Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


WordWolf last won the day on September 24

WordWolf had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

WordWolf's Achievements


Mentor (12/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • First Post Rare

Recent Badges



  1. The Aramaic interlinear that twi published showed the changed position- it was written as a question. Lamsa was never the expert in Palestinian Aramaic of the first century as he would hold forth- so his claim that this "would never" have been written as a question was without merit. As a rhetorical question, it carries the same meaning Lamsa wanted to claim- and accurately reflects the text. Other than that book showing the correct translation, I'm unaware of twi actually correcting anything, and I don't know what they say if someone asks. I DO know they tend to get very defensive if asked about things where someone has to admit even a small mistake, so I think the official policy is still "launch a personal attack on anyone who asks about this, and get evasive as to the actual answer." That's the experience most people got when asking about obvious errors, whether corrected or otherwise.
  2. OldSkool: "Now flip the script and imagine how bad Mike would freak out if someone plagaraized wierwille and took his materials, rebranded them, claimed ownership, and claimed God almighty had chosen him over everone else incliding wierwille over the past 2000 years to teach all of it because it hadn't been known since the apostle Paul. " Mike: "I would rejoice if others heard the same truths, re-branded, and were in the same heavenly family with us. You have no idea how I think. That is because you are not willing to listen to me. You only look for ammunition in my words that you can shoot at me. " WordWolf responds: Mike, you've previously commented how it was a big deal how the pfal book copyrights had to be respected. You've made a big deal about ideas that lauded vpw to the skies and made a big deal about him getting all the credit to which you feel he is entitled. That's how you've claimed you thought PREVIOUSLY. Have you changed positions? It sounds like you have, but haven't told us- and blame us for thinking you're still holding your PREVIOUS position. We listened to you before and understood. Your insistence that people only read your posts for ammunition is unrealistic. It doesn't reflect reality. This is hardly news by now.
  3. Mike: "I purposely do not copyright my writing, even my comedy and science and hippie-history writing. I think I do this for the same reason VPW never copyrighted the SNT teaching tapes, and the film class. I never saw a copyright notice in the film class until aroung 1982, and I was the Branch AV guy for many years. I am into the ideas." WordWolf responds. vpw made sure there were copyright notices on every book his "American Christian Press" printed, especially when it was materials with his name on them- allegedly with vpw as the author, as they said. vpw was very interested in asserting his copyrights on all of them. So, there's a disconnect. Why did vpw make sure ALL the print stuff had a copyright, but the audio tapes/ video tapes did not- until later? There's basically 3 possibilities. 1) vpw had some complicated reason where the completed, edited books should not be reproduced, but the tapes, often off-the-cuff, were supposed to be fair game for copying and that was actually intentional. 2) vpw had no idea that audio-video materials, like printed materials, were subject to copyright and could have/should have had copyrights asserted for them, whereas with the books, he'd known that for many decades. 3) God Almighty, for reasons known only to Him, told vpw to copyright everything in print from American Christian Press, but told vpw to leave copyright off of the audio tapes/ video tapes. I think the answer is obvious to ALMOST everyone. Mind you, if the whole intention was to inject pfal into the public by making it public domain, it was incredibly inconsistent because the collaterals had copyright from the beginning, so the printed pfal books were NEVER in the public domain. So, God Almighty was inconsistent in that, or vpw was inconsistent in that, or that was never the intention. I think the answer is obvious to ALMOST everyone.
  4. I got to thinking about this with one poster, but, really, this thread is fair game for posters to post that they've changed previously-held positions, or left previous positions, or abandoned previously-held positions, and so on. So, it's open for all posters. However, I was thinking about all of this because of a specific poster. So, I shall get specific. Mike, you've previously held a number of positions on things that you may have changed or reversed. In the interest of finding out if we now agree on them, I'm asking for you outright IF you've changed positions, and, if so, on what you've changed. I've included a few examples I'm curious about, things you've previously espoused but may no longer claim. -vpw was "born with an overabundance of brains and brawn", was "OVERgifted", and "where he walked, the earth shook." - When Jesus returns, he will be holding a copy of the Orange Book and be teaching from it. -Jesus is "very interested in pfal." -God told vpw to plagiarize, and it's fine, because God said so, but it's wrong if other people plagiarize. -The alleged "1942 Promise" was legitimate, and God Almighty really made such a promise to vpw. That's a few things off the top of my head. Feel free to discuss any position on which you've changed. Please keep in mind, however, that until you mention you've changed, people will most likely hold you responsible for any position you've previously espoused, as if you still hold it.
