they'll just laugh if he says the Bible was replaced like an obsolete computer. He needs to completely control the discussion to have any hope of looking reasonable. He won't make his own mesageboard because, although he could then fully control the contents 100%, he would be unable to get people to show up. Without anyone visiting his site and reading his message, his sense of self would take a nasty hit. Thing is, if he did, him and seaspray would at least have a harmonious discussion.

At Mike's request, I have spent some time in the orange PFAL book. I have found some interesting things. Now, some of you following this thread have thrown away your orange books. As such, when you challenged some of Mike's claims, he replied that you were relying on faulty memories of the PFAL class, and you had no idea what the books said. The BOOKS, Mike insisted, are canonical, not the class or your memories of either. Therefore, I will post some direct quotes from the books. Those of you who lack access to your orange books might want to print these out. Those of you who HAVE your orange books are welcome to follow along and confirm (refute?) whether these are direct quotes from the book or not. ----------------------------------------------- Now, then, Mike's been rather clear with us that PFAL REPLACED the Bible, and is now God's Word. Now, then, if that is true-and Mike asserts that it IS-then PFAL's internal testimony concerning both ITSELF and "The Word of God"-which, according to Mike, are now synonymous-are the ONLY accurate sources of material on PFAL. That means that when PFAL speaks, neither Mike nor I dare contradict it. ----------------------------------------------- Here is one place PFAL (the orange book) discusses how to understand The Word of God... page 147. "There is another answer-The Word interprets itself. The Word interprets itself in one of three ways: 1) it interprets itself in the verse where it is written, or 2) it interprets itself in its context, or 3) the interpretation can be found by its previous usage in The Word. It was a remarkable revelation to us who do Biblical research to discover that the vast majority of the Word of God does interpret itself right where it is written. I would estimate that from Genesis to Revelation 85 to 90 per cent of the Word of God interprets itself in the verse. If the interpretation is so obvious, why have we not understood it? First of all, we have not read it; and secondly, we have not remembered what we read. We get sloppy and read "thoroughly" instead of "throughly". Let us look at some examples where Scripture interprets itself in the verse. Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Where does this verse interpret itself? One needs no commentary to understand this verse." ----------------------------------------------- Ok, let's review. Three keys to understanding The Word... A) the verse where it's written. 85-90% of the Word of God can be understood by the "OBVIOUS" meaning of the verses. So long as we READ them, and remember what we read, we can understand 85-90% of Scripture. That means the Word of God, at most, can contain a maximum of 15% of verses that can NOT be understood by the "OBVIOUS" meaning. That's straight out of this page, right? (BTW, I retyped the entire page, and did NOT include anything from either surrounding page.) That's EXACTLY what we can take from this page. So, people claiming that the PFAL IS Scripture, and the ORANGE book is canonical DARE NOT claim what this page says is not true- that is, claim that less than 85% of PFAL is understood by the "OBVIOUS" meaning of the text. ----------------------------------------------- Let's also note that it named ONLY 3 keys for understanding. Let's look at the other 2 keys. page 183-184, the Orange PFAL book. "The second point of how Scripture interprets itself is in its context. If Scripture does not interpret itself in its own verse, then read the verse in its context. The context is that which makes up the whole story, the enveloping idea." The example is then given of understanding Psalm 2:8 "Ask of me and I shall give the the heathen..." in light of Psalm 2:9 "Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron..." Other examples follow, each of which state principles you all, I'm certain, remember fairly well. Your memory of the class is often pretty accurate-despite the claims of some. -------------------------------------------- Let's look at the LAST key. page 199, the orange PFAL book. (Entire page) "Chapter Fourteen In Its Previous Usage. If Scripture does not interpret itself in the verse or in the context, then the interpretation is found in its previous usage. In the first usage of a word, expression or idea, the explanation is usually complete enough to carry through in all other references in the Bible. If God ever changed the usage of a word or expression, He always explained it. To see this great truth on how The Word interprets itself in its previous usage observe II Corinthians 12. II Corinthians 12 is the passage on Paul's thorn in the flesh which has been a problem to many people. I have a collection in my library of different things ministers and theologians have through the years written to explain Paul's thorn. These men have come up with fourteen different conclusions. The Word tells us what Pauls' thorn in the flesh was and thus we do not rely on guesswork and cannot, therefore, have fourteen contradictory opinions." ---------------------------------------------- The chapter then expounds on the "thorn in the flesh". Page 201 has an important point to make when examining previous usage. "This one verse alone, since it is the first usage of the expression in the Bible, says that "pricks in your eyes" and "thorns in your sides" are people." Those of you following along at home may remember VPW going into detail about how the FIRST usage of a word will often determine its meaning throughout the rest of Scripture. This is where that point comes up. It may also come up in his other books-I'll address that when I get to it. ----------------------------------------------- Different claims have been put forth about PFAL. Was PFAL supposed to be simply a class to help understand the Bible (as Goey, for example, said)? Was PFAL supposed to replace the tired old documents we've been struggling to use for 2000 years or more, and take the Bible's place as the Word of God (as Mike said)? No one who dares respect the contents of the PFAL orange book would dare to contradict its internal testimony of itself. What does PFAL says about itself? page 4, PFAL orange book. "This book, Power for Abundant Living, is one way of showing interested people the abundant life which Jesus Christ lived and which He came to make available to believers as it is revealed in the Word of God. 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 Genesis to Revelation will unfold and so that the abundant life will become evident to those who want to appropriate God's abundance to their lives. " --------------------------------------------- The answer? PFAL declares ITSELF a book on KEYS, not a teaching of Genesis to Revelation, a guide to understanding Genesis to Revelation. That's all I feel like posting at the moment. A little later I have one Goey's going to be particularly interested in.

