What The Hey

-----------------------------------------

In PFAL, Wierwille notes the distinction between "thoroughly" and "throughly."

In truth, the latter is an archaic form of the former. They mean precisely the same thing (Wierwille failed to follow his own principle of interpreting words according to their Biblical usage).

We already know and understand that when men take biblical words and "use them" in modern day nomenclature, they often and they do become degraded. Example: Throughly = thoroughly is no more equal to each other biblically than the word idios = idiot -- because contemporary nomenclature would likewise tell us "idios" is the archaic form of the former: idiot.

Discussion: We understand and acknowledge that Wierwille was trying to teach the principle of reading that which is written. That principle is valid, and this is a good example of the need to read the Bible carefully. But Wierwille was in error when he explained the distinction between "thoroughly" and "thoroughly."

There is no distinction.

(from "Actual errors in PFAL)

Anybody can make any kind of assertion or claim they want, for the true biblical meaning of idios is: "private" or "one's own".

But one would do well to remember the "Actual errors in PFAL" were also written initially by: idios-es.

According to the argument you have just presented: "There is no distinction", we are now able to correctly and likewise conclude that all (without exception) the idios-es who brought us these "Actual errors in PFAL" = idiots!!!

I certainly see how there is no difference now.

Thank you so much for correcting me on this point: "There is no distinction" there.

(I also believe a part of Mr. T-Bones recent accusations of: "vp's plagiarism, Scripture twisting, and re-defining words [exemplified by one of vp's "disciples" in post # 1011] was under God's direction." - the part that I highlighted in blue has now been addressed futher. Whether or not he acknowledges that is another story.)

So then,Mike-----

Just how DOES God use the word all?

Here is how (and this is just one of many examples we were given in PFAL - but I think it was by far the best one):

John 12:32

And I [Jesus] if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

As Dr. W. explained in PFAL: Now, has everyone in your community been drawn unto the Lord Jesus Christ? Of course they haven't. So here the word "all" would not be all without exception, (because not everyone in your community has been called or believes on the Lord Jesus Christ) but rather, all with distinction - "all" those whom the Lord has called - all those whom he has disctinctly called.

This is a prime example where we don't allways (pun intended) think critically when we often read the scriptures, or even in our conversations with one another. Another prime example would be in the usage of the words "throughly" and "thoroughly" - as we were also shown in II Timothy 3:17:

That the man of God may be perfect, throughly (it's not the word thoroughly, there is no "o" between the letter h and the letter r) furnished (the word for furnished here should be perfected. The word is exartizo, it is the adverb. The word "artios", translated "perfect" is the noun while exartizo is the adverb, so to be consistant in our translation then the word should have been translated: "perfected". i.e. perfect, throughly -that is, through and through and throughly perfected unto all good works).

I recall there was a discussion a while back on GSC where someone had said these words "throughly" and "thoroughly" mean the exact same thing. Perhaps they do in our modern day nomenclature, but not according to the Word of God. Dr W. addressed the same remark in PFAL ... He said, "Now that's what you're going to say (that is, that throughly and thoroughly mean the exact same thing - and of course, people still think these words mean the same thing today) but that's not what I'm going to say. Then he goes on to demonstrate how one can wash their hands "thoroughly" but one cannot wash their hands throughly because throughly implies an inside job.

Dr. was actually making a reference to the gift of holy spirit here in this segment of PFAL, teaching us how the holy spirit would be the one doing the cleansing - and of course, it would not be thoroughly, but rather be done throughly, because the cleansing by way of the holy spirit always starts as: "an inside job." Of course, there are still pleny of Pharisee's who only cleanse the outside - or "the flesh" thinking it somehow results in a spiritual cleansing.

We miss an awful lot when we just "blow stuff off" and we don't bother to stop and think critically about the words we often use - so why would it be any different when we come to reading the scriptures? If we would only stop, slow down, and think more carefully about what we read (and even what we say) we might (as I had stated earlier) be able to get a better understanding of the heart of the matter. This is where it begins - that is, in one's ability to manifest the more than abundant life for themselves.

My point here was not that the Greek had no value. My point was that it's way too easy to get lost in the minutiae without really understanding the heart of the matter.

It's entirely possible for someone to know it all and be able to recite it all - even practice it all perfectly, and yet not have the slightest clue about reaching people and caring for them.

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.

Mike's referring to one of the last teachings vpw did.

