VPW and the Snowstorm - What do you believe?

[Oakspear]

Raf was adressing WTH, not WD

WD responded as if he had been addressed

Raf was addressing WTH's assertion that some people could not believe that anything good came from Wierwille by contrasting it with the opposite, that some people could not believe that Wierwille did anything bad.

In the course of the discussion, WD stated that he had not seen any evidence of the bad things, only opinions.

In response to this, Raf stated that WD wants proof, which WD denies.

It seems to me that Raf is making a valid point (which all are free to agree or disagree with) but that WD is claiming comes out of nowhere

[Raf]

You left out that I engaged in hyperbole, a perfectly valid figure of speech (look it up in your Funk & Wagnall's, or Bullinger, if you prefer) to describe what would constitute acceptable hard evidence.

Otherwise, yeah, you pretty much nailed it Oaks.

[Oakspear]

Hyperbole - for years I thought that it was pronounced like Hyper BOWL...like 'Yo, Bobby, let's go knock down some pins at da HyperBowl ovah on Jamaica Avenoo'

[GrouchoMarxJr]

Yes, this is correct. I have repeatedly denied that I'm making a logical argument here. It's more of a presentation.

A presentation?...I would say that you have picked a "tough crowd" for this particular "presentation"...kinda like preaching the virtues of Hitler at a synagogue...but of course, you already knew that. I'm afraid your "presentation" consists of false assumptions that I find foolish...

...to each his own.

[Modgellan]

Raf, Whitedove and Oak- (and anyone else contributing to the fray)-

This whole discussion has become more about how you view each other than it is about how you view what VPW said/wrote/revealed/dreamed.

The thread can become Soap Opera fodder with two clicks of a button.

Please knock it off!

[Oakspear]

Aw, Dad, but he started it ;)

[WordWolf]

Raf, Whitedove and Oak- (and anyone else contributing to the fray)-

This whole discussion has become more about how you view each other than it is about how you view what VPW said/wrote/revealed/dreamed.

The thread can become Soap Opera fodder with two clicks of a button.

Please knock it off!

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

[Mark Clarke]

The following was a response of mine to skyrider on another thread, but it belongs even more here in this somewhat immediate context.

QUOTE (skyrider @ Jan 14 2009, 07:56 AM) *

The only rule for faith and practice for wierwille......was the revelation he was getting???

Well, he said his only rule for faith and practice was GOD'S WORD.

Now many thought that meant the KJV, but then we saw him point out errors there, so we had to look back a notch to the critical Greek texts to see VPE's only rule for faith and practice. He had to have something more straight than the KJV to spot where it was crooked, he had to have some OTHER RULE or RULER that he went by to judge the KJV in error. It sounded to us like "critical" meant "most crucially important" so the critical Greek texts, we reasoned, must be his only rule for faith and practice.

This was the first mistake. The errors in KJV were mistranslations which, for the most part, could be corrected by looking at the context, or other passages where similar words were used. Relatively few apparent contradictions required looking at the critical Greek texts, even in Wierwilles's theology. His "OTHER RULE or RULER that he went by to judge the KJV in error" was not the Greek, first and foremost. It was reading the Word and letting it interpret itself. Remember these? -

The Word interprets ITSELF:

1. In the Verse - 85-90% of the Word!

__a. Right where it's written

__b. Words understood in light of their Biblical usage

__c. Words must be in harmony with other words/verses on the same subject.

__d. Narrative development, or Scripture build-up

2. In the context

3. Where it's been used before

In addition, one of the biggest principles of interpretation he taught was that apparent contradictions were the result of either a mistake in our understanding OR a mistake in translation. Only when these principles were used and we determined that the mistake was not in our understanding, do we then consider a mistake in translation.

The problem with most of his wrong doctrines did not even deal with Greek. Many of the wrong doctrines he taught missed it in the context, and can be refuted from the English without even getting into the Greek. He advocated some sound Biblical research principles, but unfortunately he didn't always use them well himself.

But then SOME of us found out that those critical Greek texts didn't agree with each other, AND we saw some had glaring errors, AND a small few of us noticed the critical Greek texts were NOT ancient nor critically important BUT were relatively modern. It shocked me to find out that the ink was still wet on the Stevens (oldest) in 1550! We were told all these things about the critical Greek texts but few of us assimilated it.

