WordWolf

It's a telltale sign someone still has a strong TWI-influence [either directly or via offshoot], when they barge in with a certain belligerent attitude. It has NOTHING to do with their viewpoint – it has everything to do with their attitude. I thought Tonto's choice of words "people who choose to be ignorant" was good – one of the dictionary definitions of "ignorant" is "lacking knowledge or awareness of the thing specified."

I can understand if someone has never been touched by the overt acts of the predator. If they were impressed with the pristine Christian image of vpw presented [either directly by TWI or via offshoot], then they will hold his ministry in high regard.

It hits me as odd though, whenever someone comes here and begins whittling away at folks who have firsthand experience of TWI's dark side – and threads become a let's-turn the tables-around-on-the-TWI-critics game. In my opinion, the person is either a plant [of TWI or offshoot] or they're in denial after hearing some shocking information.

If they are a plant – they have chosen to attack those with experiential knowledge of TWI's dark side. To them I say, "Shame on you !!!!"

If they are merely someone who likes vpw's teachings and fond memories of their sweet TWI experiences – that's okay – I would warn them though – that visiting Grease Spot will more than likely have a negative impact on their thoughts about TWI. That's their choice if they want to risk that.

Grease Spot is not like TWI – where the only attitudes welcomed are the ones favorable to them. Nor is Grease Spot a church where everyone is encouraged to drop all their petty differences and have a group hug with Jesus. I like the atmosphere here because it gets people to think. I like the freedom here. I don't have to agree with someone, and don't have to like someone's belligerent attitude either – I can even say so out loud. I spent 12 years selling a pristine image of vpw to folks – and I'm certainly not interested in whitewashing that image now, because sales are down.

As for my arrogance, that’s only true if what I serve is not the truth of God’s Word like it has not been known since the first century. It’s PFAL is false, then I must plead guilty to arrogance, but at least I’d be arrogant with a willingness to serve what I THINK is the truth. I could be worse, like arrogant WITHOUT a willingness to serve.

But if PFAL is from God, THEN I’m not arrogant, just accurate, and willing to serve the accuracy of God’s wonderful matchless Word.

Correct.

And since your premise- pfal being from God-has been discredited beyond

REASONABLE doubt,

you're arrogant serving something you THINK is the truth.

How do you know Jesus didn’t take PFAL? I’ve heard that one before, but usually it’s Paul that people point out could not have taken PFAL.

anyone to raise.

I'll keep it next to "how do you know Jesus didn't eat sour cream on Wednesdays?"

Paul went on his time travel trip to the future to see why he was busting his arss so bad. God showed and taught him by revelation (It was not physics type relativistic time travel.) God showed him how His will finally prevails.

I notice you're still pushing this "Paul travelled in time" theology because vpw couldn't

keep track of Paul vs "this guy Paul knows." I can repost the summary of the previous

discussions on that, if anyone's curious. I know if YOU were, you'd have learned the last

time we went over this.

Do I believe Paul and Jesus actually sat through the 36 hours for three weeks, four nights a week? No. They’d have to have learned English for that and it hadn’t been invented yet. Did you think that I would say they both had signed green cards?

I simply believe God taught them in their own tongue (like us) the same general gist and principles that are set forth in PFAL. Dr had 17 different ways of teaching the class (Walter told me this) when he was doing it live. There are always lots of ways to teach the same basic material.

I wonder how God covered the "woman's fear killed her kid by hitting him with a car"

part of session 1 without any cars or modern schools. Maybe he used an example with a

chariot. I also wonder why neither Jesus nor Paul mentioned this supposedly foundational

foundation (so important it was in the very first session) principle if God actually taught it to

them. There's neither Scriptural nor historic record of it-or a contemporary equivalent-

ever coming up.

All the "documentation" for it is in the beliefs of Mike.

Or the opinions of Mike.

Or, as vpw might have phrased it, the "private interpretation" of Mike.

