WordWolf

While I agree that more love and compassion is needed, I disagree as to how it arrived. You're saying it "crept in." I say a lot of it was part and parcel of the framework. For example: vpw HIMSELF takes shots at this minister and mother who may not have even existed. Compassion? At a FUNERAL? Who would have that?

The system being in place, whether or not you receive something has nothing to do with any involvement from God. The laws of the universe are in place, and your receiving will be based entirely on what and how you believe. vpw: "If a person makes up his mind that this time next year he is going to be dead, God would have to change the laws of the universe for the person not to be accomodated." You're misrepresenting Juedes and ignoring when he explained your misrepresentation. Juedes clarified, attempting to shore up your understanding. Amazingly, you completely skipped this, although you quoted and criticized a few of his sentences following. Juedes: "It is striking to me how strongly people have responded to this article on the "law" of beleiving. Perhaps this response hints at how entrenched the idea was in TWI, and perhaps also at how much damage it has done to people (to themsevles or to people they know). My article does not say that VPW promoted atheism. It does say that "the law of believing" is an atheistic system. In VP's view, Christians and non Christians "operate" it to do good or to do evil. While VP mentioned God's promises, they really don't make any difference to the "law." He told the story of the mother who caused her child to be killed by her negative believing. Does that mean that she knew the promises of God were "available" and used her believing in God's promises to kill her child? Certainly not!" This IS what vpw said. "If a person makes up his mind that this time next year he is going to be dead, God would have to change the laws of the universe for the person not to be accomodated." God's involvement in this transaction is NONEXISTENT. The person believed and was killed by the interaction of his believing and "the laws of the universe." God set up these supposed laws millenia ago, and can merely watch in impotent fury if one of his precious children has determined they could die. The only thing he CAN do is send a prophet to try to convince them to change their believing, but if the person remains resolute, God MUST stand aside and watch them die. No fair making sense here, another spot. We're discussing how vpw's rules don't work- or attempting to rewrite them so that they DO work, depending on who's posting. Not that I don't agree wholeheartedly, but we're busy circling some nonsense.

Whether or not the mother taught the child how properly to cross the street is incidental to what vpw taught. Kindly quote-citing the page- where vpw said that in the Orange or the Blue Book. That issue didn't come up until raised BY US on the messageboards. vpw said his mother's fear killed him. Period. Orange Book, pg 44. "What one fears will surely come to pass. It is a law. Have you ever heard about people who set the time of their death? When somebody says 'Well, this time next year I will not be here," if you are a betting man, bet your money; you are going to win. If a person makes up his mind that this time next year he is going to be dead, God would have to change the laws of the universe for the person not to be accomodated." Orange Book, pg-43-44. "Do you know what killed that little boy? The fear in the heart and life of that mother. She was so desperately afraid something was going to happen to her little boy that she finally reaped the results of her believing." I would also like to point out that we have no documentation that this woman and her child EVER EXISTED. We know the attitudes vpw claims towards such people, but we have no guarantee they were REAL and not just made up to supposedly illustrate the so-called "LAW" of believing that fails to work as written, so people desperate to prop it up have to add all sorts of codicils to handwave away all the times it DOESN'T work or explain what happened.

If we let whether or not you're willing to listen limit our posting, it would get pretty quiet on threads you post on around here.

Very good points. I just wanted to note that I haven't glossed over other points, I will get to them in turn. I'm just tackling them in the order that I wish to, with no claims it's the optimal order or make sense to anyone else. I will get back to straight discussion on omniscience.

"If he had lived and stayed in power, he would have come up with more and more crazy stuff," I think it would have been more accurate to say that "every other so-called minister of God who placed themselves in the position vpw had placed himself in has come up progressively more and more crazy stuff, and it is likely that vpw would only have been just another one of them, hardly the greatest man of God in 2 millenia that he put forth that he was." Funny how oldiesman can comb over lengthy articles refuting error from the mouth of wierwille, skip over all of that, and find the one speculative sentence to object to. I think oldiesman is dedicated to thinking evil of anyone who criticizes vpw to the smallest degree and now resorts to ignoring 90% or more of someone's response and cherry-picking out only what he can object to. On every issue of his life not related to vpw and twi, oldiesman is probably quite reasonable.