Mike: Yes, I know that as far as you're concerned, you (you and Seaspray) are right and everyone else is wrong. I don't think it's fair for you to invoke people anonymously who've never posted here, who could easily be made-up or wildly misquoted. It's almost as unfair as rewriting the words of a dead man. Yes, as far as you're concerned, anything that displays an error in PFAL is a non-issue. Yes, as far as you're concerned, the frame of mind of the researcher determines, for example, whether or not the kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God are synonymous (as the Bible sasy, using them INTERCHANGEABLY as it does) or mean 2 different things (as we were taught in PFAL.) To the rest of us, these are not things that can be "poo-poohed" away...not if we want to claim any intellectual, Biblical or Godly integrity. Doesn't it strike you as ironic, then, that you can say the following? A) Unless you can find a place in the orange book that says (as the videotapes said) that VPW "took all his other Christian books down to the town gehenna, where the fires never go out, and that he just closeted himself off with God and the Bible, and that he almost wished he'd kept that roomful of books so that they could be used as a display piece, showing how many books he read BEFORE giving them up", I refuse to believe he said that. B) The PFAL orange book does not cite BG Leonard as the source of most of the material, and the white RTHST book does not cite JE Stiles as the source of most of the material. That does NOT mean he failed to acknowledge them. I know-you DON'T see that as a logical inconsistency-the books being the final authority in one place, and not in another- but the rest of US do. I know you think the plagiarism of the material means nothing to you. Your response is that we could have found out anytime. WHEN? Back when questioning him resulted in people mysteriously vanishing? Before we had access to BG Leonard and JE Stiles' work? We were told the contributions of all others were minor. Like a bunch of jerks, we accepted VPW at his word, since we thought he had integrity, and his word was reliable. That was the party line in TWI no matter WHEN you were in. BTW, Mike, I keep running into people who've read Bullinger's stuff, yet never heard of TWI, VPW or PFAL. Still think he didn't reach anyone? Frankly, whether or not the entirety of the material of PFAL was original, or NONE of it was means very little in my evaluation of things. The integrity issue, however, DOES count. I know this means NOTHING to you. It does to the REST of us, though. Also, your dogged insistence in ascribing new and "secret" meanings to things is one of YOUR major credibility issues.