=============

In other news,

we went from "the Holocaust" to "Mike's commercials" in one page.

Again.

Will this entire thread be hijacked-again?

If so, was the purpose of derailing it TO DISTRACT FROM THE DISCUSSION OF

HOW VPW SUPPORTED HOLOCAUST DENIAL?

Time will tell.

I don't think you ever heard about that time I found that Christian getting ready to

jump off the Willis Avenue Bridge.

It was about this time, a year or so ago, late at night.

I talked to him while I moved close enough to grab him.

I got him to talk about his beliefs.

WordWolf:"Are you a Christian? A Jew?"

Him:"A Christian."

WW:"Me too. Catholic, or Protestant?"

Him:"Protestant."

WW:"Me too. What franchise?"

Him:"Baptist."

WW:"Me too. Northern or Southern Baptist?"

Him: "Northern Baptist."

WW:"Me too. Northern Conservative or Northern Liberal?"

Him:"Northern Conservative."

WW:"Me too. Conservative Fundamentalist or Conservative Reformed?"

Him:"Conservative Fundamentalist."

WW:"Me too. Fundamentalist Great Lakes Region or Eastern Region?"

Him:"Eastern Region."

WW:"Me too.

Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region Council of 1893, or

Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region Council of 1912?"

Him:"Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region Council of 1912."

WW:"DIE HERETIC!" *shoves him off the bridge*

========

I've noticed that focusing on what we have in common heads off a lot of arguments

among Christians. vpw was fond of starting arguments as quickly as possible,

and inventing as many dividers and "deal breakers" between "US" and "THEM"

as possible. (There ARE no "US" and "THEM", just different Christians.)

Ah.

That explains why the next-to-last one sounded a little familiar.

===========

"What does a yellow light mean?"

"Slow down."

"What..does...a yellow light mean?"

"Slow down."

"What......does...a...yellow....light....mean?"

George, how about another quote?

I object to subscription models for everything nowadays.

I find, as a consumer, I'm getting less for my money that way.

I can see upgrading to HD radio-so long as that won't be subscription.

And it's still Suda's turn...

Correct on all counts. There was also a sub-plot with Dr. Crusher and Geordi putting out some burning barrels by opening a shuttle bay door, but I couldn't find any quotes for that.

George

That, sir, is why I try to pull up an entire script when I can.

In this case, it's here:

http://www.twiztv.com/scripts/nextgenerati...on5/tng-505.txt

That's how I was able to post huge chunks of the "Valiant" script.

I googled the episode name, the series, something from a quote, and the word "script"

all in their own quotation marks, and blammo-episode script.

Of course, there's occasional deviations from a script, which you need to watch out for.

(No, I didn't look for this script until just now. Googling while guessing disqualifies the googler.)

I have more of a problem with Darwin being a Lamarckian than Darwin being a racist swine.

It's easier to spot a racist swine than a Lamarckian.

For those in the cheap seats,

Lamarckianism is a thoroughly-discredited side-alley of evolutionary theory.

It's an attempt-and frankly, IMHO, one of the best attempts- to explain how evolution works.

The idea is that evolution is directed-but not by an outside hand. It is directed by the

actual members of the species. Each member will perform actions that will affect the

genetic structure of their offspring. The most obvious example given is the giraffe.

Under Lamarckianism, the giraffe finds itself stretching its neck to reach higher leaves in

higher branches. Thus, its offspring will have slightly longer necks as a result, and they

will do the same, and THEIR offspring will have slightly longer necks...eventually, over

many generations, we get long-necked giraffes.

However, the thinking at the time of Darwin speculated that the cell was a relatively

uncomplicated thing that could be directed with relative ease to alter genetics.

That has since been thoroughly discredited. Personally, I think ALL of Darwin's

theories merit RE-EXAMINATION, if for no other reason but that they were based on

assumptions that have since been proven incorrect by molecular biologists.