Every morning, millions of parents send their kids off, worried that some terrible thing will befall their kids. Every afternoon, millions of parents receive their children back, their DAILY fears having failed to come to pass. One poster here has commented how his parents were FULL of fear each day, and nothing happened to him. Another poster here has commented how his parents DID NOT fear, and a horrible thing befell him. Johniam: "..is absurd to think that VP feared that he would die of cancer." vpw: "We are what we are today because of our believing. We will be tomorrow where our believing takes us." "Believing is a law. As one believes, he receives. On the negative side, fear is believing: fear is believing in reverse, it produces ill results. " "If one is afraid of a disease, he will manifest that disease because the law is that which one believes (in this case, what one believes negatively)." Johniam, we agree. The teachings of vpw would say that people who died of illness had 2 problems. A) feared they would catch the disease B) lack of believing that God would heal the disease Johniam agrees with Juedes that this is error- that this is NOT what happens when people get sick, so when vpw got sick, it wasn't due to fear, and when he didn't heal, it wasn't due to lack of believing, NO MATTER WHAT VPW TAUGHT. We're all in agreement that this was error. Glad we're all on the same page.

For those who will pretend to not see that point, or who will be unable to bring themselves to see it, I shall make it clearer. A child dies. Nobody rejoices. A minister performs the funeral, and MUST try to offer some comfort to the family. What does he tell them? He says their precious little child is in heaven, with God. Whether or not one believes this is true, few would be so slow-witted to miss that this offers comfort to the family. (Funerals, except for the most crass, are NOT places to correct someone's doctrine.) vpw then finds something to complain about there-even if he has to manufacture it to show how awful those wicked, nasty ministers can be. He changes the minister's message from "God now has another rose petal in heaven" to "God KILLED that child IN ORDER TO have another rose petal in heaven." Amazing how evil the minister's words were-once vpw changed them. Amazing how vpw can take a FUNERAL and begin finding fault with comforting the bereaved, the hurting, the suffering. Then again, if certain people here are correct, and vpw really DID say that every time one receives based on either believing or fear, that God Almighty's the one that makes it happen, the vpw HIMSELF said God killed the kid. If, as vpw said "Believing is a law. As one believes, he receives. On the negative side, fear is believing: fear is believing in reverse, it produces ill results." and "If a person is afraid of not being able to hold his job, do you know what will happen? He will lose it. If one is afraid of a disease, he will manifest that disease because the law is that which one believes (in this case, what one believes negatively), he is going to receive. People have a fear of the future; they have a fear of death. Fear always encases, fear always enslaves, fear always binds. This law of negative and positive believing works for both Christian and non-Christian. When we believe, we receive the results of our believing regardless of who or what we are." and, supposedly, he ALWAYS claimed that "You say it, you believe it, and God will bring it to pass.", then, yes, the mother feared, and God granted the results of her fear and killed her child. Mind you, that's not what the minister said. If vpw did say this, then I think it would be appropriate to reply to him "Imagine that! That the God who created the heavens and the earth should kill a little boy!" Then again, this whole "vpw said it was ALWAYS from God" thing is untrue, and misrepresents vpw's words in order to make him sound more Biblical. He was inconsistent-sometimes it was of God, sometimes God was powerless to prevent us from reaping the consequences of believing.

And, oldiesman points out that vpw was INCONSISTENT in his explanations. Sometimes he said it was God, and sometimes it was about the laws of the universe.