  5. It's been previously pointed out (by Raf) that people can and do change their positions over time, and it's sometimes important to find out when that's happened- especially when disagreeing with a position they have held. After all, if someone has reconsidered their position on something and no longer holds that position, it's silly to criticize them for CONTINUING to hold that position. If they're agreeing with you, what's the point of criticizing them for previously disagreeing with you? That's not constructive discussion, that's just venting. So, I was thinking about how people can change their positions on twi, vpw and so on, but not make any major announcements on having done so.
  6. Mike: "This process is STILL going on, where people get massively blessed with the collaterals when they take the new TWI foundational class. They get to see the fruit in their lives as they put the content of the collaterals into their Bible reading and lives. " T-Bone: "Baloney! Are YOU omniscient and omnipresent? How do you know “this process” is still going on? “people get massively blessed” ?!?! But YOU just said you didn’t have the ability to look at the fruit in the lives of others! “blessed with the collaterals when they take the new TWI foundational class” Oh, so you’ve taken the new PFAL Today class? Also, please define “massively blessed” and describe what “fruit” is seen." WordWolf responds: And so, in Mike's mind, there's lots of new people taking the new pfal class, and getting "massively blessed." Mind you, he hasn't SEEN these people, but IN HIS MIND, there's lots of them. Mike: "Many thousands right this minute are thankful for PFAL and how it helped them. You folks missed this bus, but there is still another one you can catch. It's not too late. It will be too late someday." T-Bone: Baloney! “thousands right this minute” ? Are YOU omniscient and omnipresent? “You folks missed this bus, but there is still another one you can catch” …bus? Did you mean to say motorcoach? Who’s driving and who’s getting diddled in the back? WordWolf responds: Again, in Mike's mind, there's "thousands of people right this minute" who are thankful for pfal. He has not interacted with these "thousands", but in his mind, there's thousands.
  7. WordWolf: "The only reason to think vpw is worthy of ANY respect is his own insistence that he was- and that's not very convincing to most people. " Mike: "Baloney !!! I looked at the good fruit first, and THEN I started to believe his claims. It occurred to me that I didn't have the ability to look at the fruit in HIS life, " WordWolf responds: Salami on your baloney. You had plenty of ability to look at the fruit in his life then, and you certainly can see as well as everyone else what fruit has been. We all know- and you might not admit- that if the exact same claims were made of anyone else, you would dismiss them completely. A minister, given to yelling at his congregation, known for plagiarizing virtually everything he teaches, and claiming he originated virtually all of it, addicted to alcohol and drinking it while teaching, addicted to tobacco and got cancer from all the tobacco, who has set up an elaborate social structure that facilitates him molesting and raping the female members of the congregation and sometimes drugs them first but always tells them God Almighty wants them to sexually service him the minister...... ....if this minister taught some good sermons and effective Bible..... ....and also claimed that God Almighty chose him uniquely out of all Christians for the past 2000 years.... you wouldn't believe his claim, and you wouldn't take him seriously. You skip over looking over the fruit in vpw's life- and actively discourage anyone looking at the fruit in vpw's life and call them names FOR looking at the fruit in vpw's life, because it doesn't match up with what you WANT to believe. Mike: "I looked at the good fruit first, and THEN I started to believe his claims. It occurred to me that I didn't have the ability to look at the fruit in HIS life, but in my life, and in the lives of my friends who took the class, the fruit was (and still is) abundant and good. " WordWolf responds: Mortadella on your baloney. If anyone spoke about ANOTHER Bible teacher, and that teacher plagiarized all their material from others, and someone insisted that they were a quality teacher and quality Christian because they were benefiting from what they'd learned... ...we all know what you'd say to that person, who said the same thing about any teacher EXCEPT WIERWILLE.
  8. FYI, "vpw"s first class- the clone of BG Leonard's CTC "Gifts of the Spirit" class was called "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today." In the thread "vp and me in Wonderland", we discussed the odd phrases and why it looked like RR went after vpw and both of them adultered together. Later, RD posted independently that that is what had happened, on some occasions. So, vpw wasn't actually admitting anything, but his exact phrasing pointed to what he meant to conceal. According to God Almighty, adultery is wrong. Adulterers are not recommended to be leaders. This is rather obvious. But a few people think that all of that is true EXCEPT FOR wierwille who gets a pass, because of the 1942 promise- which was complete bunk from the first to the last. The only reason to think vpw is worthy of ANY respect is his own insistence that he was- and that's not very convincing to most people.