Mike, A) The reason you keep coming up is that the issue here is your private interpretation of PFAL-secret messages only you've found, hidden meanings only you've seen, special revelation only you believe. When we addressed PFAL, you said you won't be sidetracked. Hours and hours of discussion of the less-than-perfection of the object of your adoration came up. You have recently admitted that you claim to be refused to be sidetracked, you refuse to entertain what disproves your claims, etc, etc. That was on this thread. Let me know if you need the citations. Since the PFAL materials have flopped on their own, we look to find where your private interpretations come from. They're not from the plain reading of PFAL, since, as, has already been shown on thread after thread, PFAL's own methods, applied to PFAL, demonstrate it does NOT hold up to PFAL's standard of Scripture. Since, to date, ONLY MIKE seems to think that's what it meant, this does not cause anyone else stress. MIKE has announced that VPW repeatedly said that his material was the results of VPW and God and various other people. This claim was already addressed on many threads. VPW very prominently proclaimed in PFAL it was just HIM and GOD. Since he never repudiates that claim IN PFAL, that claim remains in PFAL. Another question on this subject..... ..Mike has claimed that VPW claims that some of what VPW said (wrote) is of God directly, and some is of VPW. Supposedly, now, some was also of other people, yet also of VPW AND some of other people AND GOD. That's a tangled mess. If one must claim that PFAL was DIVINE, it swiftly becomes a scrambled mess concerning who wrote what. B) On the charge of plagiarism, if you've kept up on the GSC, you'd see that quotes from MANY sources over MANY years indicate that VPW did everything he could to "soft-peddle" the connection to BG Leonard's material and JE Stiles' material-that which the supposed "meat" of PFAL seems to match precisely and MIKE claims was not plagiarized. VPW NEVER indicated that RTHST would NEVER have happened without JE Stiles' book, which appears to precisely parallel VPW's book. VPW NEVER indicated that the PFAL class would NEVER have happened without BG Leonard's class, which seems to precisely parallel VPW's class, complete with the imaginary examples of Maggie Muggins and Johnny Jumpup and so on. It can clearly be shown VPW had taken BG Leonard's class before starting work on PFAL. It can be clearly shown that VPW had read JE Stiles' book before starting work on his own. Despite huge sections of both appearing to be photocopied to form VPW's work, he never said- not once! -THIS is the class I owe so much to, THIS is the book I owe so much to. Rather, both names seem almost nonexistent in VPW history. C) I was reading my orange book. Page 105 says the following, in a chapter making the SAME point: "I learned my unbelief in the schools I attended which taught that the Bible is full of errors, that the Word of God is full of myths, that it has a lot of forgeries in it. If a miniwster does not believe that the Bible is God's Word and if he thinks that it is full of myths and forgeries, what would be the man's actions if he followed what he believes? He would get out of the pulpit if he were honest with himself. I have very little respect for those who stand in the pulpits or stand behind podiums and declare, "This verse is all right, but that one is an interpolation, and that other one is a myth." " Now, Mike, you've claimed the Bible is full of "tattered remnants" and "unreliable fragements." VPW declared in PFAL (chapter 8 entire) is NOT. Mike, you've got a convoluted method of substitution that invalidates that entire chapter-that when VPW talks about the Bible, he is referring to HIS writings, OR he's referring to the one we all know, OR he's referring to the originals. Now, plain distinctions between the originals and moderns we understand-but they're connected, not truly different books. You wonder why we can't take your view seriously... D) Honesty and integrity COUNT to us. You can claim the ends justified the means, but that's not selling here-as you should have seen by now. E) I didn't say that studying was WRONG. YOU said that, Mike. You claimed that using the intellect to discern good and evil-thinking about whether Mike's thesis is legit or not- is wrong. I've been SAYING that THINKING is important all along, by implication AND direct statement. Don't pretend I said otherwise. Your claim was that thinking was a 5-senses approach and wrong. That means, by YOUR claim, Advanced class Key 4 is wrong. Is that part of the Advanced class that you don't consider canonical-like the "cancer is a devil spirit" part? E) You said you're not trying to present evidence. Goey already pointed out that's inconsistent with your posts. Also, you keep saying that blindly accepting your instructions will get us the results. Outside of religious cults, that kind of claim never works. "I refuse to prove I have anything to offer, but if you do things my way, you'll see it." F) Your latest appeal is one of loyalty. I'm supposed to obey VPW "because he taught you so much of God's Word." So, then, if I teach people a lot, they're supposed to do whatever I say? I've been in the wrong business all these years! I should have been teaching the Bible yesterday so I could invoke blind loyalty today! *runs off to start his own ministry*

Mike: A) Since you keep claiming I misrepresent your positions all the time, one might think my efforts to have our positions clearly spelled out in plain English would be applauded. I'm doing my best to get a clear, unambiguous summary of your position, or positions. On some subjects, you keep moving your position, so it is very difficult to get a single, clear view. So, when possible, I'm trying to get one. When possible, I also state my positions as plainly as possible. ---------------------------------------------- B) If thinking (having my senses exercised to discern good and evil) is a 5-senses approach to spiritual problems, then so is READING (taking in information by sight and thinking about it), no matter the subject matter. Either both are eeee-villl, or both are acceptable. (Especially since one is mentioned in the accepted canon of the Bible.) -------------------------------------------- C) I still haven't seen you present any "evidence" that vpw's writings were of surpassing quality, let alone of divine origin. Since you seem to be saying you've been providing data along those lines, please label it when you're doing so, so we know when you claim to be providing evidence vpw's work wasn't one man's work supplementing an agglomeration of the work of a handful of others. ---------------------------------------------- D) I'm still waiting on a clarification on Leonard and Stiles. Are you going to address it when you get a chance?