I shall summarize what he said, very simply.

A) There's no real truth out among other Christians.

What do you mean by "real truth" exactly? Are you impling there is this "un-real truth" out among other Christians?

The bottom line is: One either has the Word of God or they don't.

And ... if they do have it (or they think they have it) then for them it's merely a question if the W.O.G. they have is rightly-divided or not.

One might hold the Word of God, but the only question that really matters is this one: Does the Word of God hold them?

B) The greatest thing to do is to serve people.

I think that largely depends on exactly what is being served and if one can "stomach" it or not. Regardless, one can't serve others until they first have something to serve, can they?

C) [Part A.] The greatest thing to serve people is God's Word, [Part B.] via twigs and pfal classes and twi functions.

Part A: I still believe is correct, considering one already has the Word of God, the Word of Truth to serve to others, but --

Part B - who says serving God's Word has to be done via twigs, pfal classes and TWI functions? Believe it or not, some of us are already doing "Part A".

But we are not looking to rebuild the vestages of TWI nor are we looking to re-live the by-gone era's (TWI-1, TWI-2 or TWI-3) of Dr. VPW's ministry.

That is why we are only interested in those who want to live in the truth of God's Word (i.e. doing Part A)- not live in the nostalgia of TWI (i.e. doing Part B). (Which is all people can really only ever do here at GSC - both the good and the bad of TWI. That is the reason why people here can't recall exactly what was what, and then usually end up arguing with others over exactly what was what.)

D) The greatest preparation to do that is to study the pfal books and classes.

One can also study recipies, but that doesn't make someone a cook, nor does it imply they will ever cook or serve anybody anything they have cooked. (I think rascal likes all that "pre-cooked fast food" though - even has plenty to give away.) Kind of like someone studying PFAL books and taking PFAL classes. But what it really all boils down to is just this: "Exactly what is it ya got cookin'?"

(I'll pass on the liver and the sauerkraut most people got and all the other "left-over's" they are still hanging onto from TWI. You see, I just don't have "the stomach" for it.)

Jesus loves me. Does he love you? Good question.

"Ola Brunkert was found dead late Sunday at his home in the town of Arta on Spain's Mediterranean island of Mallorca", a Civil Guard spokeswoman said. "Police believe Brunkert may have fallen against a glass partition separating his home's kitchen from the garden, and the glass broke and fatally cut his throat", she said.

He was found in the garden and is believed to have bled to death, she added. An official cause of death is pending until after an autopsy. (Al Goodman, CNN)

Full article here: ABBA drummer dies in apparent accident

It's been noted here long ago,

but it begs repetition here,

the red drapes were removed from the book version.

Perhaps it was, but the red drapes story used in PFAL was only used to illustrate the 4th point of "How to Recieve from God" - i.e. getting your needs and wants parallel. Now I can't say for sure if that 4th point is mentioned in the book version or not as I no longer have the PFAL book.

In fact, in PFAL VPW states that there are only 3 things one really needs to know in order to receive anything from God. They are:

1. What's available.

2. How to recieve it.

3. What to do with it after you got it.

VPW then says (verbatim) in PFAL, basically these are the only 3 things one needs to know in order to recieve anything from God. Then he states: But I want to take you just a step further. That is when he goes on and addresses step #4 -- Needs and Wants parallel, and then step #5. God's ability equals Gods willingness.

The general concensus in TWI for many years was all 5 steps are needed for one to receive anything from God. But VPW stated himself in PFAL that only the first 3 steps were ever needed. Now many people in TWI took those steps and turned it into this - "5 step formula to receive anything from God" when the only reason VPW ever brought up and mentioned steps 4 and 5 was because those were possible hindrances to someone receiving from God. He just wanted to make sure his students understood what could possibly hinder their ability to receive from God.

The PFAL class was/is a whole lot simpler than what the majority of people made it out to be. Most people wanted this "5-step formula" that worked with a "mathmatical exactness and scientific precision" each and every time - but in the end only complicated the process. Why? Because we've got to show everyone just how smart and intelligent we are about the things of God.

Now people are discussing and wanting to know if whether or not "those stowries" that were told by VPW in PFAL are "fact or fiction" - complicating the process even further. There's a thread on GSC now discussing it. I guess some people still think they have to show everyone just how intelligent they are about the things of God and how to receive them. No thanks. I'll pass on discussing the issue further since most people here have already complicated the 3 initial steps that were taught to them in PFAL. (I'm having my own PFAL review before I take anybody's word here at GSC as being "the PFAL truth". Thanks Mike.)

