waysider

Oh, O.K. Our equivalent would be ".pizz off".

Wow! It's like Lawrence Welk on quaaludes.

Speaking only for myself, I don't mind when threads go off on tangents...as long as the tangents aren't meant to deliberately change the topic. I think we've all seen our share of those. But having a little peripheral fun? I'm cool with it. BTW: In the U.S., we say "bug" off. (Like when you chase away a pesky mosquito or something.) Close enough for me, though.

Now you've hit on something important! People here really do understand that aspect of it all. You see, its all interwoven... the word, The Way, VP, LCM, etc. What makes you think what you call *the word* isn't really just what VP wanted you to think it is? The PFAL Class, the Intermediate Class, the Advanced Class, for that matter, all the peripheral classes, as well, are jam packed with documentable errors. Geeze, I mean even VP's system for separating truth from error is filled with error. You're using a broken ruler to check the accuracy of another ruler...What could possibly go wrong? (/s)... I can tell you from experience, simply throwing scriptures at a problem is no remedy for the curve balls life throws at us.Don't even get me started on *the law of believing*. We'll be here until Happy Ho Ho. On a side note: If you have a specific doctrinal issue you wish to discuss, we have a forum for that toward the bottom of the page. Yep, you guessed it, it's called the doctrinal forum. You are more than welcome to start a new thread or reopen an existing thread that addressed one of the doctrinal points you raised. Just be civil and all will be cool. Meanwhile, the topic at hand here is discussing the similarities of Stile's book with Wierwille's, as well as the differences..

Well, if he did, he wasn't listening very closely because both books contain academic errors.

Seriously? As a pilot, you almost certainly have a post-secondary level of education. Am I correct in that? How can one possibly advance one's education without a thorough understanding of academic honesty? No matter. You can use the search window here to find several threads where we discussed plagiarism in great detail.

No, they're not similar. By literary standards, they are identical. One was published in 1948, the other in 1972. That's called plagiarism. If you are not familiar with what constitutes plagiarism, we would be glad to enlighten you. If two high school books did this, it would still be plagiarism.

I thought we passed that point in the discussion. I have to assume you may be afraid of what that link reveals. Hiding your head in the sand (avoiding that link) does not make reality go away. And, yes, I'm glad I'm not you, too.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth so I'll ask you forthright... Are you trying to say that, because he was human and all humans make mistakes, that it was o.k. for him to blatantly steal (yes, I said steal. Plagiarism is theft.) the works of other men and claim that God gave them to him? Did you even examine at the comparison I posted? I suggest you do so before you proclaim you know what it contains.

The focal topic of this thread is comparing Stile's book to Wierwille's book and noting the inordinate similarities. Perhaps you missed the link that details the similarities. Here it is for your perusal: http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_stiles.htm Your comment on the comparison is welcome.

How do you figure that? You say a leader's *works of the flesh* are not important. The scriptures emphatically contradict that. As to believing The Word: Whose version are we to believe? Wierwille's version is filled with inaccuracies and private interpretation. If you don't believe that, I suggest your give this site a much deeper look instead of just flying by, convincing yourself we're all misguided.For example: did you even bother to compare the sections of Stile's book and Wierwille's book? That is, after all the topic being discussed. Perhaps you might comment on why they seem to be so similar. Finally, this isn't a Christian site, though many of the posters are Christians. Some are not. All religious persuasions (or lack thereof) are welcome to post here, as long as they keep it civil and follow the rules.

On this point, you and I are in disagreement. I never raped anyone or looted vast amounts of other men's work, claiming God had given them to me by revelation, claiming it was material that hadn't been known for 2,000 years. I, for one, see no need to continue sweeping VPW's dirty secrets under the carpet. Why worry about people's flesh? Well, I would think that a man of high caliber, such as yourself, would have remembered those sections of scripture that talk about a leader being beyond reproach or those sections that talk about how a man is known by his fruit. Oh, sure, we could go 'round and 'round about forgiveness and sonship rights and all that sort of thing. Personally, I think that would be an exercise in futility if it's tempered with rationalization and cognitive dissonance. Have a nice flight!

I thought Eddie and Donna looked pretty good for their age. They always treated me well. I can't really say anything bad about them, EXCEPT, I can't believe they still align themselves with this bunch of morons.

Ya know, for people who make their living selling soap, they don't seem to be very good at getting clean.

Bingo!

More like Dystopia.

Now THAT I can believe.

Still pushing that law of believing nonsense, I see. Nothing has changed.

Date and switch...1972...45 years ago...TWI didn't simply *go bad* over time, it was a cesspool of deception from the beginning.

Having trouble finding it? It's probably still in your MAL-PACK.

Yeah, well, we also thought he was some kind of spiritual guru. Who knows what was really in the mind of the old geezer?

To this I would like to add: In the real military, you actually GRADUATE from boot camp. I'm just sayin'.

Hi, rrobs! You forgot to put that little "/s" after your post. (Happy to help however I can.) edit: Oh, if only there was some way to check all that stuff Wierwille taught us.

As far as I know, Oral Roberts was the first to teach it in the 1950's as part of his famous "The Fourth Man" sermon. You can listen to it HERE. The Red Thread begins at about 37:30. It may very well predate Oral Roberts but I'm not aware of any evidence to that effect. edit: I remember Wierwille teaching this sermon at the Advanced Class in 1973 as if it was his own. I don't recall him ever giving credit to Roberts. Maybe he did and I missed it. It was along time ago.

Ladies and gentlemen, please rise and join us in The San Antonio National Anthem.