Mike: A) Based on the previous posts, and most prominently the post 6/19, 10:54am, then, I'd render your clarification of my statement, also quoted in that post, as follows: Based on that post and previous posts, you were saying that, as of 1982, the key revelation, our True Bible, the Written Word of God, was now VPW's PFAL class collaterals. This was not an official position of TWI, but it WAS the position of God Almighty. Ok, would you say THAT'S exactly what you meant? ----------------------------------------------- B) I think you glossed over my comments about the studies involving the collateral readings, the Advanced Class exam, and-oh! I didn't even mention the Home Studies! I finished those in record time, as well. THOSE were all based on the written material, and in each of those I rated notably high. (BTW, Mike, back then, I made a correction on a question in one of the Home Studies, since it seemed to incorrectly reflect the written orange book. I even cited the page in my correction. Have YOU found it?) Again, many of us have knowledge of vpw's books at least the equal of yours, yet, somehow, this has not required us to hold your position. --------------------------------------- C) You claimed VPW was an intellectual genius, and at the level of a professional athlete. Your claim has never been backed up by a single IQ test, nor an objective evaluation of him by a talent scout. Have you read all the stories of him playing basketball for hours with all the residents at headquarters throughout the years, into the early 80's? Amateur athletes can play into their early SEVENTIES, even. For fun, former professional, or professional-level athletes will continue to play the sports they excel at as a hobby. It's great fun for them and good exercise. No? Haven't read those accounts? Do you know why? IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. If it did, EVERYONE who was there would have either SEEN a game or PLAYED in a game. You can't tell me VPW would have been playing basketball or soccer or something and NOBODY would have wanted to watch. When he went hunting, they wanted to go along. When he drove around the ground slowly on motorcycle, they wanted to join or watch. When he went to sit and do NOTHING, they wanted to join him. According to VPW, that's how the original "nightowls" got started. If VPW was HALF the athlete you claim he was, EVERYONE would have known. You've made a claim that he was a genius without objective evidence, and a claim that he was physically-exceptional and an athlete capable of playing professionally without objective evidence. You claimed his was exceptional both physically, and mentally, with little more than a handful of overheard statements here and there. You DON'T think of that as idolatry. That's not how I see it, and it's not how an unbiased observer would see it. There's no convincing you on this, though. --------------------------------------------- D) You said "Recognizing that God appointed Dr as His spokesman is no more idolatrous than recognizing that God also appointed Paul 2000 years ago to a similar status? Why is this hard for you to see?" Mike...... IF such a thing were true, and IF evidence could be brought to support such a claim, and IF the logical conclusion, based on the evidence, was that it was true that God appointed vpw as His spokesman in 1942 or at any other time, THEN you would be facing a LOT less opposition to your idolatrous comments, and would find people who would agree with you who actually KNOW something about PFAL and/or the Bible. Your main strength seems to be in saying "Other people's conclusions don't matter-I'm right!" "My POV is the correct one despite the evidence brought against it!" "I don't HAVE to answer the evidence disproving my claims!" "If you accepted my POV without evidence and simply did everything I say, you'd soon agree with me!" For some reason, it surprises you that the more literate GS'ers and people who memorized the collaterals aren't buying what you're selling. ---------------------------------------------- E) I HAVE learned that trying to illustrate using analogies doesn't connect with you. So, I will try to remember not to use them. --------------------------------------------- F) When I asked "Are you saying that BG Leonard's work and JE Stile's work are "counterfeits" and "clones" of VPW's materials, just as ex-TWI splinter groups' classes are clones of VPW's materials?" You responded "No, they are counterfeits of what God wanted written in PFAL and distributed around the world and mastered What they wrote or taught long ago may have been totally accurate at times, but revelation can change as circumstances change. I also see those wonderful men as sometimes getting a point right and sometimes (bless their hearts) not getting it right, but close, and therefore a regrettable counterfeit, ON THAT ONE POINT." (Remembering not to use an analogy) I'm trying to understand EXACTLY what your position is regarding their work. A "counterfeit", remember, is not an "error". An "error" is a mistake-an attempt to do something correctly that failed in that aspect, which is identified as the error. A "counterfeit" is something which is based on an original which is being counterfeited, and attempting to pass itself off as that original upon which it is based. So, are you saying BG Leonard and JE Stiles intentionally (it is IMPOSSIBLE to ACCIDENTALLY forge something) produced work that was the COUNTERFEIT of something else? If that's what you're saying, what original were they working from, which they intended to pass off their work as? Or, on the other hand, are you saying their work was all ERRORS, and when you said the word "counterfeit", you merely misspoke? There is a big difference between an ERROR and a COUNTERFEIT. Which did you mean? ----------------------------------------------- G) By the way, Mike, don't think your claims that there are no authoritative rules for the English language was missed. I just see no point in trying to educate you on proper English form and grammar, since attempts to do so by people FAR more knowledgeable on the subject than either of us were unable to show you the truth of the matter.