He makes a lot more sense than some preachers I know of.

The essence of this thread is not about what the "other" minister said at the boy's funeral, it's about Wierwille telling us that the mother's fear killed the little boy.

In fact, just to demonstrate how citing the words of this minister at the funeral is being used a diversionary tactic, try leaving that part of the story out and read it again.

Kinda like when you read a sentence that says "Bobby and me" and you try to figure out if it should say "Bobby and I " by leaving Bobby out of the sentence.

In other words, what the other minister said at the funeral is irrelevant to the point that Wierwille was making .

The only function it(adding the ministers words) serves is to add color to the incident by introducing yet another doctrinal seed of thought.

It is interesting to note how you large sized that type in: "the mothers fear killed the little boy". I assume you large sized that type simply because that is the way VPW allegedly said it (and how we love to use that word lately - allegedly) in PFAL. According to Rascal's response, we allegedly have a normal real mother who was allegedly seeking counsel from this allegedly made up minister by VPW. Of course, VPW allegedly made up the ministers, but the mother from the story is allegedly real! Sorry - can't have it both ways - a "real mother" seeking counsel and speaking with a "made up minister"?

Of course the story of the minister is important, because VPW is contrasting that woman's prayer life (which allegedly is none existant) with the minister's in the story. You can't very well contrast that mother's 'non-existant' prayer life with the minister's prayer life, if we leave him completely out of the story, can we?

People have "assumed" this story is based on the mothers being afraid - of her being terrified that something horrible will happen to her little "Johnny." The story is more about, and it deals with the absence of faith - when we contrast that mothers prayer life with the ministers prayer life in the story.

We have come to assume "fear" always deals with someone being horrified, and being stricken with terror." (Largely due to those Freddie Kruger and Jason movies from Horror-wood I imagine). But biblically speaking, fear does not necessarily mean one is horrified or terrified. Biblically speaking, it (fear) means the absence of faith. One does not necessarily have to be horrified or terrified to have an absence of faith, although an absence of faith may lead one to that end result - hence the reason for that mother's actions in the story.

In the Advanced Class.........the ALLEGED *stories* took on a higher ante wherein wierwille battled the forces of evil......the white-heart/black-heart story.....the shutting down the psychic at the county fair......the secret revelations that wierwille has YET to tell a soul.

Where is WhiteDove??.....when THESE alleged versions surface and not one witness or one shred of evidence is in sight????

Boy, how people really love to use that word: ALLEGED! Well - two can play that game.

Allegedly speaking, all these alleged people allegedly already know what they are alledgedly talking about - while all the other alledged people here they allegedly argue with over those alleged stories allegedly don't.

You left out part of that account, yourself, WTH--the part that was actually being discussed!!

Nope, I didn't leave that part out. That part was already addressed.

"You know what killed that little boy!"

Trying to change the subject to the error of the minister at the funeral doesn't matter in this conversation.

Sure it matters, when comparing the two ministers in the story. But nothing in this story was changed. I just brought to the table the part that got left out. Both minisiters have it, but the mother doesn't. Did you catch it? I didn't think so. You were too busy being offended I guess.

Did that mother kill her son by her believing WTH???

What do you think? Here's a big hint. Contrast that mothers life and her frustrations with her one son and the life of the minister who has multiple children but is not frustrated and living abundantly. What do you see in that ministers life that is not in that mothers life? (It's a four letter word that begins with a "p" and end with a "y"). We also see the same thing in the minister at the funeral giving the euology, so we can't leave him completely out of the story. That minister has the same thing the first minister with the multiple children has, but he just has a different type.

i'm not sure i got that quote exactly correct, but it's close eh ?

tonight i was driving on an overpass which i drive over every day

when i was in 6th grade, billy walls got hit and killed by a car when he riding his bike on the sidewalk of that overpass. i think of him each time i drive by the spot

he was an only child and his mom had him "later in life" (for all i know, she was younger than i when i had my only son)

i will never ever forget her face at the wake and funeral. i was like 11, and to me, she looked like her life was over

i hope she never took pfal

my mom did take pfal (for me) because i begged her to. after the class was over i couldn't wait for her to tell me what she thought and pretty much the only thing she said was how upsetting the thing was about how worrying about your kids could bring them harm....

