What The Hey

America. The land of liberty. That's right. It sure is. We hear everybody shouting, "Give me liberty, or give me death!" (Funny how this is becoming the only liberty American's want.)

Well, don't end up hitting your head on the ceiling darling.

I'm beginning to see the only thing people ever get here is a permanent case of irritable-bowl-syndrome. No wonder some people here are always so cranky.

Are you kidding me? Are you EVEN ready yet for #1? Well hang on tight! Get ready to s h i t your pants!! Here comes the most terrifying, the most spectacular, the most amazing story yet to tell and post about on GSC of what went on in TWI! (Like somebody's really got something "new" to talk about.) Boy. 'It' just keeps on getting deeper and deeper and deeper in here all the time.

Well, you know what they say about opinions don't you? (Opinions are like a**holes. Everybody's got one and they all stink!) Reasonable reconcilliation? I'm sure that is supposed to happen when people insist upon at, and end up on each other. To properly quote WW: It's gonna take some real strong bleach to remove a lot of those "brown stains" don't'ja know.

I suppose you were trying to say something important and worthwhile? Well, just don't wet all over yourself in the process.

That all depends on what it is you're believing - or maybe what you're not believing. (Or are you leading this topic into another thread on believing?)

Oh B.S. He is still running around the block calling "so-and-so" a "possesso" just like the rest of them --- and you still believe these are MOG who teach "The Word" and the way of peace? Give me a fr**king break!

What I am saying is I trust these ex-TWI leaders and what they have to say about each other and about the events that happened "back then" as much as I would trust a 3-dollar bill. Unless you are saying none of them are holding any animosity toward each other at all today. Oh no.

Bullsh**. The Jesus I know also had his hands quite full with hypocrisy and betrayal within his own circle of friends. That Judas fella --- boy, what a wonderful guy he certainly must have been. But somehow we are to believe Ralph D. isn't like any of "these guys" --- especially with his "naming names" and finger pointing and all that here now -- so he certainly must have the correct and real answers to everything that went wrong in TWI. (Funny --- he certainly isn't the first and the only ex-TWI leader we've come across who thinks that way of themselves!) Excuse me, but I've been around the block quite a few times already not to realize what is happening. I know full well when someone is playing politics and using underhanded machinations to make themselves appear and come off to others as "the savior" of the day. (You can save it for yourself, Bxzx. - where x=o. )

Who says we need any hands?

Just what makes you think it wasn't VPW's work to start with and they borrowed from him? What proof do you have it wasn't VPW's work to begin with? Of course, you have to pit VPW against those that he studied the Word of God with to create this "psuedo-rivalry" amongst themselves to make that "psuedo-charge" of plagiarism stick. Yes, it is all clear to us now. Here they are gathered around the table folks with their bibles out studying God's Word together --- and now they are arguing with each other over who initially came up with the characters: Henry Boloko, Maggie Muggins, Johnny Jumpup, Snowball Pete amongst a lot of other things ... BTW, an inventor can improve upon an existing invention and it is still his invention and that invention belongs to him. I am specifically speaking of the improvement which is that persons invention and he isn't under any legal obligation to give credit to the original inventor. (Oh, but I guess it doesn't work quite that way in written published works does it? Then someone must have really goofed-up when they insisted on changing the rules.) Better solutions always require a knowledge of a previous body of work - whether it be technology, a published work, etc. Whatever the previous body of work consists of, it is usually and normally accepted to be: "common knowledge". The "better solution" however is not.

Of course you are only addressing one avenue of one's ability to learn. Here's the avenue you are overlooking: "But I certify you brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11,12) What exactly did Paul mean when he said .. "I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it? ... " Paul must have either read the wrong books and/or listened to the wrong instructors then if the only avenue to learn is by men or being taught by men. There must be another avenue available to be able to make such a claim like that, and thereby make a claim worthy to be put forth as scriptural truth itself ... for he [Paul] said he didn't receive it of man nor was he taught it. Basically that is the only way one can aquire knowledge - receiving knowledge from man or being taught it by man --- unless there is another avenue available for one to aquire knowledge. Now VPW may have claimed to receive it the same way like the apostle Paul had, but he certainly never claimed to be the only one who ever did. (Unless you're trying to make a case that God could only talk to VPW and to nobody else. Not even I believe that one.)