Mike: A) on 6/19/03, 2:22am (unless otherwise noted, all quotes date from this post) you wrote: "In 1982 Dr's announcements of the big changeover dramatically increased (so far few posted), culminating in a revelation that it was time to switch over from the abstract "only rule" to the concrete, freshly written "only rule"." Based on that post and previous posts, you were saying that, as of 1982, the key revelation, our True Bible, the Written Word of God, was now (officially or inofficially) VPW's PFAL class and its collaterals. Just wanted to make sure that didn't get lost in the shuffle. That IS what you said and meant. (Albeit posted in a convoluted way.) I'm not going to address that at present. ------------------------------------------ B) You also posted: "I'll bet that the degree of memorization you did of PFAL less than the degree of your KJV retemorization. I'll bet your degree of mastering the points of PFAL was less than how you looked for points in KJV." You'd LOSE BOTH BETS. Mike, I don't give you a lot of my time and attention. My INCIDENTAL attention is enough to quote you extensively. Back then, I memorized PFAL AND the KJV with EQUAL fervor. Due to the ability to sit in class after class of PFAL, session after session, I was able to quote extensively from the taped version. I sat in once on a taped version missing a segment from Session 6. I basically recited the missing section, complete with the verse references. Before taking the Advanced class, you're supposed to take an exam and demonstrate your understanding of the materials of the Foundational and Intermediate classes. I studied MORE before taking it. As it turns out, the material I studied was NOT on the exam. I STILL blazed through the questions in record time. Section one was on the PFAL foundational class itself. Allotted time for this section? Ninety minutes. Time WordWolf took to complete this section, and check his answers TWICE? Twenty-seven minutes. The last 6 of them were basically fooling around. Ever sat in a twig where trivia questions were thrown from the home studies or the PFAL materials? I've been asked-repeatedly-to stop answering for awhile and give the others a chance. Ever attend a PFAL study group? By mutual consent of me and the study group leader, it was agreed that I did not NEED the study group-I had the material down cold. My memory is as sharp as it ever was, and if I was handed a KJV, concordance, and an Advanced class exam at this moment, I'd bet I'd get the exact same score I did last time. So, when it comes to ability to spit back the answers swallowed whole from PFAL, I'd compare well with anyone I was stacked against-down to the way vpw pronounced which words. If I am not CURRENTLY at the level of "recite it backwards and forwards", I am not far shy of it. Your opinion that this level of memorization & understanding is synonymous with YOUR POV produces a blind spot. That is, NOBODY can know the material that well, unless they agree PFAL's God current Bible. If they did memorize it, you think, and they STILL didn't hold your POV, they are an "unjust steward" and an "unfit student" and all sorts of derogatory things. --------------------------------------------- C) You also wrote "I don't think he taught we should think of him as infallible, so you may have been led wrong. I know this happened, and in spite of all my other failures in life, I didn't get sucked into hero worship of VPW ever." You also suggested I might have idolized VPW. I didn't. At the time, I might have been said to idolize his writings-which is right where you are NOW, Mike. However, I'd like to point out a few things about the quote. YOU don't think VPW put forth himself as infallible. That's a minority opinion, Mike. We've discussed this at the GSC. He called HIMSELF "THE TEACHER", AND ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED OTHERS TO DO SO. He defined the office of an apostle specifically in a way that all but names him the only living one. Even now, you're claiming he spoke for God (prophet), and claiming HE said the same. That's 3 out of 5 gift ministries, all of them claiming an ELITE position above others who might possibly claim "teacher" "apostle" or "prophet". This has already been hashed out on other threads. Mike? You're claiming you've never idoliZed VPW. Have you READ your posts here? Besides all your claims of his special status, you've also posted that he was an intellectual genius (posted it, not simply implied it), and stated that you firmly believe he was of excellent athletic ability, and was at least of pro-college level in college. A veritable paragon, one might say, since you've claimed both his mind and body were exceptional. Do you vaguely recall the discussion on another thread about this? It came