When you said in the first paragraph, "It sounded to us like 'critical' meant 'most crucially important'" I assumed you were referring to an error in our/your understanding. When you repeat here that "the critical Greek texts were NOT ancient nor critically important," I'm starting to wonder whether you're making a pun or if you really think that's what it means. Just in case, let me point our that "critical" in this case does not mean "critically important" but has to do with the fact that the various manuscripts were critiqued by comparing one with another and determining (by several methods) which was the closest reading to the original, and putting them together in a Critical Greek Text.

Furthermore, whoever taught you about the disagreements in the texts didn't do a very good job. Of all the Greek texts, a very small percentage of passages are so affected by the variant readings as to make a change in doctrine. They are mostly differences in spelling, parts of speech, place names and so forth. Secondly, the field of textual criticism has grown enormously in more recent years, since the discovery of many more manuscripts that are actually older than those which were used for the Stephens text.

So some small few of us went back another notch in search of VPW's only rule and landed on the ancient tests ONLY TO FIND that they to had problems: only went back to the 400's, were fragmentary, were in disagreement with each other, had errors.

Every step back you take seems to gender more errors. To begin with, even VPW claimed his "only rule for faith and practice" was the Word of God, a phrase which he interpreted as the overall message as arrived at by studying the Scriptures. He never implied that his "only rule for faith and practice" was the ancient texts or anything like it.

In addition, the critical Greek texts since the Stephens greatly eliminated most of the so-called "glaring" errors. Plus, between the manuscripts we have and the quotes from the writings of the early church fathers, virtually all of the NT documents can be reproduced with startling accuracy. This was known to Wierwille as well. That's why he used the Greek texts, rather than claiming they were "hopelessly corrupted" and we must rely on his "unique revelation."

So then we took a leap of faith and said AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY GIVEN was VPW's only rule for faith and practice. But HOW did he access that? I figure hardly anyone reading this now in 2009 ever got this far back then. I know I didn't, not until the mid to late 80's and even then I still didn't have the answer to it, only the question.

If you haven't gone down this path before and long ago, then you might ask yourself WHY? What were you doing that kept you from trying to figure all this out? Did you leave it to others? Were you too busy? Did you not care?

Why would you assume anyone else didn't care enough or was too busy to look into these questions? There is no "leap of faith" necessary to understand how VPW came to his "only rule of faith and practice." He taught HOW he accessed that in PFAL - the keys to how the Word interprets iteslf. And using THOSE VERY SAME KEYS many people have shown that many of VPW's doctrines were not based on an accurate interpretation of Scripture.

Anyway, it all came together in 1998 for me and I finally got it. I had to have someone show me.

Now I'm SO happy that I DO have an only rule for faith and practice, it has physical weight,it's not abstract, it's bigger than me and I dare not correct it, it has a Library of Congress number (or set of numbers) and it's my standard that I plunk on my Table of Challenge. Do you old time posters remember me talking about all this years ago?

Oakspear and Abigail seemed to be the only ones who got it back then. They didn't accept it, but the at least GOT it. If you're just getting it now, join the club and give it some thought. It's a new set of synapses waiting for your pondering.

Remember in the quyotes we saw on the other thread that the night before the snow in 1942 VPW asked God to give him something that he'd "never have to back up on." He and God worksed something out were Go would show him the end of the road, the only rule he couldn't break, the rule for faith and practice. Yes, he got it by revelation. Now we can get it in printed fonts. If you don't accept written PFAL as your only rule for faith and practice, THEN WHAT IS????

Hello?! How about THE BIBLE!!! The Bible interprets itself and is relatively easy to understand when you read it without preconceived ideas and preformulated doctrines. But the failure to read it that way has resulted in many, many differences of opinion on various doctrinal issues. Yet the Bible has remained available for anyone who wants to read and understand it, and ask God for guidance. And many people over the years have seen the same truths independently from the Bible. Even those few things VPW had right are not unique to him but have been seen by many others throughout history.

Remember, a rule for faith and practice must be the end of the road. You can't appear to a higher authority to change any of it, otherwise THAT HIGHER AUTHORITY will have to be your unbreakable ruler.

Exactly, and that's what you are doing by claiming PFAL and VPW's books as your rule of faith and practice. We don't appeal to a higher authority, we appeal to the keys in the Bible itself, and let it interpret itself, which is what VPW himself claimed to do (although he executed it poorly).

A rule for faith and practice can't be abstract (VPW's was, but that was an God's behest to solve a deep problem), and it mus have weight. It must be readable by other people where they read the same thing you read.