(there are 9 of us, at present we are ages 43 to 53)

--

now i'm a mom of an only child and i worry so much about my precious boy

--

HOW DARE WIERWILLE TEACH THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH WORRY ABOUT YOUR BABY, YOUR LIFE !!!!!

how unloving, how cruel, how disgusting, i don't even have the words

--

okay thank you for letting me rant

love,

OK, rant on if you want to, but here is fine example of people who only remember half a story (or the part they want to remember of it) and are offended by the part they remember. Here's the other half of that story from PFAL - the part most people don't rememeber (I placed that part in bolded text below - from PFAL):

---------------------------------------------------

Years ago I knew a minister whose wife had passed away and he had seven or eight children. I just do not recall how many children. About a year later he married another woman who had four or five of her own. And I suppose this gave it to them cheaper by the dozen, but I'm not sure. But they lived happily together.

And about a block and a half away lived a woman who had just one boy. And this woman who had just this one son was always frustrated, always nervous, always afraid. While this minister and his wife who had this whole bunch of children it just seemed like some how or another nothing ever happened to them. Oh they get a black eye once in awhile, somebody comes home with a bloody nose, but they just lived.

But this one woman with her one son, boy she was a nervous frustrated woman if you ever saw one. And week after week and month after month it got worse.

When her little boy started to kindergarten she used to walk him across the street and put him in the next block where the kindergarten was for fear he might get run over. Afraid he might get hit by an automobile. When he was in the first grade she did the same thing--in the second grade--third grade.

And she called on this minister and she said, "I don't understand why I'm so nervous and so upset all the time. I have just one boy, that's all I have to care. You have got all of these children, some how or other it just seems like nothing ever happens to them and you just live abundantly."

You know what he said to her? He said, "ma'am this is how we operate. We get them around the breakfast table. It's the only time we can get our whole family together. We get them all around the breakfast table and when we have them seated around the breakfast table I do the praying. Everybody's quiet, I pray. And I pray like this: `Lord here we are all together at breakfast; now Lord,' he said, `they're all going out to school and other places today. So what I'm going to do with this family Lord; I give them all to you right now. Amen.' Boy right after you give them to the Lord you say `amen' real quickly because you don't want to take them back." He relinquished them to the Lord. Literally, he just let go and let God and those children just did amiably.

About a year and a half or two later this son of this woman was coming home from school early once. Mother hadn't met him at the street across the block. He came home from school and they were living on a road where not more than three houses were located at the time. And when they came back from school that day the boy walked out in that street and got hit by an automobile and killed outright.

I went to the service of that boy and you know what the minister preached on? That God now had another rose petal in heaven. My God people! To think of it, that God Almighty, who created the heavens and the earth, that he should want to kill a little boy like that because God needed another rose petal in heaven. Oh my God when are we going to learn something? That's blasphemy!

--------------------------------------------------

Now you have the other half of this story. What should we say of the minister who said God now had a nother rose petal in heaven? I'd like to think, to put it in your own words:

how unloving, how cruel, how disgusting, i don't even have the words

--

okay thank you for letting me rant

Actually, most Christians I know manage just fine refraining from:

"adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like."

Really? Just what fantasy world are you living in? In Matthew 5:28 Jesus said, "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath commited adultry with her already in his heart." I'm sure this must also be one of your favorite pet verses that you use to condemn VPW and others you don't like, but amazing how all the verses you come up with and use to condemn VPW (and those you don't like) just don't apply to any of those 'most Christians' (I imagine this would also include yourself) that you are referring to.

...

IF vpw repented, THEN he acknowledged what he did and sought to make amends. We've asked throughout the years. Not ONE person has come forth claiming they were wronged by vpw in any of the ways on that list, and he even APOLOGIZED, let alone attempted to make amends. There was no "we will need to clean the morals of the ministry, starting right here" attempt from vpw. All he would have needed to do is say it any time he was at the microphone. People would have IMMEDIATELY taken it as a dire warning needing IMMEDIATE action. There was no finding any of his personal victims and asking forgiveness, or offering of amends. There was no sign of ANYTHING that accompanies actually REPENTING of something.

What makes you suspect he MIGHT have repented them? The closest he got was, in his final few days, claiming he was trying to figure out where he missed it-where his believing was off. That's nowhere near even admitting he did ANY of the things any NEUTRAL observer would object to.

