WordWolf

Dot, Wolves protect their pack and care for them. I ask that you not put them in the same category as sex perverts, molesters, rapists, etc. ========= BTW, as anyone can tell from looking at a good collegiate dictionary (as I did), the definition of "testimony" taught at twi, like so many things, was bull-kaka. The word is derived from the Latin "testari" or "three". That's because a "witness" is a "neutral third party". Go ahead-look it up. I suspect worship and preoccupation with your johnson could lead to explanations like the one we were taught. At least, that's what Freud would have said.

Man, I hardly know what to comment on... "What kind of intense emotional testing of a woman CAN be done outside of sex requests?" "I'll bet the best tests on men were ego-crushing scenarios." I'll just take these two... Let's see-you can't think of any intense way to test a woman emotionally without molesation-attempted or performed? I can think of several related to work or other projects, off the top of my head. Ego-crushing scenarios are good tests? According to WHOM? WHO claimed EITHER of these were healthy? Boot Camp doesn't even do either of these! Oh, sometimes Boot Camp is portrayed as being stressful, but it does NOT go for crushing self-esteem, and even the toughest drill sergeant watches his troops, and knows when to lighten up and help a trainee. Plus, Boot Camp is a few weeks, not years and years of humiliation. =========================================== BTW, if your father molested my sister, you could be as indignant as you wanted, while accompanying his hospital and wondering if they can repair his damaged trachea from when I found out. If MY father molested someone, they'd be trying to repair him in the ambulance. Calling it "righteous indignation", however, is mislabelling, to say the least. Your "father in the Word", btw, was a serial molester, an adulterer, dishonest, and a ruiner of lives. Go ahead and tell me to go wherever you wish.

Yes. The internal inconsistency with saying it was ok NOW when it was supposedly responsible for the fall of man ONCE is one I had difficulty repeating at all, let alone with conviction. (I told ONE person, and that without sounding like I was firmly agreeing.) Rottie, the answer to your two questions was exactly the same answer. The "mirror" thing probably came up because even in the taped class, vpw said that women, at some time when they're alone, should look at themselves in a mirror, that most women don't. (That's one reason I may not remember any comment about any woman's body part being ugly, "cognitive dissonance". Besides, I wouldn't have believed it.) We DID cover some verses. About 1 class' worth of it, maybe, was Scripture. The other 6 would then have been "Bible-optional." And, again, we did cover ONE time, in ONE session, how extramarital sex was bad. It DID come up. However, that's a poor showing for a "Christian" organization. I'm sure a lot of differences happened between the live and taped classes. Mine sounded a LOT less vulgar than the live ones. Somewhere on a thread, some people said vpw had SHOWN that video with the dog, in one class. I don't remember if it was CF & S, or Advanced class. I'm STILL trying to figure out the relevance.

Seriously, though.... A) It was the only class where 7 sessions made for a 2-page syllabus. That should be a sign that it's a little sparse on substance. B) It's the only class I ever took where I was embarrassed of the name. "I have to head out-I have a Bible study class tonight." "Really? What on?" "Um, Christian Family." C) The "original sin", Proverbs 31:10ff was covered, as was I Corinthians 7:1ff was also covered. How he could read I Corinthians 7:2, commit adultery many times, and look himself in the mirror is beyond me. D) Everyone remembers the session with all the slang terms. It seemed to relax us a little, since you can't be embarassed while laughing, but other than that, wasn't necessary. E) It was largely a Sex Ed or "Hygiene" class. Complete with photos and illustrations. F) I honestly don't remember vpw's comments mentioned above. I do remember (and even back then, others had commented) how beautiful he thought a woman's funbags are. (Funbags, you know, Thelma and Louise.) G) I remember him saying a few things here and there about various sex topics. The most off-the-wall ones will stay with me till I die. Like, how a man wants a woman who's a bit of an angel and a devil- an angel in public, and a devil in the bedroom. Or, concerning one position I have no intention of trying, "ever couple probably tries it at some point". To which, I say, "Ew, ew, ew, ew, ew." If someone out there has tried it, DON'T TELL ME. I do NOT want to know. And of course, in my class, he described-but did NOT show- that pornographic video with 2 women and a dog. He said the dog was trying to get away from the women, which showed it had more sense than they did. THANKS FOR SHARING. WHY did I need to know ANYTHING about that video? Was that instructive in some way? H) One of the main points, one that was repeated in several sessions, was the destigmatizing of sex as "dirty". Oddly enough, the proper place of a sex life in a MARRIAGE and not as OUTSIDE a marriage seemed not to be repeated in several sessions. Strange sorting of priorities for a Christian class. I) Of course, the one thing that I still find TRULY bizarre was that wierd "casualwear" outfit he wore teaching that class. I can understand getting out of the suit, but was that thing actually worn in PUBLIC? That thing was uglier than a leisure suit! J) The hero of that class was Tick. Anything else you want to know? Kudos to whoever managed a session breakdown-my goal was to just get thru it.