up in TWO threads, actually. You DEFENDED this position, saying you didn't think this was an unreasonable assumption, and concluded by saying you didn't think this made you a fanatic (I forget the exact term-you may not have said 'fanatic'.) I also don't hate VPW. I didn't have enough of an emotional attachment to him to hate him. You'll have to talk to some of the other posters (rape survivors and others) to find that. They have much more to say on the subject than I do. I do NOT have a fanaticism about VPW either way. I DO have a fanaticism about TRUTH, and THAT'S why we keep butting heads. You claim certain events never happened, you claim other events DID happen. For good or ill, I always seek the truth, no matter HOW ugly or unpleasant it is. --------------------------------------------- D) You asked why I didn't include comments about the "David" thing under my comments about the "ERRORS" thread. It was unnecessary. The discussion of the removal of it as an indisputable error took up over a page. ANYONE who reads that thread can EASILY see the issue was resolved-at least for the rules of that thread. What that showed was that the other posters on that thread were intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that THEY are not infallible, and they are diligent enough to find places THEY are in error, and are capable of improvement. The resolution of that one item was NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, a demonstration of YOUR position, nor your position's ability to withstand scrutiny. Out of a tall stack of errors, ONE was resolved. Statistically, it should have been expected that at least ONE would be found. As you interpret that, it means that the ENTIRE list is also invalid. That's an unwarranted assumption. It's like watching someone reach into a refrigerator, take out a can of soda, and generalizing that the entire contents of the refrigerator was cans of soda. The others can clearly read the thread for themselves. Your posts can be largely characterized by evasions and obfuscations-but let's let THEM read it for themselves and decide that, shall we? If the thread HAD been "spotty at best", you would have been able to make a MUCH better showing, mowing down unwarranted assumptions and introducing evidence on each item. It WOULD have been very impressive, and earned you much respect. ----------------------------------------------- E) You called the Bible "unreliable fragments" and "tattered remants." You also said that it can be used by some people. You STILL don't see the logical contradiction between the two statements. Here's one last try to illustrate it. We go to a junkyard. We look over a wrecked car. There's nothing left of it but fragments, and those are not intact. The frame is partially crushed, the interior is gutted, the engine's completely missing. A salesman comes over and tries to convince you that, in its current condition, it can be of some use to you to travel, even if it's only a LITTLE use. Not MUCH use, just a little. --------------------------------------------- F) In answering my question about the contents of BG Leonard and JE Stiles' work, you gave the following answer: "The counterfeit is always CLOSE to the genuine. The 1942 promise was to Dr and Dr only. It was completed. I would NOT try to convince anyone but a PFAL grad of this. I would not be confused by the correct knowledge a BG Leonard student has any more than by the correct knowledge a PFAL splinter group puts into their clone classes." Although you didn't say what you'd tell a student of BG Leonard or JE Stiles, that WAS an attempt at an answer. I'm not 100% sure I got one point, though, so I want to make sure I'm not mischaracterizing your position. Are you saying that BG Leonard's work and JE Stiles' work are "counterfeits" and "clones" of VPW's materials, just as ex-TWI splinter groups' classes are clones of VPW's materials? It appears that's what you're saying, and I want to be certain that's what you MEANT to say. --------------------------------------------- BTW, don't feel required to make a summary or a timeline. I'd like to see it, but I may be the only one, and it's hardly a critical issue. ---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- Steve, I didn't mean to imply that your followup question, the more IMPORTANT question, was addressed at all. I don't expect it to be addressed any more than you do. You had initially posed a more general question, to which Mike had posted a more general answer. In all fairness, THAT question was answered. Mike will NEVER believe it of me, but I require intellectual honesty of myself no matter WHO disbelieves it.

For those of you cool cats who arrived after the movie started, here's something a bunch of us discussed a while back.....