I'll be addressing a number of things- just not all at once, but I will get there. One I'd like to address now has been heard by a number of you. Some people once began their own approach to handle the existence of the 3 statements. They said that God didn't KNOW evil deeds were going to be done before they happened. This God was a God who is with us in the moment, but is not beyond us seeing ahead. He's a comfortable, accessible God. Me, I prefer one I can trust fully but not understand- HE can GUARANTEE eventual victory. Some of THOSE people claimed that the proof that God can't see problems coming is right in Genesis 3, in the Garden of Eden. (*cue Iron Butterfly music*) Is it really? Let's see. As we all know (and you can easily review Genesis 2 on your own if this isn't fresh in your mind), the situation was simple and clear. Adam and Eve had carte blanche. Their jobs- gardener. Their restrictions? Only one- the tree of the knowledge of good and evil- its fruit was forbidden, and they would die the day they ate thereof. Let's pick up in Genesis 3. Verse 1. Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Now, looking back, we are aware the serpent had a plan, that he was up to something. But did God know this at the time the serpent approached Eve? Hebrew 4:13 13Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. The serpent was part of God's creation, and was manifest in God's sight. The serpent's plan is naked and open to God. God was fully aware BEFORE the serpent spoke that the serpent had a plan, what it was, and the consequences. Proverbs 15:3 3The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good. The woman, at that time, was still good. The serpent was evil. The eyes of the LORD were there and saw them. There's 2 humans in creation, and he's able to keep track of both of them. Duh. He can keep track of MILLIONS of us and hear ALL our prayers- of COURSE he can keep track of 2 humans! Genesis 3:2-6 2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. We know God was aware that it was happening, but just for fun, let's add another question. Did God know what was going on in the minds of Eve-as she considered and sinned- and Adam-as he considered and sinned? Of course He did. Job 42:2 2I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee. They were unable to hide their thoughts from God. ======== Genesis 3:7-8 7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. 8And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. They knew something had changed, and put fig leaves together to cover their nakedness, and they try to hide from God. How successful can hiding from God be? Some said it WAS successful, for God asks Adam where he is. Genesis 3:9 9And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? Clearly, however, God knew EXACTLY where Adam was. Note that the first mention of the "VOICE of God" just occurred. Rather than communicate with them spiritually, God used their 5 senses. He knew what happened, He knew what they lost. Is it truly futile to try to hide from God? Job 34:21-22 1For his eyes are upon the ways of man, and he seeth all his goings. 22There is no darkness, nor shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves. Adam and Eve were now workers of iniquity-they had sinned. Adam tried to hide. Was Adam successful? God was fully aware of Adam's deeds and thoughts, completely down to where he was hiding. Why then, does God ask Adam this series of questions? Genesis 3:9-13 9And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? 10And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. 11And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? 12And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. 13And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. I've heard someone say that this was when "all of this came to God's attention." I think the evidence strongly indicates the opposite. Why, then, all the questions when God already knows all the answers? It wasn't for God's benefit-it was for MAN'S benefit. God is calling Man to account for his/her deeds, making it clear what brought them to that point, and WHY punishment and consequences were coming to pass. ========= Now then, someone may certainly ask "If God knew, as we saw, then why didn't God stop them before they sinned?" and conclude that a God who didn't stop them wouldn't be Love. If such a person asked that question, I would answer them to the first, that nobody ASKED God to intervene. God gave them the situation, told them the consequences, and let them think for themselves- and live with the consequences should they sin. God honoured their free will, and did not reach out and jerk their strings and stop them from sinning. We see the same thing in ourselves whenever we make the foolish decision to sin- God does not take us over and steer us to right action. (Praise God He doesn't do this.)