Problems in defining exactly what aspects of Christianty constitute "common knowledge" will always abound. The basic reason for this is because many facets of our faith are shared and they also contain common truths (common knowledge) that are likewise shared by those of different faiths - while at the same time there exists real and distinct basic core differences among those of different faiths and those invovled in different Christian groups. Dr. Wierwille essentially said the same thing in JCING, p.4 of the second edition, i.e. "...we must define our terms. Many people could be misled because while we may be using the same language or words [common knowledge] we may not mean the same thing." Until those of the Christian faith have the desire to come to the place of "defining our terms" then these accusations will persist because while "we may be using the same langauge or words, [common knowledge] we may not mean exactly the same thing." I am sure you have heard it said: "There is nothing so uncommon as common knowledge." We therefore end up asking for standards of behavior that would certainly be wonderful to expect, but no serious man does expect. Yet that is exactly what we expect when we are struggling to maintain our own position of power within our own democratic society. But let's be reasonable. That is not the real world, and this is not what is taking place. I am sure you must have also heard it said, "One does not need to apologize for the truth, one only needs to apologize for error." That phrase was often taken to the extreme to imply the Christian does not need: "Apologetics" or to apologize for the truth. To assume this should always be the case would indeed be a horrible and a grave mistake. Affirmative or positive apologetics answers questions that the Christian has about their beliefs and doctrine, while it proposes arguments for the validity of the faith all while involving the refutation of false teachings within the Church. Without this very important aspect of the faith, the unbeliever may end up finding Jesus but in the process only end up losing their mind. Without it the Christian is going to react with outrage and indignation, hurl imprecations at others, resort to abjurations… What else should we expect?

VPW is certainly no exception to any rule. But here's the rub and why this issue rubs people the wrong way. Copyright law has changed over the years as well as amendments (additions) have also been made to the law - i.e. to accomodate the WWW (internet) for example. The problem that writers often generally run into is with "citing sources", specifically what needs to be or should be cited, and what does not need to be cited. Typically speaking information and ideas that are not your own need to be cited. That's right. Not everything has to be cited. Information that is often refered to as "common knowledge" does not have to be cited. The problem that writers often encounter is defining exactly what constitutes "common knowledege". Common knowledge mainly consists of and is best determined by whom your work is addressed to - or the target audience. Common knowlege is also information that you knew about your subject without doing research. Of course, common knowlege can change depending on one's research and academic level. Something that is well known to a biologist might be new information to you. That is why information circulated among bioliogist's and medical professionals aren't cited, (unless it is new material) but when such information is addressed to someone like you - well, that's an entirely different story. The PFAL collaterals and books were a subset of the PFAL foundational class. They were made available only to those who had a "common knowledge" of the information presented to them - inside the PFAL class. The written "Power for Abundant Living" and "Studies in Abundant Living" books and materials were never made available to the general public - at least it was that way during my tenure with TWI. Those books and materials were NOT sold in the public marketplace. However if TWI is now selling and making the same PFAL books and study materials openly available in the general marketplace (which would be new news to me) they may very well be in violation of the copyright law. That's right. One still can't go down to their neighborly "Barnes and Nobel" store and pick up and buy any of these books today: PFAL, ATDAN, JCOPS, JCOP, JCING, etc., etc., etc. Why do you think TWI still gets all bent out of shape when they find out these books and PFAL study materials are being sold on eBay, etc? It's not because they are violating any copyright laws. It's because they are still trying to KEEP INSIDE the law! --- (As badly messed up as they are today, at least I give them credit for still trying to do something right!) It's those of you who insist on selling the PFAL materials in the public marketplace who are in violation of the copyright law. These materials were never INTENDED to be, and that is why they aren't cited in "academic fashion" (i.e. footnoted, etc.) that would require them to be - especially if these materials were intended for the public marketplace. So quit blaming TWI for your sins!

It appears everyone (I do mean everyone - all without exception) in this class has got their hands raised as to what they believe the correct answer or the conclusion is. Some people have even taken it upon themselves to count all the hands that have been raised. You are all (without exception) wasting your time with counting all (without exception) the raised hands - regardless of how they have been raised - one way or the other - either yea or nay. Maybe you all (without exception) should quit guessing about "the answer", and/or quit looking ahead in the book to locate "the answer" and just ... put down your raised hand! ... for "the teacher" (life) is eventually going to start asking you how you arrived at your conclusion. (Sometimes this place really reminds me of: "Welcome back Kotter". There's always an "Arnold Horshack" somewhere in the croud with their arm fully extended, wildly flinging up in the air (practically ready to .... their paints) saying, Ooh-ooh-ooooh! Pick me!, Pick me! Pick me, Mr. Kotter, Pick me!")

Well I see you responded to my post before I had edited the final version. That was my mistake by hitting the "Submit" button before I had everything in place that I wanted to say. I highly recommend you go back and read the 'edited' version of that post - and try not "looking to far ahead" without gaining an understanding of the material that is being presented to you. We all know what looking ahead without getting a proper understanding of the material that is bering presented results in don't we? It usually results in a less than perfect grade. So we should all (without exception) .... QUIT TRYING TO CHEAT!!