  9. I don't know about the other women. The reason it sounds so specifically like that with his account of RR is because he DID boink RR. He spoke around it here, but the language was so idiosyncratic that I figured out that's what he was trying not to admit. Months later, someone who knew posted confirmation that vpw had, indeed, boinked RR.
  10. That's probably one of the reasons that particular phrasing was phased out. vpw kept changing the way his alleged "1942 promise" was phrased when he supposedly was told something by God Almighty. It's like he had to try out different versions until he found one he liked enough to keep. Yes, he claimed that God Almighty had been unable to teach ANY Christian anywhere in the WORLD for about 2000 years at that level, and was waiting for this alcoholic rapist to finally come along. Despite having been an impious youth and a poor worker, and being bad-tempered, addicted to tobacco and alcohol, and prone to sexually exploiting women and making opportunities to do so, vpw supposedly was THE man who God Almighty could connect with. There was no other, better-suited Christian ready to step up in all the world in all those centuries. For almost everybody, this is hard to swallow. For a tiny handful of people, the response is "Yes, of course."
  11. It was interesting to see what vpw said about David, Nathan and Bathsheba. vpw said that what David did to URIAH was wrong. He said that David's actions concerning adultery, forced sex with Bathsheba (he "TOOK HER" as the Bible says) (she had no literal ability to refuse him so any "consent" would be considered INVALID in any fair court-yet there was no mention of her consenting in any verse), and the murder or Uriah to cover his tracks was "OFF THE BALL." In the Bible, the same was "DOING EVIL." What vpw said David did to Bathsheba was "FOOLING AROUND". The Bible said David "TOOK HER". vpw said he "FOOLED AROUND"- and he used the Nathan-David-Bathsheba incident as a specific example of "RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD." vpw (Orange Book chapter 6: "There are many examples of correction in the Bible. Take David, for instance. David was off the ball. He found beautiful Bathsheba and then had her husband shot while in the front lines of battle so that he, David, could have Bathsheba as his wife. A few people knew about the sequence of events leading to David’s marriage, but nobody had a right to say any- thing because David was king and every woman in the kingdom was technically the property of the king or belonged to the king." ============================== Someone may creatively reinterpret what vpw meant, but vpw was rather clear that "TECHNICALLY" didn't mean this was "de facto" and not "de jure" (illegal but he was able to do so because nobody had the power to stop him from breaking the law), but that this was a LEGAL RIGHT of David's - "NOBODY HAD A RIGHT TO SAY ANYTHING". If David broke the law, then people had a LEGAL RIGHT to say so (to say nothing of the obligation to uphold the law.) vpw considered the CITIZENS of Israel to be the SLAVES, the CHATTEL of the King- "every woman in the kingdom was technically the property of the king or belonged to the klng." In case "belonged to the king" was unclear, he doubled down and said they were "PROPERTY". Now, someone can come along later and say that the clear words here- "belonged to" "property" "nobody had a right" - mean something completely different than what they say. Doesn't mean they're correct or that reality changes to match their wishes that the book had said something else.
  12. In case anyone somehow forgot, vpw himself is the originator of the phrase "all the women in the kingdom belong to the king." vpw tried to justify King David's "affair" with Bath-sheba, where he showed interest in her, and one way or another, he got her to "consent." Many people would argue that, with imbalances of power that extreme, consent is dubious at best. (If I say 'no', the monarch has me beheaded.) Then David attempted to cover his having a kid with Bath-sheba by trying to get Uriah to leave the field of battle and fool around with his own wife. Uriah was too principled. So, David arranged for Uriah to die in battle, then took Bath-sheba for his wife. When Nathan the prophet confronted David, he mentioned SPECIFICALLY what he was confronting him on- taking another man's wife. All of that having been said, vpw's supposed "expert" understanding and explanation started with him saying that , TECHNICALLY, all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king. No, the Bible forbade taking another's wife and so on, so there was no "TECHNICAL" exception for a King to take another man's wife. But all of that said quite a bit about vpw's state of mind on the subject.
  13. This was worth reviewing, also. :)
  14. Well, HE didn't- he was gone for HOURS when it was time to work hard on his family's farm.
  • Create New...