Time Magazine once did a cover-story on the subject of Evil. (Really.) They mentioned three statements: 1) God is Loving 2) God is All-Powerful 3) Evil exists They claimed that it's possible to reconcile any TWO of those statements, but it's impossible to reconcile all three.. My response to that is that they were limiting the information that reconciles that. They presumed that their understanding was the limit of understanding on the subject. We know that God is Loving. We know that God is All-Powerful. We know that evil exists. Period. (Those of us who accept the Bible as given, anyway- that's who this thread's addressed to, but you all knew that already.) Therefore, the question is HOW are all three true? When there's suffering, why doesn't God immediately step in and end the suffering? Is it because He is UNABLE to? (Rejecting "God is All-Powerful") Is it because He does not wish to end suffering? (Rejecting "God is Loving".) Is it because there is no evil or suffering, only an illusion of both? (Rejecting "evil exists".) Different beliefs have been proposed down the centuries, to promote one or another of those. If all three statements are true, then there's something fundamentally missing from our understanding, something that makes all of this make sense together, how a God of Love finds it sensible not to blast every instance of evil from existence the moment it happened. It is my conviction that this is true and that Scripture teaches this. It is my belief that the matter missing is one of both FREE WILL and of the COMPLETE PICTURE. God could easily end all acts of evil by erasing our free will and making us a bunch of puppets. He knows this. That He has not means that He has rejected that as a solution. (At least for now, which is all I can speak for.) God, therefore, considers free will so important that it trumps suffering- that we should be allowed, to a degree, to suffer, so that we are free to make our own decisions, and face them. What do I mean by "the complete picture?" Parents all understand this to a degree. Your child wants to have fun rather than do his or her homework, but it has to get done. So you do not permit your child to have fun rather than do the homework. Sometimes, the child considers you a meanie for this. If they're young enough, they can really resent this check on their impulses. However, are you REALLY being a meanie? No. You know the BIG PICTURE. Children need guidance, and what seems-to a small child- to be of no use and only negative often has a perfectly-sensible and necessary function. I also know that science has been showing that a child who lives in a completely pristine environment, one where germs are killed off, where all surfaces are scoured free of bacteria often, these are the children MOST at risk for asthma, allergies, and other problems. Their immune systems didn't develop as fully as they might have, and the child-or the adult, later- pays the price in health. Am I stating I KNOW and can explain all suffering? No. I'm saying that the little I DO know-and that's little enough but it's enough for you to see the basics- is enough for me to be confident that trusting God and waiting for the ENTIRE PICTURE will mean it will all make COMPLETE sense LATER. Ecclesiastes 12:13-14. " 13Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." I believe that-in the appointed hour- God shall bring EVERY work into judgment. That there will be a COMPLETE accounting. And it will all make sense.

Luke 12:7 (KJV) "6Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? 7But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows." Isaiah 57:15 "For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones."

Orange Book, Chapter Four, "Believing: Faith and Fear." "There are two types of believing: (1) positive and (2) negative. We either have faith or fear. We must recognize that believing has both a negative ans a positive side. We are what we are today because of our believing. We will be tomorrow where our believing takes us. No one ever rises beyond what he believes and no one can believe more than what he understands. We believe what we believe because of what we have been tonight. We think the way we think because of the way we have been led. Believing is a law. As one believes, he receives. On the negative side, fear is believing: fear is believing in reverse, it produces ill results. There is basically only one thing that ever defeats the believer, and that is fear. Fear is the believer's only enemy. Fear is sand in the machinery of life. When we have fear, we cannot believe God and have faith. Fear has ruined more Christian lives than any other thing in the world. If a person is afraid of not being able to hold his job, do you know what will happen? He will lose it. If one is afraid of a disease, he will manifest that disease because the law is that which one believes (in this case, what one believes negatively), he is going to receive. People have a fear of the future; they have a fear of death. Fear always encases, fear always enslaves, fear always binds. This law of negative and positive believing works for both Christian and non-Christian. When we believe, we receive the results of our believing regardless of who or what we are."

Of course, God can reach you among ANY group of Christians, so don't dismiss the idea that Christians who aren't ex-twi can't be the ones you need, either....

Or a bunch of vpw worshippers and vpw apologists ATTACKING Juedes and getting responses. Hey, your terms. Me, I think this labelling business is silly.

I never said they shouldn't count. Ever. This "prefer to call them unreliable and deceived" thing didn't come from my posts. But, hey, if you're better able to handle reading my posts by changing their content, well, that's your business.