However, I expect most of them will remain sacrosanct-as matters of RELIGION and

not matters of SCIENCE that are subject to proof, hypothesis, experimentation

and verification. Don't blame that on me....

1 John 3:19-20 (King James Version)

19And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.

20For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

This alone might be considered sufficient explanation in the eyes of some Christians.

God knows all things.

For those who wonder, Dictionary.com defines "omniscient" as

"1. having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things."

Looks like the Bible says God is "omniscient" right out of the barrel there.

Psalm 147:2-5 (King James Version)

2The LORD doth build up Jerusalem: He gathereth together the outcasts of Israel.

3He healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth up their wounds.

4He telleth the number of the stars; He calleth them all by their names.

5Great is our Lord, and of great power: His understanding is infinite.

If God's understanding is infinite, his knowledge must perforce be infinite. (How can he understand anything

He doesn't know?)

I Samuel 2:3b (King James Version)

for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.

That means his knowledge is really up there.

Jeremiah 1:5 (King James Version)

5Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

I don't think Jeremiah posited any limitations to the knowledge of God- his entire life was in God's knowledge before he was born.

Isaiah 46:9-10 (KJV)

9Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

10Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

That's tough to do if you only perceive the present....

Isaiah 57:15a

15For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy

God inhabits Eternity.

We inhabit the present, minute by minute, but God inhabits all of time.

As I perceive it, to God, it's all already happened, and was so before humans ever walked the Earth.

Malachi 3:6a

For I am the LORD, I change not.

It's easy to see how a being that inhabits Eternity would be unchanging.

We all change-both physically as we age, and mentally as we add experiences.

For God to learn new things, to add to His knowledge, would mean He also changes.

Rationalizations and discussions are one thing, but if one cares what the Bible says, one's theories must be

fitted to what Scripture clearly says, and not the other way around.

With the DIRECT references clearly saying one thing, it's not particularly sensible to argue for the opposite,

or to make the opposite one's pet theory.

1 John 3:19-20 (King James Version)

19And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.

20For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

Psalm 147:2-5 (King James Version)

2The LORD doth build up Jerusalem: He gathereth together the outcasts of Israel.

3He healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth up their wounds.

4He telleth the number of the stars; He calleth them all by their names.

5Great is our Lord, and of great power: His understanding is infinite.

I Samuel 2:3b (King James Version)

for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.

Jeremiah 1:5 (King James Version)

5Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Isaiah 46:9-10 (KJV)

9Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

10Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Isaiah 57:15a

15For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy

Malachi 3:6a

For I am the LORD, I change not.

Great post, TB. I'm trying to keep in mind that the integrity of the Word is always at steak. It needs to be rightly-divided. There is a difference between a t-bone and a porterhouse. But the Word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder...

Now you've done it.

Man,

now I have to go eat something before I get into this subject.

snip

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

Sorry, John, That is, indeed, what he taught in session #1 of PFAL.

"FEAR IS BELIEVING"

"What you fear, you will receive- it is a law"

(page 3/ PFAL syllabus)

Chapter 3 of the Orange Book is titled "BELIEVING EQUALS RECEIVING."

Not "some believing results in some receiving."

By using the word "EQUALS" he was making it clear that he considered this an EQUATION,

and in an EQUATION, both sides are equal to each other.

So, believing and receiving, as he said it, were effectively synonymous

and MATHEMATICALLY INTERCHANGEABLE.

If most people used the word "equals" I would expect them to know that when they had

such statements committed to print.

When a man speaks of the Word of God as having a MATHEMATICAL EXACTNESS and a

SCIENTIFIC PRECISION, and then uses a mathematical term,

he is either intentionally making the connection to what it means mathematically,

or he is a great fool- or perhaps "an INCONSISTENT fool" would be more precise.

pg-44.

"What one fears will surely come to pass-it is a law."

quote: Weird, I don't remember Solomon preaching at people

You were alive back then? Wow, you must use a lot of aloe.