It was about seven sessions.

Does that error Mike helped me find the other month count? It's in the Burnt Umber Book, the Word's Way. Paul goes from the guy who KNOWS a guy caught away to the third heaven and earth, to the guy who's caught away, himself. It's in the collaterals....

I think you covered it all. This is a social arena, where regulars DO interact, old friendships are renewed, and new friendships start. However, IMHO, the most vital functions of the GSC are its role in assisting people in leaving twi, or in never getting involved in twi, and in offering a place to communicate, and possibly assistance in recovery, for those who successfully escape twi. As I see it, everything else, fun though it is, is a secondary consideration.

Megan: That's one idea among many. I'd LIKE to believe it. IS there any EVIDENCE cited to try to make the case, or is this just another writer declaring their opinion is "the truth" by fiat?

Am I the only person here following the "Hush" story arc? If so, I'll spare everyone my speculations. If not, who do you think is behind it all and why? Bonus if you've already gone down the "official" list of suspects. :)--> I've got it down to 6 official suspects, with two of them the front-runners.

*sketches this in the air a moment* Let's see if I understand that last news item correctly. She's tied down to the bed. Ok. I can picture that. He enters the scene, dressed as Batman. Now, what's Batman doing in this scene? Since she's not dressed as either hero or villain, I'm supposing he's 'rescuing a prisoner' (hey, SOMEBODY tied her down.) Ok. I've got the basic scenario here. One question, though. Why the HECK was he trying to swoop down on her? That's not how he did it on the tv show or the movies. I've never seen him swoop DOWN on a VICTIM in any cartoon or comic book. I wonder what he was basing that maneuver on. Obviously he didn't do the math before attempting this little maneuver. (I'm not even going to wonder WHY a Batman costume or anything else.) ----------------------------------------------- Comedian Yakov Smirnoff, prior to the fall of Communism, on life in the U.S. after growing up in the Soviet Union. "You have freedoms here I never even imagined. I was in the store. I saw a sign that said 'New Freedom'. What a country! Freedom in a box. I bought 15. I bought 'super-maxi', because I figured I should get as much freedom as possible. When I got them home, I was trying to figure them out. The box said 'sanitary napkins'. So, I put them out at the dinner table. I figured they were good napkins-they were expensive. People would go 'yuck'..*pushes away*,,,but no one would tell me what they were. "

Go to "my space", then "private topic" and look-you can do that anytime.

A) Yes, this is not Mike's show. We can post anywhere we want, keeping in mind the next item. B) Yes, this is PAWTUCKET's site. Mike is using bandwidth and memory Paw is PAYING FOR to compensate for his own refusal to make his own website and messageboard. C) So long as Mike continues to push his contraBiblical doctrine on the GSC, people will show up on the threads no matter WHERE they are. D) Yes, I'll do a "Cliff Notes" on the new stuff once I catch up to it. People avoiding his threads to avoid full exposure can keep up on those.

What do you think about the phrase "to the ages of the ages"? That's how I read some of the Greek when passing thru...

That's what I always thought it meant. The sentence is nonsensical if that word means something other than God's authority, power or entitlements.

Mike, So, you quoted Hamlet's "hoist on your own petard" line without reading it in the context? Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are a trap laid for Hamlet. When the 3 of them arrive in England, they are to hand a message to the King of England-"Kill Prince Hamlet. Love, Claudius, King of Denmark." Hamlet outsmarts them, and plans on using their own package to catch Rosencrantz and Guildenstern instead of himself. That's what he meant by saying he would "delve an inch deeper, and blow them at the moon." Their own 'petard' (landmine) would blow up in their faces. Hamlet succeeds, too. He switches their message for one that reads "Kill Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Love, Claudius, King of Denmark". Thus, they are hoist on their own petard. Just thought someone somewhere would like the context of the quote. (from William Shakespeare's "Hamlet".)

Mike, are you saying that, in all the time you were in twi, and supposedly, exposed to other Christians' doctrines after that, you have NOT experienced intelligent discussions on what you called the "Broken Windshield" scenario? I heard discussions about that when I was IN, and there are plenty of discussions of the subject by Christians all over the world, let alone all over the net.

Rafael, please post the WHOLE quote. Some people never got to see it...

Gee, you never looked up the books he DID cite when he cited them, but you would have looked up the ones he DID cite? What are the odds? Very few probably would have bothered to look them up, rather than, say, keep reading vpw's books as a new student. Perhaps some would as they progressed- Advanced Class grads and so on. ============================================ Yes, thank God we never had to separate truth from error in reading any books as students while in twi. *rolls eyes*

I mentioned that once. I said to graduate from even a lukewarm college, you'd need to fill your degree requirements, including the major. a major in theology would require proper citation and crediting WHILE teaching the proper way to research and get the information FROM said sources. This becomes reinforced going for your Masters, all the time. But, as Rafael pointed out... Mike's "conscience is so seared on this topic that it's not worth arguing any further."

