oldiesman

Which proves that if a person wants to engage in a fake, they may do so. Doesn't mean the genuine is fake though.

I tend to agree with the last sentence; that seems logical. But I disagree with the prior paragraph. Comparing what someone thinks is speaking on tongues in 1100 B.C. to what occurred on the day of Pentecost and beyond is folly. That happens when a secular definition of speaking in tongues is made, then someone assumes that all without exception occurrances of speaking in tongues is exactly the same (i.e. essentially meaningless) without taking into consideration that the biblical occurrance of SIT on the day of Pentecost and beyond was totally different and in a totally different context than what occurred in 1100 B.C.

They allowed it up until the early 70's but sometime in the middle-70's quit allowing it. I have a letter from Bo Reahard somewhere in my Way Memorabalia file that explains it.

Quote from the article: I wish this couple well. But folks who pay out lets say $1000 a month for rent, have shelled out about $240,000 in 20 years, with NOTHING to show for it except helping to pay someone else's mortgage. Conversely folks who have a mortgage will pay a little more month to month for maintenance but have offset that with tax deductibility issues, and more importantly, have something to show for it in the end of 20 years. I would say that may make one a better steward of God's money. I wouldn't say it makes you a better citizen, but smarter. Hell yeah.

The premise is false and misleading. TWI written documents from PFAL say: God = The Word Jesus = The Word in the Flesh Bible = The Word in Writing There was nothing about PFAL=The Word. Accuracy is important!

That's not what Skyrider said. His false premise is based on the idea that PFAL=The Word. Not PFAL=An Inroad to The Word. Had he said that from the beginning, I probably would have agreed with him.

I disagree with the premise that TWI promoted PFAL as the god breathed word. Having hung around for 17 years I would have picked that one up for sure. Seems to be just another feeble way to label them as kooks, which I think is unnecessary and unchristian. I still believe there are lots of biblical goodies in PFAL; still believe twi promoted PFAL as keys to unlock the word, but not the word itself. I will say this: I believe that when and where VPW rightly divided the word, we got the true word; but when and where he wrongly divided the word, we got error.

Whatever descriptive word one uses to trash VPW's teachings because of his alleged conduct (pick a word: negate, taint, poison, cancel out, etc.) the thought is pretty clear that the idea is conveyed that the teachings are "**********" because of his sins. This is no strawman because it is at the heart of some folks' belief and feelings. But truth is truth. If VPW said "Jesus is the Son of God" and Mother Theresa said "Jesus is the Son of God" the message that Jesus is the Son of God is not tainted because VPW said it. If one feels differently, one is entitled to ones feelings; but the truth is not "tainted."

I believe differently. Whether or not it is tainted is a subjective conclusion based upon feelings and emotions; not logic and truth. If sin taints truth, I suppose there'd be no bible, no teaching, no preaching as well because all have sinned.

The sins of the teacher does not negate the truths in the teaching.

"tithing is a divinely-assured income tax, paid freely in offerings with love."

This is not patently false. Nobody was ever permanently kicked out of the ministry. if so who? Kicked out of the corps yes, but folks always have been welcomed back if they choose to. Come on guys, we are talking about PATENTLY FALSE VPW one-liners....

There you go again Jim. Howard never said that. He said: "there are no strangers at the way." Accuracy is important!

Is this thread about twi wolves only or all wolves? Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Priests

Here is another I believe to be false: "Tithing is our minimum financial insurance, health and accident insurance."

:)

To be fair, here are a couple of VPW statements that I believe to be patently false: 1 -- "tithing brings wings to life" 2 -- "you cannot afford not to tithe"

No, I stand by my statements. I think this is yet another case of what Mike mentioned previously numerous times, about TVT's (twi's verbal traditions) and how they repeated themselves yet varied from actual written statements from VP. That is why I believe written documentation, when available, trumps the so-called verbal "recollections" because those recollections might be based on inaccurate and mistaken perceptions of former written statements previously written in certain contexts. Bear in mind, the thread title is "VPW's patently false one-liners" so I just quoted written documentation of one statement, and btw that statement came from a certain context. One might as well at least get it accurate in its context before one condemns it. Oh and BTW, I think the two statements are not patently false.

I believe your statements are inaccurate from the get go: #1-- From the PFAL syllabus: "no one rises beyond what he believes and no one believes beyond what he is taught." #2-- "People are to be loved, things are to be used."

Did you read what I wrote above?

That is NOT what he claimed. He claimed the opposite. Taking all his books to the dump one year doesn't mean he didn't learn from other books, sources and materials later, which he did. He did not say "I got rid of all my books and never looked at another one again". that was not the message. God showing him things didn't prohibit men of God being involved in that process. If the message had been "do not read or listen to any source other than myself" your version would fit and make sense but that was not the message.

I agree Mike. Perhaps if there were no clear statement "lots of the stuff I teach is not original" and there were no bookstore items proving in plain english that lots of his stuff came from elsewhere, along with all the verbal statements throughout the years, I would have had the impression way back then that he was receiving his knowledge directly from God Himself without assistance, thereby possibly feeling duped today. But such was not the case, which is why I find these arguments weak.

Ok, not legally; but he made sure that his students knew that lots of his stuff was not original, which admission I believe was most important.

This is simple for me to understand. There was a point in time early in his ministry when he threw away all his books and used only the bible. Years later, he "learned from men of God scattered across the continent". It is easy to see the difference when you look at the time periods involved. What he did NOT say was "I hauled over 3000 volumes to the city dump and used the bible as my only handbook and source for truth and never learned from anyone else". Obviously he did, and said so, when he said "lots of the stuff I teach is not original."

I wouldn't. The very statement "lots of the stuff I teach is not original" disproves him "passing it off as his own" or at least portraying that his stuff was original. What stuff was or was not original does not matter; the very fact that he said lots of his stuff was not original means he is not hiding the fact that lots of his stuff IS NOT ORIGINAL. Folks can believe what they want; I have written proof that satisfies me. At the very least his statement weakens your argument considerably.