Feeling cheeky this morning?

I shall translate the original person's sentence to something more literal and direct,

in deference to you this once.

Translation:

Weird, I don't remember Scripture ever mentioning an instance of Solomon PREACHING at people.

I think that those who say that God Almighty was the "first cause" that started a process of evolution that began the process

that resulted in us being here today could sensibly referred to as "Evolutionary Creationists."

They'd believe there's have been no creation without God, nor anything TO evolve, and without God, there'd be no

evolutionary process at all.

Ok, let's move this along.

This was "Disaster", a ST:TNG episode where the ship was seriously damaged without warning,

maybe from a "cosmic string fragment" or something.

(Those cosmic string fragments sure came in handy writing some of those scripts...)

"Dilation has gone to seven centimeters since the start of labor. That did not take very long."

"That's easy for YOU to say!"

"Let's see. Your science project involved radishes, did it not? I hereby appoint you my Executive Officer in charge of... um... radishes."

"Let me get this straight. You want me to take off your head!?"

"Yes sir."

"You just can't stay away from the big chair, can you?"

"I don't think I'm cut out to be Captain. First Officer, maybe. I understand there aren't many qualifications."

George

Poor Keiko O'Brien went into labour in 10-Forward, and the only person certified with current medical training there

was WORF.

Best quote there was Worf reciting to himself that he had to encourage her to push.

So he "encourages", Klingon-style.

"Push.

Push, Keiko.

Push.

Push!

PUSH!"

"I AM PUSHING!!!!"

Captain Picard, you may remember, doesn't like kids. (Unless he's related to them.) He was talked into giving a personal tour of

a handful of the grammar-school children who won prizes on "Captain Picard Day." He ended up trapped in an elevator

with them, then forced to get them out safely. He partly gained control over the situation by giving officer positions to each

of the kids, who seemed to respond to being given authority.

Riker and Data were trapped where they could access Engineering, but the command consoles were offline,

so Data suggested using his own command-circuitry- in his head-to control the console, or something.

Deanna Troi was the highest-ranked officer on the bridge (that reminds me, isn't the officer-on-duty supposed to be

on the bridge at all times? Whatever), and had some tough decisions to face-like if they should abandon the stardrive section

of the ship. Later, she bantered with Riker.

It seems that, as usual, vpw's story of who he was and what he told people

changed over the years and with who he was telling it to.

As of 1970/1971 (the way:living in love),

vpw grew up on a farm and was assigned chores (which he avoided doing).

According to Uncle Harry, they all walked a mile to the same schoolhouse.

(No "family drove them there in 5 minutes", which is one sign of conspicuous

wealth.) pg-77.

Uncle Harry, pg-79, on growing up on the farm.

"But that's the way we were brought up years ago. Our German people were not afraid of work.

I guess that stays with you."

vpw himself, pg-174, on his plans as a youngster.

"First, I thought I wanted to be a doctor, then a lawyer; but by my junior year in college, I had

my heart set on the ministry."

Interesting how he later told some of the corps here that he had originally considered

the business field, and the entertainment field, then later decided on the ministry.

From "Born Again to Serve", pg-36.

""I'd had the best education money could buy; but with all that I knew, I just could not help people. I was discouraged the first year in the ministry, 1941-42. I thought, 'Had my dad spent all that money to educate a fool?' "

I'm having trouble laying my hands on the exact quote this minute of what his dad said

about school, and which one they supported.

Maybe someone can beat me to it.

We know that vpw commonly referred to anything HE did as either the FIRST or the BEST.

Thus, his education was the BEST, and so on.

"Uncle Harry" went into the furniture/ upholstery business.

VP's brother Reuben became a hog farmer.

There is nothing wrong with either of these vocations but they are a bit unusual pursuits for someone who grew up "wealthy".

Seems vpw grew up on a family farm, the entire family had chores,

and he decided that he preferred to go to school rather than inherit the farm.