You're contradicting yourself. You are absolutely right that "A rule for faith and practice can't be abstract." But that's as true for VP's as it is for anybody else's. You're also right that "It must be readable by other people where they read the same thing you read." That's why many other people seeing the same things is one indication that you are seeing the truth in the Scriptures. For example, many theologians from different walks of life have all seen that the Gospel of the Kingdom of God is the heart of what Jesus preached, as I have shown on my website.

That's also why it's good that there are many scholars who have critically examined the manuscripts and texts, rather than relying on one person to clear it all up for us. God knows the tendency of people to want to exercise or abuse power (as seen throughout church history). He knew better than to put it into the hands of one man. "In a multitude of counsellors there is safety" (Prov. 11:14). VPW had a number of interpretations and theories from the Bible that few if any other people agreed with. (Although he did come up with a few things that were right - even a broken clock is right twice a day!) How to tell which of VP's doctrines were right and which were wrong? Let the Bible be the judge of VP, not VP the judge of the Bible.

What is YOUR only rule for faith and practice? Is it a document that's unalterable, or do you wing it as you go. If you wing it then YOU are your only rule for faith and practice. If you alter a physical document, take exception with some aspect of it, then that document is NOT your ruler.

What is YOUR only rule for faith and practice?

If you haven't pondered this your just beginning (at best) to hear PFAL.

MY only rule of faith and practice is the Bible. I don't have to "wing it as I go." The Bible does indeed interpret itself, if we are honest enough and humble enough to approach it without preconceived ideas and let it speak for itself.

You have made yours the writings of a man who not only failed to keep the Bible's faith and practice, but never claimed his writings could or should be anyone else's rule of faith and practice - in fact denied such a claim and told us to read the Word. To assign such a status to a man who never did so himself reminds me of the followers of Brian of Nazareth who insisted he was the Messiah, even though he flat out denied that he was. What, do you believe "only the True Teacher denies the God-breathed status of his teachings?" (Reference to Monty Python's Life of Brian, for those who don't know.)

If you haven't pondered this, you're still (at best) trapped by PFAL.

(BTW, I don't expect you to accept what I'm saying - though it would be nice! - but hopefully some people reading this will benefit from it.)

Edited January 15, 2009 by Mark Clarke

[Mike]

Sad? I would suggest someone in need of a serious evaluation / assessment.

Sad----Truly sad

RumRunner,

So what IS your only rule for faith and practice?

It's sad how many people refuse to answer this simple question. Or refuse to answer it properly by offering something that is obviously NOT a rule, but changeable and/or unreadable.

So what is YOUR ruler that you line up with? For most people it is the thought/feeling of the moment. Pretty sad.

[Tzaia]

What do I believe...

I believe that by definition it is impossible to "prove" a "miracle" because by design miracles are supernatural and cannot be replicated.

I believe that the only way Vic thought he could garner attention for his beliefs was by invoking a miracle because miracles involve some idea of specialness.

I believe many people were impressed by the notion that all of this came about through a miracle.

Perhaps Vic believed the "miracle" brought legitimacy to his "ministry."

I believe the miracle can't be verified independently, so the only proof is provided through the single witness. When Vic was believed to be a credible person, it was easy to belief his narrative (although I question how people who knew how he was could believe him). Once he was publicly exposed, his credibility fell into the potty, so his experience is suspect.

I believe there are people here who want to look past the person and his personal walk when others believe the designation MOGOTW held him to a higher standard even in his private life.

Based on his private life I believe he manufactured the whole thing, but told it so often he eventually believed it.

[Mike]

MY only rule of faith and practice is the Bible.

Which version? Which translation? What's the Library of Congress number?

If it's a RULE, then you can't disagree with anything in it... you have to go with every translated word, with every passage as your final rule. You can't appeal any piece (other than printer's errors, proofreaders' oversights, or peanut butter stains... all of which are very rare) to a higher authority for correction, otherwise THAT higher authority would be your only rule.

Everyone I've ever met who claims that some particular edition/translation/version is their only rule will suddenly sidestep and say "this one passage is in error, because of so-and-such, so I've corrected it in the wide margin." So their only rule just got bent, and it will bend again if they run into another passage.

[Mike]

NOTE TO MODERATORS

Thank you for quelling the straying from the topic.

I'm doing my best to stay on topic, and respond to people's posts addressed to me.