I'll break it down in case you're interested in seeing the difference. In courts of law, they are almost entirely concerned with reconstruction of exactly what happened at a specific place and time, both in what occurred, and WHY it occurred, what each person was THINKING. Every day, in courts all over the world, they do their best to determine this, and judgements are handed down based on their best abilities to reconstruct what happened. Except for incidents that bring in videotape, all of that relies on eyewitness testimony in the majority. ======== Since the court is unable to obtain first-hand knowledge of whether any eyewitness' testimony is true or not, according to you, it is "a bit unreasonable" to suppose they can be relied on to even the smallest degree. What the court does, is invoke the examination and the cross-examination, and compare the testimony, examination and cross-examination of ALL witnesses. Often, it seems amazingly straightforward to see what happened- eyewitnesses that were neutral and have no reason to lie all agreed to the smallest degree. This is sometimes based on Biblical injunctions. Deuteronomy 17:5-7 (King James Version) 5Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. 6At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. 7The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you. Deuteronomy 19:15 (King James Version) 15One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. Matthew 18:16 (King James Version) 16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 2 Corinthians 13:1 (King James Version) 1This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. 1 Timothy 5:19-20 (King James Version) 19Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. 20Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. Hebrews 10:28 (King James Version) 28He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: So, according to GOD ALMIGHTY, it is sensible and recommended, that the testimony of witnesses be considered and weighed, and when more than one agree, it strengths their testimony. When 2 or 3 agree, it is to be considered reliable. In the case of vpw, which you were suggesting, many, many people have provided direct, first-person testimony. Under the judgement of GOD ALMIGHTY, that's considered reliable. In short, REASONABLE. The "swallowing" of their claims, that is, the idea that anyone here would automatically embrace any of them, that's an invention of those who have no desire to examine the testimony of 2 or 3 (or many more) witnesses, which GOD ALMIGHTY determined to be sufficient, and necessary, to make a judgement. I certainly didn't begin thinking vpw did evil. However, when MANY, MANY witnessed provided testimony, I agreed with God Almighty that such things were established in their mouths. I don't know of ANYONE who FIRST heard the evils vpw did, and, lacking personal experience of them, said "that's got to be true." However, it's a convenient fiction-convenient for those who wish to stop their ears to the testimony of the witnesses- to pretend that happened all the time.

So, it's wrong for a man of God to address errors and hurts among ONE group of Christians unless he's prepared to visit ALL groups of Christians, (as characterized by posting about errors and hurts in twi but not ALL groups), but it's a perfectly-efficient use of a Christian layman's time to post that a fellow Christian is "delusion", and this is either harmless or some version of ministering grace to the hearer.

See, rascal, if someone lies and destroys the reputation of someone, and the person who did it was vpw, that's perfectly fine. So, when he did that with women who refused him, kicking them off the field, calling them possessed, and forbidding twi'ers to have contact with them, that's ok because it was vpw and he must have had a good reason to do it. If someone reports that vpw did that, they they're lying and destroying the reputation of vpw, and that's wrong. vpw gets a special exemption from all rules of conduct and doctrine, and anyone who disagrees is to be shouted down, insulted, or belittled. it's that simple.

Remember when this thread was about vpw? Funny how someone keeps changing it specifically into about someone else. Not in exploring the initial question, either- it's a deliberate subject CHANGE. Can it be that someone wants to make this thread NOT about whether vpw was a false prophet or false servant of God, or whether he was actually a good minister? Maybe.

Or, it would completely fail to support your point, the ridiculous notion that John Juedes belittled Wierwille for failing to follow his own teaching, instead of what he did, which was But hey, if you want to pretend that posts written months ago were written to support the position of an article that wasn't written until several months after them, feel free.

So, suggesting that any real Christian minister who posted here at all was neglecting his job, or that any Christian layman who posted here on twi but not on any other group, were in some way neglecting working for God or acting inappropriately, those fit some definition of yours of "questioning people's perceptions and recollections." Those are non-standard definitions you use.