Well, there's fiction and non-fiction. If anyone would have pushed a "you can't read" doctrine on me, I would have just ignored it. (I ignored the suggestion of "put everything aside for 3 months", for example.) Non-fiction wise, there's some good stuff out there. I recommend "Lies My Teacher Told Me", by Carl Loewen. It addresses issues of bias and untold stories in our history books, and WHY they're there, and WHY they're ingrained in the system that produces textbooks. Being a voracious reader for fun, there's a lot of fiction I read. I recommend Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series. I recommend Modesitt's "Recluce" series. I do read the "Left Behind" series, and the "Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter" series. I don't necessarily recommend either one, but I enjoy them both. I'm not proud-I read what entertains me. Both include certain elements I really like, which overcome their individual deficiencies. I also really like what they've been doing lately in the "Batman" comic book series. Don't laugh-it's been getting a lot more attention lately, and rightly so.

That's funny, Lindy... We had been posting at the same time, and I had concluded that you had made the same point at the same time, more concisely. Yes, I thought the word "circumlocuitous" was the best word for the job, since its use carries the feel I was looking for, also. (20 syllables when 4 are called for.)

Back to that sentence again..... If pfal is The Word of God-and Mike says it is- then it MUST follow the rules set out in pfal for understanding God's Word. According to pfal, this means it will work with a "mathematical exactness and a scientific precision". This also means that "at least 85-90%" of the weitten content can be understood in a straightforward manner as what is written as is-the most direct meaning. So, when examining an exclusion, we must look at what it DOES say as well as what it does NOT say. If, for example, it says that "not all that Wierwill writes will necessarily be God-breathed", we must look at that statement directly, and using a mathematical exactness and scientific precision. What is excluded in this statement, and what is NOT excluded in this statement? What is excluded is the "ALL" category. "All" is not an option. Has "SOME" been excluded? No. Has "NONE" been excluded? No. We might perhaps suppose one or the other is excluded-if we were NOT using a mathematical exactness OR a scientific precision. If one were proceeding with a "logic proof" of same in mathematics, it would begin with the single "given" statement: "Not all Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed." The excluded outcomes number ONE: "All Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed" is automatically excluded, since a statement and its converse cannot both be true. ("A and not-A" is always false.) The possible outcomes are two. 1) "Some of what Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed." 2) "None of what Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed." Either possible outcome is equally likely, under the rules of mathematical logic. Unless one wants to abandon the approach stated in pfal-abandoning "mathematical exactness and scientific precision", one cannot select one outcome over the other, from a plain reading of that statement. ---------------------------------------------- BTW, if "at least 85-90%" of pfal is meant to be read directly, then statements meant to convey information will be direct and straightforward at least 85-90% of the time. (Simple implication-more mathematical logic.) If pfal was MEANT to say "some of what Wierwille writes will be God-breathed", what would be the profit in couching it in a circumlocuitous statement? It's like tossing into a press conference the question "do you admit confirming not denying you said that?" (Yes. No. I mean- what??) ----------------------------------------------- BTW, quoting directly from Mike's citation of vpw, we have the following: "Let's see this from John 5:39. 'Search the scriptures...' It does not say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or VP Wierwille's writings or the writings of a denomination. No, it says 'search the scriptures...' because all Scripture is God-breathed." (This is immediately followed by the sentence we've run into the ground, already quoted in part.) Who out there can tell me what, in this quote is equated with Scripture, and what's contrasted with Scripture? Right! NOTHING is equated with Scripture! Everything else mentioned is contrasted with it. "Shakespeare, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, VP Wierwille's writings, the writings of a denomination" are all set directly in contrast to Scripture. (Go ahead and read the statement again. Is that or is that NOT the plain meaning of the text?) This is then followed by the "unclear" quote. Since there seems to be much discussion of it, with much difference of opinion what its most direct meaning is, it is, by definition, "unclear". According to pfal, UNCLEAR VERSES MUST BE UNDERSTOOD IN LIGHT OF THE CLEAR VERSES. Further, since this one seems like it may not explain itself fully "in the verse", we must proceed to the SECOND rule of understanding God's Word: All Scripture explains itself IN THE CONTEXT. The context is the clear sentences preceding it, which include VP Wierwille's writings in the category of "not-Scripture". So, based on either or both rules, the "unclear verse" must be understood in light of the preceeding sentence. If pfal is truly God's Word, we MUST use its own rules to understand it. Using those rules, we see here that its internal testimony of itself- just from what MIKE quoted-is that it is not "Scripture". Go back and repeat the steps if you don't see it. ---------------------------------------------- Of course, Mike disagrees that's what it means. Somehow, I didn't apply the rules of pfal properly to the pfal quotes. Well, I just did it under everyone's noses, so all the readers can form their OWN opinion on the subject.

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.