QUOTE i think that your description of vpw borders on idolatry... What exactly does this mean and exactly what is it supposed to prove Mr. Ham? Truthfully it doesn't prove a thing to me - other than the fact "half a dozen other posters" have come to the wrong conclusion. Let me explain why I believe this further. In ninth grade I gave the conclusion and the correct answer to a math question when the rest of the class was completey wrong when applying the same formula. The correct answer to the quesion was "0". The rest of the class had said something else - they all (without distinction) said: "-1". The teacher then asked, "How many of you say the answer is "0"? About half the class had their hands raised, mine included. Then she asked, "How many of you say -1?" There were a few more than half of the class whose hands were raised who said -1. She asked again, "How many of you still say 0? Now there were only 3 hands raised, instead of 8 like before. She asked again, How many of you think it is still -1? Nearly everyone's hands were raised now, except mine. Then she asked again, "How many of you still say 0? Now only my hand was raised. Do you want to know why it was still raised? The reason was I had cheated. I looked in the back of the book to find the correct answer to that math question. That didn't mean I understood how to arrive at the correct conclusion to the math question, I just had the correct answer without having the understanding of how to come to the correct answer. That is exactly where I believe a lot of people are at with the PFAL class today and with the PFAL collateral materials. They cheated and "looked ahead". Of course, we got the correct answer in PFAL - but that doesn't mean we have got the understanding on how to arrive at the correct answer. Now everybody in the class has got their hand raised with some other answer that was already written in the book. The next thing I knew the teacher had started questioning me on how I arrived at the answer. Since I was now the only one in the class left who had said "0" and also because I couldn't give her an appropriate answer (I didn't want to admit I cheated and that I already found the answer in the back of the book) I just said, "Well, I think it could be 0, but I might be wrong." The rest of the class was now looking at me to side with them. I then put down my hand. When she asked for the last time, "How many of you still think the answer should be -1?," then I raised my hand. Of course I would have gotten an A+, that is, before the rest of the class "peer pressured and talked me out" of the correct answer, even when I knew the correct answer by cheating and looking ahead and not knowing how to arrive at the correct conclusion to the math question. All (without exception) I learned from that experience in ninth grade taught me was I should not cave into "peer pressure" - that I should learn how to arrive at the correct answer without cheating and looking ahead. I should gain an understanding of the material that was presented by applying it and workng it for myself - especially if I want to keep an A+ grade I can be proud of.

First off I want to say I have a confession to make, especially to WW. My earlier all with distinction post (post# 1011) was a deliberate and intentional error on my part to find out how many people here still care to read critically - not necessarily what I write, but what is in the "written text" of PFAL. I wasn't even sure if I was even going to get anyone's attention over that error, this: "all with distinction" error, but thankfully we have a critic here who cares to read (well, at least to some extent) exactly what is written --- and here is what I mean by: "to some extent", WW. WW pointed out the error I deliberately made in post# 1011, but he failed to point out the same error that appears earlier in post# 1006. Here is that post again with that same error highlighted in color - just so we don't miss it this time. Know it all -- recite it all -- practice it all. Now here comes the "all" important question: Would that be all without exception, or all with distinction? If one can answer the "all" question, it will "all" lead to a better understanding of the heart of the matter. Here's the problem as I see it folks. My first post, post #1006 making the remark: "all with distinction" was merely an oversight on my part. Yet WW does not speak up and correct the error that appears in the first post - about that apparent oversight. He only speaks up and corrects the error when I bring "PFAL" into the picture - in post# 1011. So what's the difference in the error - since we are apparenty discussing the subject if there is a difference in some words or not? There is absolutely none there. The only difference is this: Post# 1006 is not a threat to his "theological position", yet post# 1011 with PFAL in it is. The reason why PFAL is still very threatening to our "theological position" is because all of us want to be correct in "our doctrine", don't we? We don't want to admit we could be "theologically incorrect" - especially not to ourselves, and certainly not to anybody else! (Somehow we all have this kind of mindset going on thinking, that is: This "God-breathed" doctrine is all mine and it completely belongs to me -- and by god I'm not going to let anybody touch it or tamper with it!!!) Here it is - "All" a bit more clearly, in the written form from the PFAL syllabus: All scripture (nothing less) All without exception (exclusion, omission, debarment) All without distinction (discriminiation) John 3:16,17; 12:32. Romans 5:12. II Corinthians 5:14,15 Ephesians 4:6, Titus 2:11. Hebrews 2:9. 1 John 1:9; 2:2. The above scriptures are but a few examples in the Word of God where the Word of God is refering to: All without distinction (discriminiation), but these particular scriptures are not referring to: All without exception (exclusion, omission, debarment). Going back to that first post, post# 1006 - specifically: "All" is a very important question. If we can answer the "all" question, it will "all" lead to a better understanding of the heart of the matter. I believe that statement to be more emphatic and even more important now than when I first posted the remark, because "all" certainly goes further than the biblical sense/usage I brought up. Need proof of this? We all (without exception) missed it in post# 1006, but not in post# 1011. However my attempt at defining "all" - that is. all with distinction, without going back and checking first to see how it was being used in PFAL accurately, may have thrown some people more off track than what they initially were. "All without distinction" is equivalent to and equals "All without discrimination." That is how "All without distinction" (discrimination) is used in PFAL.