Who are we to judge him? We are Christians who believe the Bible- and therefore, we exercise our senses

that's probably an accurate asssesment - since you are merely using your flesh to determine spiritual things, but do not use spiritual things to discern spiritual things

to discern good and evil. [The only possible outcome and conclusion: One's assessment of what constitutes good and evil is therefore flawed when they choose to exercise their senses (their flesh) to evaluate spiritual matters.]

If a man performs evil-and makes a POLICY of it- the man is evil, and we can discern that.

And if a man performs good and makes a POLICY of it (I assume what you really meant to say was "habit" and not "policy") - then that makes the man good? According to the logic you are presenting --- it would. Funny though. God's Word states, "There is no one who is good - except God Himself". (Matthew 19:17) Jesus Christ himself didn't even claim to be "good" because he also said in that verse -- "Why callest thou me good"?

NOW IF ANYBODY HAD THE RIGHT TO CLAIM TO BE TOTALLY GOOD, CERTAINLY IT WOULD BE THE LORD JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF ... but he didn't even claim that for himself!

Yet the scriptures also state that Jesus Christ was tempted in all things. I guess Jesus must have committed adultry then himself, because back in Matthew 5:28 he said if a man looketh on a woman to lust after her he had already committed adultry in his heart - and Jesus Christ himself was tempted in all things. Therefore I don't buy your assesment of what constitutes good and evil, namely because it is based on one's own exercising of 'the senses'. Based on ones "exercising of their senses" to determine good and evil, I'd say one will always come up on the short end - or miss the mark greatly as we can likewise accuse Jesus himself of falling short of being a "good man" --- based soley on what we believe constititutes good and evil from our own "exercising of the senses".

So the only conclusion, by the senses, would be the same conclusion the disciples of Jesus also came to in v.25 ... "When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? (v.26)

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

----

==========

A) The only reason anyone says Romans is "foundational" compared to Galatians is that vpw said it. You have failed to establish his credibility on this. Therefore, your claim Romans is more "foundational" is unsupported.

I didn't claim Romans was 'more' foundational than Galatians. It is only foundational in the sense it establishes (as stated in Romans 5:13) For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." Therefore in order for one to recognize sin, one must likewise recognize the law. HOWEVER the latter part of v.20 of Romans 5 is interesting to note: "But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." So which of these two is therefore the greater, the law (by which one can only recognize sin) or grace?

B) I believe that we SHOULD spend some time in Romans.

So do I, but back up to chapter 5 of Romans first before you head on into chapter 6, because Grace is what abounds - not the law.

Romans 6:

1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

Logically, this verse is telling us this abundance of grace does not come by continuing in sin, but through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which has been established in chapter 5 of Romans.

2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

We are dead to sin because of the work of Jesus Christ, for Christ is the end of the law to all those who believe.

11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

13Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

14For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

15What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

17But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

18Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

19I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

20For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

21What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.

Funny, how you skipped right over verses 22 and 23 of Romans 6 and purposely left them out and proceeded right into chapter 8 all the while leaving Romans 7 completely out of the picture. Maybe because v22 of Romans 6 says this:

v22 "But now being made free from sin [maybe the reason you choose to leave this out is because you don't like the fact that VPW was also made free from sin because of the accomplished works of Jesus Christ?] and become servants to God [it doesn't say servants to Men] ye have your fruit [there's the mention of fruit again] unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

v23 For the wages of sin is death [and man is still paying that wage today - not just VPW] but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord"

You'll have to read Roman 7 here ... because it talks about those who only know the law, and how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth. v1 of Romans 7. Then verse 5 talks about how when we were in the flesh, which was by the law, it only did work in our members to bring forth fruit [there's the mention of fruit again] unto death. Then v6 says, BUT NOW [not sometime in the future - but NOW] we are delivered from what --- grace? NO! We are delivered from the LAW, that being dead wherein we were held, that we should serve in newness of spirit, --- and not in the oldness of the letter. (That would be the law of course.)

Of course, conveniently leaving these verses out of Romans 6 and also leaving out chapter 7 of our study of Romans by WW altogether only ends up stripping this study of Romans of what? GRACE! I guess Professor WW figures that you will only take his word, and not bother reading the Word of God yourself.

Romans 8:

12Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.