Actually, I challenged your insinuation that it there is a problem with the fact that "a full-time minister has ANY time to be here at all." No-but that he comes here during his discretionary TIME. I often can use my discretionary time doing things that directly benefit others. I think when Juedes does that here, he's benefitting others. You disagree- or are insinuating you disagree. (Frankly, I prefer when you say it outright.) Others do. They see a direct correlation between Biblical warnings and people using the Bible to warn, and warn that others are supposedly using the Bible and are not. Where did he say it was "part of his ministry?"And how did you go in the same sentence from "part of his ministry" to "such a ministry?" You went from nowhere to "he believes it's PART of his ministry" and from there to it being his ENTIRE ministry. Quite a set of leaps there. That is correct! It is an exhortion to expose false prophets AND to reach out to those who haven't heard of and accepted Jesus as their Lord, as well as many OTHER things. YOU brought it up. No, I acknowledge I don't have infinite time, and address what I choose to address. I cannot help the entire world myself. I have neither the time nor the skills to do so. I address that which I have the time and skills to do so, and trust God to raise up others to handle the rest. I notice you do much the same-you post here and don't spend your days in meetings exposing other groups, or even on websites doing the same. But when I do it, you're suggesting it's wrong, when you're doing it, that's perfectly fine. Now, then, I said "Feel free to go to THOSE websites and discuss THOSE topics at THOSE websites. Or even to make a website that focuses on all three. Or participate at an existing one that does all three." and Larry distorted the meaning of that and said that I said Turning a rather practical consideration-I can only do so much- and pointing out that his sudden concern forvictims of other groups can be served rather practically by him TRYING TO HELP THEM rather than saying I should be out there trying to help them, trying to convince me to help them, or criticizing me for not being out there helping them. He's free to do that. Instead, he turns THAT into "stfu." That's illogical. And inflammatory. Yes I am. And I'm qualified to help those who were hoodwinked and blinded by false prophets and doctrine in twi. So those are the ones I help there. I also help OTHER Christians I'm qualified to help. That's to hear them say it, when they thank me for helping them. It's HARDLY personal. I rarely discuss "what it did to me." And when I do, it's with the purpose of passing along information, or in a dialogue that passes along information. Sometimes, I even conclude that something that might have been complaint-worthy actually was NOT. I started at least two threads where those were the conclusions. Which means that we learned some things that DIDN'T denigrate twi. I also have posted on threads that don't denigrate twi, and have posted posts that don't. But feel free to ignore them if they trouble your worldview so...

I don't know. You questioned the suitability of a full-time minister to have any time to post here at all. Larry: So I replied that "ANY" time is a rather absolute standard that is hardly fair to hold people to.WW: So, whether this is recreational, solemn, both, neither, or somewhere in between is a non-issue. I was pointing out your INSINUATION that levelled an accusation.I pointed out it wasn't relevant to what happened. Larry: Anyone who just supposed it just HAPPENED to sound like you meant it to refer to Juedes when you were discussing him a sentence ago is just imagining things, I suppose.... <_< I pointed out it didn't apply to him at all, despite your interest in INSINUATING it did so. ======= That is your opinion. As stated, I disagree. I'll agree with you there. No, we're just not focused on THAT at THIS website. Feel free to go to THOSE websites and discuss THOSE topics at THOSE websites. Or even to make a website that focuses on all three. Or participate at an existing one that does all three. I'm free to do all of those as well-but I exercise my freedom NOT to do them instead. :)

Which has NOTHING TO DO with how vpw described the so-called "LAW" of believing. Don't change the subject off of the so-called "LAW" of believing. No, he just stuck to the subject, the so-called "LAW" of believing. Or, he stuck to documenting his subject, the so-called "LAW" of believing. Which makes lots of sense if he's only addressing one subject, rather than EVERYTHING HE KNOWS.When I write anything, I leave out lots of information I know about, since it's not relevant to the subject. In this case, that's the so-called 'LAW of believing. You might address that to him at some point- but bringing it up at this SPECIFIC point makes it look like you're trying to obfuscate the issues by changing the subject.