It's this sticky issue of how slippery an "only rule for faith and practice" is that drove VPW to almost throw in the towel 2 days before the 1942 snowstorm.

What God offered him by way of the snowstorm was a RULE that he'd never have to bend, ie, the revelation/teaching God would provide for him IF HE WOULD TEACH IT TO OTHERS.

It is for THIS reason I am posting ON TOPIC with this "only rule" stuff. I'm trying to show what was going on in VPW's mind as he sensed a need for an unbendable rule, something he'd "never have to back up on" as he prayed to God and heard the voiced and received the snow as confirmation.

THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE regarding "VPW and the Snowstorm" which is the title of this thread.

Thank you for quelling the straying from the topic.

[sirguessalot]

Since this important question won't go away, I thought I'd put it to a vote. I lean towards 4 or 5 myself.

i guess Jim can tell me best if im off topic here

but i had to vote for "none of the above"

because of "all of the above" was not an option

and certainly some elements of all of them seem possible

though "VPW hallucinated a snowstorm" says it best for me

perhaps even "VPW dreamt the snowwy promise"

followed by a life of re-interpreting and re-interpreting the experience, of course

which gets into all the other poll options

but dreams are certainly a field of doctrine and practice severely lacking on the pfal menu

...casting an extreme shadow across the whole body of it

even though dreaming is soakingly ubiquitous in scripture...jewish and otherwise

and as ive often speculated outloud here

i cant help but think how, like anyone would, given the same conditions...

...young searching vpw self-initiated a period of relatively profound (to him) altered states

and being human, being depressed, fasting on grapes

engaging in other fasting type behaviors, or other drugs, food, booze, whatnot

while pouring over ancient languages and mysteries until the wee hours

desperately searching for meaning and purpose and belonging and hope and such

and generally experiencing what some christians and others describe as "a dark night of the soul"

but not dark enough to "throughly enlighten" vpw, imo...or things may have turned out differently.

perhaps seeing as he was more or less oblivious and resistant to sound doctrine and practice (christian or otherwise) regarding dreams and dreaming,

(not to mention things like health, sex, money...)

his profound dreaming experiences and altered states probably caused more confusion than clarity

...

as i was sketching about in post #339

...it seems we interpret our experiences through some actual structure we often call "faith"

...and like an interior temple, our faith has functions...like floors, doors and windows

can you imagine sitting in the woods for 40 days?...or in an upper room for 9?

..fasting, praying, meditating, dreaming, asking, noticing, starving, dying...

we find that awake or not...dreaming is happening in the body and mind

whether one consciously chose any such trial or not

one is likely to experience a lot of strange things in the body and mind

all of which are then interpreted through the structure of our faith

one may say "my heavenly father came from above and made it snow for me"

while another says "no, our heavenly father came from above and made it snow for us"

and another says "no, thats not true...its all coming from your brain...you hallucinated"

and another might simply ask "how is this experience effecting your life?" and "where are we going now?"

etc...

Edited January 15, 2009 by sirguessalot

[What The Hey]

You left out that I engaged in hyperbole, a perfectly valid figure of speech (look it up in your Funk & Wagnall's, or Bullinger, if you prefer) to describe what would constitute acceptable hard evidence.

Otherwise, yeah, you pretty much nailed it Oaks.

The defintition of Hyperbole = exaggeration, overstatement. Well, for one thing, I'm certainly convinced you've said more than a mouthful about a lot of things.

[Mark Clarke]

Which version? Which translation? What's the Library of Congress number?

If it's a RULE, then you can't disagree with anything in it... you have to go with every translated word, with every passage as your final rule. You can't appeal any piece (other than printer's errors, proofreaders' oversights, or peanut butter stains... all of which are very rare) to a higher authority for correction, otherwise THAT higher authority would be your only rule.

Everyone I've ever met who claims that some particular edition/translation/version is their only rule will suddenly sidestep and say "this one passage is in error, because of so-and-such, so I've corrected it in the wide margin." So their only rule just got bent, and it will bend again if they run into another passage.

That's why no one version or translation is my "only rule for faith and practice." The "rule" is to allow the Bible to interpret itself, as VPW claimed to do. As I said, many of his wrong doctrines have been proven wrong using the VERY KEYS HE TAUGHT.