13For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Of course, were not just skipping over verses from chapter 6 of Romans, and chapter 7, but also verses in Chapter 8. Verses that tell me that there is no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus (v1) and that the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death (v2).

According to Romans, we have the grace of God.

AND CONDUCT COUNTS. WE ARE TO AVOID SIN.

It seems more to me like what has been purposely avoided here is GRACE by WW and not sin. I've already shown the verses in Romans he purposely left out to avoid having to deal with God's Grace. Maybe because God's Grace is far bigger than his own condescending, condemning mindset?

...blah, blah, blah, ...

It seems that it is much easier to claim, or actually prove one is NOT supposedly born again, than to prove one IS supposedly born again..

I don't think so. The proof someone is born again is simply that they speak in tongues. Of course, it doesn't prove - and that alone certainly isn't enough proof they are a disciple of the Lord and that one can open their heart and trust them with everything. There's a lot of people I know who S.I.T that I don't trust - because they haven't proven or shown me they are truly a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ. Well, a lot of them have tried. They faithfully attend church, they put on a spiritual show and go through a lot of 'spiritual shinanigans - some have even gone so far as to serve inside the church, but simply becoming a "church mouse" doesn't prove and isn't enough to prove to me someone is a disciplined follower of the Lord Jesus Christ.

...

To add something of moderate but possibly questionable substance on the original thread topic -

I don't see it as a big deal that anyone would ever be "offended" by something or someone. Biblically or otherwise, however it's viewed - people, me, you, whoever, are offended by all kinds of things all the time. To me it's a silly topic, on face value. Don't mean to insult anyone, you What The Hey, but honestly - what's the beef with having a beef? Being put out about something that's done?

It sounds like you want to get into everyone's shorts and tell them to stop being offended. Ain't gonna happen.

It seems more to me that everybody here has gotten into "everyone's shorts" and at one time or another have offended others and likewise been offended themselves. I didn't start this thread to discuss how someone should "not to be offended" but rather how to deal with offences when they do come. (Maybe you haven't been paying that close attention to the topic of this thread?)

Of course, that process has been and still is difficult for most because people here keep bringing up the sins of a dead minister and discussing that, rather than discussing this topic - Dealing with offences. If that topic was being discussed, God forbid it might actually lead someone to forgiveness and to forgiving others. But then, that's not the purpose and the reason why most people come and post here on GSC, is it?

...

The rest of what you posted I don't have any problem with.

Laugh yourself silly WTH. The proofs in the pudding....you either manifest fruit of the spirit or fruit of the flesh...

You it seems are bent on excusing fruit of the flesh as unimportant...shrug...that is completely contrary to the scriptures...so be it. I happen to think that galatians 5 is significant.

As far as me?? I never claimed to be a man of God with the word since it hadn`t know since the first century... I tend to expect a little more from someone who makes that claim....And secondly, quite frankly, I don`t believe (if we are to acknowledge the evidence in his life) that wierwille WAS my brother....Jesus said by our fruits would we recognize one another, when asked. And thirdly... I chose to treat him with as much dislike as Jesus did the pharacees and money changers that he chased out of temple and called horrible names.

If that is wrong, at least I was following scriptural instruction...How much scripture did you have to ignore in order to maintain your position?

You should spend more time reading Romans than Galatians, because no one can live up to your interpretation of the scriptures --- for all have sinned and fallen far short. And just how do you know whether or not VPW repented of his sins or not? Just who are you to judge him? You should get that foundational stuff in Romans down first before you head into Galatians and strip it from the grace that it is also presenting.

The question is based on a false premise-

that vpw did NOT care what people thought of him,

based on one statement made in one book,

and SUPPOSED to mean he meant "I don't care what people think of me, period."

.... blah, blah, blah, etc. .....

All that verbage of a reply from WW and he can't even read what is written - or his reading comprehension level is very low. I never claimed VPW didn't EVER care about what people thought of him. I claimed he didn't give a d*** what they thought of him when what they thought of him didn't line up with the Word of God. (Note the emphasis there.)

Thanks Wolf for not letting my point get lost amongst the obfuscation.

Sure, Paul did awful things in the name of God....BEFORE the life changing impact of the new birth.

Wierwille did awful things his entire life.....he never changed...he acted as a man of the flesh....he spent most of his life finding out ways to make the scriptures say what he WANTED them to say....so that he could do as he damned well pleased.