Mike: A) Thank you for using somewhat shorter, more straightforward posts. Now I can go back to being annoyed only on the content, since the form of the posts is easier on the eyes, and the language is direct. (Yes, that makes a BIG difference, all joking aside.) B) You just said that "If you look hard at the books and forget about the past, you'll see MORE goodness in them than you did the first time, and you DID genuinely see some genuine goodness the first time. We can ALL agree that mucho stinkyness went on, but the books are pure. That's a reality your accusations of me won't wither." Ok, let me address this a little. 1) The first time I read the books, I was NOT examining them with a "critical" (discerning) eye. I was trying to MEMORIZE information. At NO point were we supposed to actually FORM OUR OWN OPINION on the subject. These were books vpw wrote, for vpw's class, he was THE TEACHER, and had papal infallibility. As such, his books were "infallible", and any errors in them were to be ignored. That was the case then, and that's the case you're making now. Further, I knew that I knew a LOT less then than I do now, and was not in a strong position to evaluate much. Since then, my knowledge, experience and ability to evaluate have all increased dramatically (or not so dramatically, since that was over many years). Therefore, more recent evaluations of said material pack more punch than that of a new student of pfal, taught to accept everything without question. Back then, I-and virtually EVERY SINGLE NEW PFAL student-would have seen much goodness in the class, no matter WHAT the content was. That's NOT an honest evaluation. We may have "seen" goodness, but that's hardly "genuine" goodness. Further, most of us-including me-have NOT made any claims that the content of pfal was useless. Our main objection-as always-is your characterization of the contents as PERFECT and WITHOUT ERROR. Like anything else, it can be of benefit without being divinely authored or divinely inspired. I learned many things in college that were useful, and THEY were rarely perfect or divinely inspired. I can say the same of books, television, radio or the internet. 2) You claimed "the books are pure. That's a reality your accusations of me won't wither." For those posters arriving late to the game, several months back, an extensive list of ERRORS taken DIRECTLY FROM THE BODY OF MATERIAL OF PFAL were posted. Despite his best efforts, Mike was NOT able to make any of them go away. I've forgotten how many were on the list when we stopped discussing it-28? 32? Something around there. The Books have ERRORS. A number we CAUGHT were listed. (That is no guarantee we caught them all-we weren't going for completion). That the books have ERRORS is a REALITY all of Mike's ignoring of them won't wither. --------------------------------------------- C) Thank you for a clear, concise statement of your position. (6/17/03, 2:14pm) "For a special group of people that God called out for a special job, PFAL grads that is, God has also provided the perfect arena for learning revelation and importation manifestations. This arena is the PFAL writings. As we master those special writings of PFAL with our 5-senses, God will teach us HIS perspective and HE will filter out the adversary's. So, you might not like the answer, but there it is. Master PFAL and you can hear the TRUE GOD's direct voice better (and filter out Satan's) than anyone's been able to do since the first century." I'm just going to leave that direct quote, and not comment on it for the time being. -------------------------------------------------------- D) This may come as a surprise to you, but your followup statements about what uses the Bible CAN be put to in modern times is diammetricall opposed to your original position, much discussed, that the modern versions are "tattered remnants" and "unreliable fragments". Either they are useless or they can be used. Either they are profitless, or they can profit. That type of inconsistency occasionally surfaces in some of your posts, and I'd be surprised if you were aware of it. For example, you keep alternating between claiming a scientific background and claiming you don't have one. Perhaps YOU may not see it that way, but you MAY have noticed that a variety of posters have commented on it. It's NOT like we're in communication with each other or anything. I tend to object MORE to the inconsistency of your positions than anything else. If we can't trust you to have a consistent position on either the Bible or your own background, how can we POSSIBLY trust that your assertions about pfal are correct? (No, I'm not expecting an answer. I'm pointing out some of the reasons these ARE hurting your "message".) --------------------------------------------------- E) on 6/17/03 , 3:41am, I summarized your answer to Steve as follows: "Steve, in case you missed it, Mike's answer to how you can tell what kind of spirit you're hearing from is by studying God's Word. Since Mike's stance is that pfal is the most accurate version of "God's Word" extant, his answer is you'll know by studying the pfal materials." That's the SAME message you posted further down-which I quoted in this very post. Rather than misrepresent your statements, as you regularly claim I do, that appears to indicate that I am both ABLE and WILLING to present your statements and positions FAIRLY, despite disagreeing with them. It also indicates I am capable of understanding and explaining your positions in my own words. So, although I