My "rule" is that NOBODY can claim to have all the answers from God, just as no one member of the Body has completely manifested Christ in every area of their life. But the "Big Picture" which forms the context and pattern for understanding the rest of it is more solid than you think. God has given us His Word and has preserved the Scriptures in a remarkable way, compared with any other ancient writing. And more people are starting to get the "Big Picture" without relying on one Teacher to put it together for them.

[RumRunner]

OK there Mike I can answer that simple question - BTW - your excessive use of all caps reminds me of a 4 yr old. Here is my only rule for faith and practice - I am always right and anyone who disagrees with me is always wrong. Simple question. Simple answer and BTW it is both unchangeable and quite readable.

My ruler that I line up with? Well lets just say it isn't the blind worship of a drunken sexual predator who ran a vicious cult based on the debasement of human life - most notably women and suckers.

VP is/was not god's man and you sure as sh(t are not the prophet of his nor JC's return with the infantile blue book in hand.

BTW I am not a christian anymore - I don't believe in your cult teachings nor your arrogance at suggesting that because you hafve cracked the books you are somehow enlightened - you are exposing yourself as ignorant and trying to boost your low self esteem.

Night Mike - enjoy your dreams - they won't be coming true

RumRunner,

So what IS your only rule for faith and practice?

It's sad how many people refuse to answer this simple question. Or refuse to answer it properly by offering something that is obviously NOT a rule, but changeable and/or unreadable.

So what is YOUR ruler that you line up with? For most people it is the thought/feeling of the moment. Pretty sad.

[Mike]

That's why no one version or translation is my "only rule for faith and practice." The "rule" is to allow the Bible to interpret itself, as VPW claimed to do. As I said, many of his wrong doctrines have been proven wrong using the VERY KEYS HE TAUGHT.

My "rule" is that NOBODY can claim to have all the answers from God, just as no one member of the Body has completely manifested Christ in every area of their life. But the "Big Picture" which forms the context and pattern for understanding the rest of it is more solid than you think. God has given us His Word and has preserved the Scriptures in a remarkable way, compared with any other ancient writing. And more people are starting to get the "Big Picture" without relying on one Teacher to put it together for them.

It sounds to me that you don't really have a rule, but you play it loosey goosey, like RumRunner just fully admitted.

A RULE is something that we "line up with."

A rule is someTHING that we "line up with."

A rule is something that we "LINE up with."

(how THAT for use of ALL-CAPS all you English teachers?!)

It seems to me you, Mark, don't have a substantial rule as it was defined in our past, just whatever you presently think is right. It is a rubber ruler that flops around with your latest hot research. It's not something bigger than you that you line up with.

In science, the idea of a "standard" is very similar to this. In fact, for decades the "rule" for linear measure was a bar if iridium located in Paris, and that was the standard for the metric system, the meter. They eventually replaced this with something even better and hard core.

If scientists were to use a loosey goosey standard for the meter, the world would fall apart in no time.

[What The Hey]

NOTE TO MODERATORS

Thank you for quelling the straying from the topic.

I'm doing my best to stay on topic, and respond to people's posts addressed to me.

It's this sticky issue of how slippery an "only rule for faith and practice" is that drove VPW to almost throw in the towel 2 days before the 1942 snowstorm.

What God offered him by way of the snowstorm was a RULE that he'd never have to bend, ie, the revelation/teaching God would provide for him IF HE WOULD TEACH IT TO OTHERS.

It is for THIS reason I am posting ON TOPIC with this "only rule" stuff. I'm trying to show what was going on in VPW's mind as he sensed a need for an unbendable rule, something he'd "never have to back up on" as he prayed to God and heard the voiced and received the snow as confirmation.

THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE regarding "VPW and the Snowstorm" which is the title of this thread.

Thank you for quelling the straying from the topic.

Here's the rub I think most people are having with this, that is, that God provided the revelation/teaching exclusively and strictly to VPW and to nobody else. I for one, don't believe this to be the case. The deal God made with VPW was He would teach him IF he would teach others. It seems the deal breaker in this situation would be that God wouldn't teach him the Word if he wouldn't teach it to others.

What I am basically saying is the revelation/teaching that God provided for VPW was strictly upon a conditional bases - that is, if we are to go by that statement alone. If that is the case, then the revelation/teaching could only be made availble to VPW IF he would teach others and it wouldn't be available if he didn't.

So the real question that must be answered is, did VPW teach others the Word of God or didn't he? (VPW certainly wouldn't have accomplished the things he did during his lifetime if he re-negged on the deal he made with God if you ask me.)