These are not the actions of a man of the spirit...but a man of the flesh that simply claims to be spiritual.

That is why we were told to examine the fruit in someones life...you just can`t tell by what they say, or their works.

No the key words are fruit, and what their presence, or lack of signifies.

You are flat out wrong about the apostle Paul --- and so are all the "self-righteous" legalistic preacher's out there you've been listening to who have been feeding you all that "self-righteous" balony regarding the apostle Paul. The apostle Paul also did awful things AFTER he got born again. Read Romans 7:16-25 if you don't believe me. He didn't write that before he got born again. He plainly talks about the "sin dwelling in him" there in Romans 7:20. Also in Galatians 4:13 and 14 the apostle Paul talks about his "infirmity of the flesh" and then in v.14 he speaks of my temptation which was in my flesh... The bottom line is the apostle Paul did bad things before he got born again, and he also did bad things afterwards. Now the Word of God doesn't go into specific detail what sin or infirmity Paul had was, but let's not sugar-coat the apostle Paul to make his sermon 'holier-than-thou' - much like the 'self-righteous, hypocrite preacher's you've been listening to. Now that's Paul's own testimony of himself from God's Word - so why would anyone in their right mind listen to those 'self-righteous, hypocrite' preachers who just use God's Word to condemn others based on some "pseudo apostle Paul" and that "pseudo Jesus" they continue preaching and shoving down people's throats?

It is the ungodly who want this 'moral Jesus' who is completely stripped of grace. I've run into those types many times myself and I have never come across a more proud and arrogant group of people you would NEVER, EVER want to met!!! I really can't blame the unsaved for calling those 'Christians' hypocrites either - especially if these are the only (ahem) "Christians" they unfortunately happen to encounter. Remarkable --- the Word of God says we are not in the flesh if we are born again!!! (Romans 8:9)

What I find truly laughable is how you keep on talking about someone you don't like as: 'being in the flesh' - all the while being in the flesh yourself - well, to use your terminology. Apparently it's the only terminology you understand, yet the Word of God says: "But he that hateth [dislikes] his brother is in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes. (1 John 2:11). I think that is an accurate assesment from the Word of God. If that darkness hath blinded ones eyes, what does it make them? According to the Word of God it makes one a "blind man" ---- and you're telling me these are the ones leading people out of the ditch they got themselves into? The Christ I know from scripture said something entirely differant about the "blind leading the blind".

Why would I believe the words of a man of the flesh used to justify himself and his fruit??

His dirty little secrets out, vp`s credibility is in the toilet...why on EARTH would I care one iota about what he (or anybody) about thinks of my opinions of his fruit?

OH but you do care about what people think of your opinions, otherwise you (like others) wouldn't try to "convert" those who want to believe that VPW was a real, true M.O.G. It get's pretty comical to watch after a while. Someone comes along and "whitewashes" him - then someone else comes along and "blackwashes" him - back and forth and back and forth we go. It goes down something like this: VPW WAS THE GREATEST APOSTLE SINCE THE APOSTLE PAUL! - NO HE WASN'T! HE WAS THE SPAWN OF SATAN!

What I'd like to know is, since when did VPW (or even the apostle Paul or anybody else for that matter) become the central figure of Christianity?

Frankly, I believe those who condemn him actually admire him more than those who have good things to say about him. The reason those people can't shut up or stop talking about VPW is because he fell just a hair short of being 'God-on-a-stick'. They are ashamed he fell "just a hair short" and they want everyone to know just what a big disappointment he was to them. They aren't happy with the fact their "VPW-GOD" failed them! The only reason they bring all his faults out in the open for everyone to view now -- after he is dead -- is so they can do what --- clear the air --- Why?

Because they want to worship and continue on worshipping a 'VPW-GOD' who is faultless!

(But now after he's dead there's certainly no fat chance of that ever happening. --- Right!)

The adaptation is more of an illusion.

Paul didn`t witness to the ladies promising them deliverance and all the answers to life and Godliness and turn around and tell them that God wanted them to service him sexually. Paul didn`t have his acolyte drug the young women and then rape them. Paul didn`t throw the non compliant from the ministry when they refused. Paul did not destroy lives and tear families assunder at a whim.