expect you'll NEVER issue me one for it, it looks to me you owe me an apology for unfairly characterizing MY posts. On the other hand, it seems you completely missed Def59's last post completely, since your objection to it in no way addressed what he/she said. ------------------------------------------------------- Out of curiousity, Mike, I'd like to ask something. Feel free to answer it whenever you get a chance-it WON'T require research. If you encountered one, what would you tell a Christian who memorized BG Leonard's classes, but never heard of pfal? What would you tell someone who memorized JE Stile's book, but never heard of pfal? Let me make sure my question is specific enough.... Would you say that the material they learned, despite paralleling the material YOU learned, is LESSER because it wasn't written by vpw's pen, and taught in vpw's class? Would you characterize THEIR understanding of spiritual matters as lesser, despite being able to recite answers nearly identical to yours, since they didn't learn from vpw? Also, just for fun, I'm curious how you perceive the events so far. We saw my summary. You claimed mine was so off-target that it was incapable of being corrected. Just for fun, how about posting YOUR quick take on things? Feel free to label it as not-definitive, and not an official account, and all that. Please cover the same timeframe I did. I started in the 1st-century AD, and spent most of my time in the 20th century. Feel free to use the exact same events I did, phrasing them how you see them. I'd be very curious to see how you perceive each. Keep in mind that I offer NO guarantees that your post won't anger the posters here, though. For example, if you spend time on how vpw claimed the holocaust was vastly overstated and so on, or how the modern Jews are unrelated to the historical Jews (both positions have been discredited scientifically, and evidence HAS been posted and discussed HERE), you WILL anger some people. I'm very curious, though.

Vickles, when you say Mike usually casts the first stone, are you talking about like when he made the blanket accusation that every single person on the threads where we examined pfal doctrine and its errors were all "unfit stewards", and claimed we couldn't read? I wasn't sure most people had noticed that.... Funny, we posted simultaneously, and brushed the same subjects. :)-->

Steve, in case you missed it, Mike's answer to how you can tell what kind of spirit you're hearing from is by studying God's Word. Since Mike's stance is that pfal is the most accurate version of "God's Word" extant, his answer is you'll know by studying the pfal materials. ------------------------------------------- Mike, I'm not sure you're aware of it, but your stated position on "the Bible" is inconsistent. On the one hand, you called it "tattered remnants", and said that over time, it's been tampered with too often to be trusted as reliable and accurate. On the other hand, y0u're also claiming that it IS useful to people, albeit non-pfal'ers. That's a lot like saying "it's full of lies and errors, except where it's true." "It's burning hot, except when it's cold." You get the idea. If it's useful to anyone in regards to the things of God, then, by definition, it is NOT the "tattered remnants" you vilified it as early on. Pick a position, Mike. Inconsistency ill behooves you. BTW, Mike.... Vickles had a perfectly legitimate question. Your claim since your arrival is that pfal is far superior than anything any other Christian can offer out there. If it's REALLY that much better, then surely the "performance" test will show something, right? If it REALLY is the keys to power, revelation, etc, and YOU'RE the only one who gets it so far, then you should be getting, at the very LEAST, revelation and miracles and things to match the top non-pfal Christians. Look- If I came out and announced that I was producing a new car, faster than any currently on the market, we could go to the track or the "proving grounds" and put it to the test. We could compare its performance to those of other cars on the market. If the other cars outperformed it, we'd know I was full of hot air. If my car outperformed all the others, it would be proven to at least be of excellent quality, and among the best on the market. That's easy to test. One of the reasons PFAL was an easy sell is that it promised results in the physical realm: red curtains, financial prosperity, all needs met fairly easily, and signs, miracles and wonders when you got to the Advanced class. So, this is an old question that's been discussed on different subjects. It's a simple question, and, as you can see, an honest one. In fact, it was inevitable that someone ask it. Frankly, I'm surprised you didn't expect it before now. No need to 'blame' Vickles because she asked for proof of one of your claims. ---------------------------------------------- No, I'm not particularly interested in that answer-that was Vickles. I just call your reaction an unfair one. ------------------------------------------- PS. Please stop throwing around scientific and technical terms unless you're prepared to discuss them in their proper context. You're latest reference to "quantum physics" (6/17/03, 2:24am) had no relevance to its post, and only served to "name-drop". It DOESN'T make you look smarter because you know how to use it in a sentence. It DOESN'T have any relevance to the message you're trying to peddle here. It DOESN'T enhance your posts. ---------------------------------------------