[What The Hey]

.... And more people are starting to get the "Big Picture" without relying on one Teacher to put it together for them.

Why is it then that for most people the "big picture" turns out to be just another Picasso Dora Maar au Chat when it comes to Christianity? (See post above.)

Edited January 15, 2009 by What The Hey

[RumRunner]

It sounds to me that you don't really have a rule, but you play it loosey goosey, like RumRunner just fully admitted.

If scientists were to use a loosey goosey standard for the meter, the world would fall apart in no time.

I admitted Mikey?!?! You are rather arrogant and you would never make a scientist nor even a modicum of an undergraduate researcher. Nor are you a critical thinker and worse your posts are even less than critical - they are a poor attempt at self justification for your failure to acknowledge that you were bu((sh@t into a cult. Why do I say that? Because I am a scientist - a real one - paid for it - and your fallacious attempts at twisting and turning would not pass an undergraduate class in logic.

Now of course I expect your classic response - a 4 yr old attempt to explain your great insight into the blue book.

Go away Mike - just get a job as a comedian or something - it would suit you well - or perhaps you should just get a job pumping gas at a convenience store.

[Mike]

Here's the rub I think most people are having with this, that is, that God provided the revelation/teaching exclusively and strictly to VPW and to nobody else.

Yes, this bothers many. Not me, any more.

Paul was given the exclusive DIRECT revelation of the mystery, and then he put it into written form so OTHERS could have it.

I think it's the same way with PFAL. VPW was the only one to get it directly, but now we have it in print.

All through the ages God had to find ONE person to get His revelation into print, and it seems that one person never met the criteria of his contemporaries. God looks at different things than people do. His ways are not our ways. If it were up to me I'd not have chose VPW for the job, but what do I know?

I admitted Mikey?!?! You are rather arrogant and you would never make a scientist nor even a modicum of an undergraduate researcher. Nor are you a critical thinker and worse your posts are even less than critical - they are a poor attempt at self justification for your failure to acknowledge that you were bu((sh@t into a cult. Why do I say that? Because I am a scientist - a real one - paid for it - and your fallacious attempts at twisting and turning would not pass an undergraduate class in logic.

Now of course I expect your classic response - a 4 yr old attempt to explain your great insight into the blue book.

Go away Mike - just get a job as a comedian or something - it would suit you well - or perhaps you should just get a job pumping gas at a convenience store.

Sorry. I thought you did admit that your only rule was yourself.

So what IS your rule that you measure things by? A Library of Congress number would suffice.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Mike

[Mike]

Go away Mike - just get a job as a comedian or something - it would suit you well - or perhaps you should just get a job pumping gas at a convenience store.

Actually, I'm self unemployed and clean windows at several gas/convenience stores an love it, and I do stand-up comedy on Open Mics for free. I get a few laughs. I also am permitted to hang out occasionally with real scientists. It's all quite fun.

[What The Hey]

Yes, this bothers many. Not me, any more.

Paul was given the exclusive DIRECT revelation of the mystery, and then he put it into written form so OTHERS could have it.

I think it's the same way with PFAL. VPW was the only one to get it directly, but now we have it in print.

All through the ages God had to find ONE person to get His revelation into print, and it seems that one person never met the criteria of his contemporaries. God looks at different things than people do. His ways are not our ways. If it were up to me I'd not have chose VPW for the job, but what do I know?

Let's just assume for a moment what the outcome would have been if VPW decided to never teach the Word of God to others at all. Would God still have taught VPW "the Word like it wasn't known since the 1st century?" Personally I think the outcome would have been very different. For one thing, I'm pretty sure none of us would be here chatting or having any kind of discussion like this on this board.

[sirguessalot]

Actually, I'm self unemployed and clean windows at several gas/convenience stores an love it, and I do stand-up comedy on Open Mics for free. I get a few laughs. I also am permitted to hang out occasionally with real scientists. It's all quite fun.

funny...being a little familiar with your life...i was thinking the same thing

...especially about the gas stations and comedy

[Mike]

Let's just assume for a moment what the outcome would have been if VPW decided to never teach the Word of God to others at all. Would God still have taught VPW "the Word like it wasn't known since the 1st century?" Personally I think the outcome would have been very different. For one thing, I'm pretty sure none of us would be here chatting or having any kind of discussion like this on this board.

In a parallel universe, where VPW decided not to teach, I'm a UFOologist trying to get my book on the History Channel.