Paul was not an alcoholic adultering lying piece of scum, that used the scriptures and the name of God to steal that which was not his after the new birth :(

To attempt to draw a parallell between his life and walk and that of a man of the flesh piece of crap like wierwille who has no inheritance in the kingdom of heaven....is deeply offensive, and damned near blashphemy in my book.

Waysider is right...it was just plain weak.

WAIT JUST A MINUTE --- Let's back up a bit and see how VPW might have responded to those accusations. ----

MY GOD! VPW DID RESPOND TO THEM!! (It's right there in: "Your Power of Attorney" - Volume II, The New Dynamic Church)

Here is what he [VPW] said:

Every person in the world wants a good name. People desire to be well thought of, and rightly so. I [VPW] want to have a good name, and I [VPW] want people to think well of me.

But many people's names today are not respected. A man says to you, "I'll pay you on such and such a day." When that day comes, he does not pay. Someone promises, "I'll meet you at such and such a time." When that time comes, he is not there but has left you waiting. Such a person's name is not respected because he has not put of lying.* (1st Footnote: Ephesians 4:25)

I know that Chirst is in me (2nd Footnote: Colossians 1:27) and I am in Him.** (3rd Footnote: Romans 8:1)

No matter what people may say, no matter what the world may say, my name [VPW] is written in the Book of Life. (p.43 & 44 of TNDC)

That is what VPW had written some time ago - back when he was alive.

Now it would seem to me if VPW had really said what he meant and really meant what he said (to use a common PFAL colloquialism) then I certainly fail to see just how your opinion of him now (or anybody else's opinion of him now for that matter) holds anything or amounts to anything but a bunch of "hot-air".

What's the conclusion?: If people's opinion of him didn't mean a d*** thing to him back when he was alive, ---

WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOUR OPINION OF HIM WOULD MEAN ANYTHING TO HIM NOW THAT HE IS DEAD???

Apparently this is what "your opinion" would have amounted to and meant to him when he was alive since we clearly see how VPW responded in print (3 times in fact with footnotes) to "people's opinions and people's accusations" with the Word of God. (Revelation 12:9,10)

Hang on ma'am!

I'll save you!

I'll just tear my shirt into strips, tie them together, and throw you a line_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

;)

Don't be surprised if the answer coming back will be: [To put it in words of P.D.S.T.R.O.] "NO!, screamed the blind man now's not my time, NO! screamed the blind man I just can't unwind. NO! screamed the blind man I'm not's where that's at. I'm over and I'm under and I'm just not like that."

(From: The Blind Man. I realize this P.D.S.T.R.O. song may be a bit dated for some of you. But then, some things never change.)

i'm here mostly because i'm lonely and like to have people to talk to

That's why some really need to get out more and meet real people.

Ok...you haven`t gone back in years...yet you presume to recommend that people go BACK to a spiritually, morally bankrupt group of people and have a freakin twinky???You personally bet that the boogie man won`t get them???

How dare you presume to offer such potentially harmfull advice about a group that has the track record of twi without any personal knowledge of the groups current spiritual healthiness?

The people have never repented, they have never apologized, they still teach the doctrine manufactered by a mad man, a doctrine that allowed evil to run unchecked...and you recomend we go back for a twinky???

That is rediculous and irresponsible.

Gee, I'd tend to think a twinky would be right up your alley with all those McDonald burger's and pizza you've been feeding the multitude with.

(Maybe some of you will have to see the "note on forgiveness thread" to catch my drift here.)

Maybe that's why they call this place a "vomitorium".

Read the ingredients for what you've just consumed.. you're gonna vomit..

just "too negative" I guess..

When I learned how to read, I once read the ingredients on a package of bologna.. they put some pretty nasty stuff in it in those days.. I never ate it again.

At least some of us realize there are some people here who are --- to put it in your own words, full of ... bologna. ...

Or do you raise it to heaven, bless it and feed the multitude with it like Rascal does?

....

Soooo what do you do WTH? Hand out bean sprouts n tofu?

My meat is to do the will of the Father. What does bean sprouts, tofu, or even pizza and McDonald's burgers have to do with any of that?

I gave what I had, left over pizza from the restaurant I worked at. I gave my own lunch, and if I didn`t have anything to eat, I bought what I could afford, a dollar double cheese burger.

Shrug...I guess that wasn`t good enough.

Of course you want to mention how you raised it to heaven, blessed it and feed the starving multitude with it after they gobbled up your long-winded "Christian-morality" sermon.