How rich COULD this farm have been?

In the early 70s, they supposedly grew up working hard on a farm,

and that's how they knew these students with their reluctance to perform manual labor,

were off.

In the 80s, he grew up affluent, almost-rich.

vpw's life just got bigger and bigger with each retelling.

If he was still alive today, he probably would now be saying he was born in a log cabin,

and angels periodically brought portents he was going to be special....

"Apt to teach, he must be able to teach. Apt to teaching. I so believe that I’m apt to teach

that when I finish tonight, I don’t expect any questions left over the subject I’ve taught.

And I expect everybody here to understand it. Because I believe I got the ability to teach. "

HOMILETICS. In homiletics, yo get up on the pulpit, tell stories and convey morals,

and everyone's supposed to sit and agree with them. There's no blackboard, there's

no bullet-points, there's no note-taking. Just "this one talks, and those ones nod and

agree."

In teaching, there's a dialogue. Sometimes the TEACHER learns as well. It's been said that

one of the best ways to learn something is to attempt to teach it. There can be surprises,

there can be disagreements, but there's a 2-way process. Otherwise, how do you know

they're actually thinking and learning rather than memorizing and regurgitating?

I had a pair of exchanges with a professor back in college. Once, he was covering something

on weather, and said that hurricanes north of the equator spin in one direction

(counter-clockwise?) and south of the equator they spin in the other direction (clockwise?),

and that the toilets drain in the same direction- spinning one way north of the equator,

and south they spun the other way. I immediately raised my hand, and asked about toilets

placed ON the equator. He replied that the just break down and don't spin.

He then admitted the toilet comments were not true-I beat him to the punchline.

Hurricanes DO spin that way, but toilets, being smaller, all spin in the same direction due to

the mechanics of plumbing overriding weather patterns when on that small a scale.

However, apparently, I was the only student who raised his hand at that point, which said

something about the rest of the class was at that moment.

Another time, he made a dry joke, and there was the requisite groaning among the students.

He mumbled a note to himself not to make bad jokes. I ran up to him afterwards, and pointed

out the groaning meant the students were WITH him and understood what he was saying-

and that's a good sign. Whether the joke was laughed at or groaned was secondary to

them following the lecture.

Sometimes, a good teacher has to note when he or she is pushing too HARD, since humans

can only learn so much, so fast before it's just sounds and syllables to them.

(Their brain is full.)

vpw, however, expected the students to always be ready to learn everything, even if he

worked them short of sleep and exhausted from manual labour.

Sometimes, something has been phrased to form a specific problem for a student, even

one paying close attention. A long time ago, I overheard a teacher attempt to explain

something involving decimals while teaching fraction conversions. The effect was to cause

me to think the comment was germane to fraction conversions, which meant I followed

incorrect instructions to perform the operations. But I was following what that same teacher

said. Poor communication for a moment led to a misunderstanding.

I had a similar problem when beginning the "Listening with a Purpose" questions in pfal.

I understood session 1 completely, and had even taken notes all across the session.

However, I found the first question awkwardly phrased, and I was unclear what was meant.

We had 3 types of believing, so when asked about the "2 types", I wasn't sure.

However, when the person running it rephrased the question and asked about the

"2 SIDES" of believing, I understood what was being asked. Again, was that me

being a poor student? I think miscommunication can be honest, and still be an impediment

to any lesson of any kind.

========

On the other hand,

"no questions" may be an acceptable goal with a homily, but with any lesson of consequence,

there can be many questions-often perfectly legitimate ones.

In the case of my lecture as a student, I posed a perfectly-legitimate question about

exactly what the professor was teaching about. Another time, I was in a Psychology class

discussing "the 3 Jesuses of Ypsilanti", where 1 Psychologist found 3 men who had the

delusion that they were Jesus Christ himself, and brought them together in the same room.

The professor picked that moment to change subjects. At the next chance to ask a question,

I asked what the result was when the 3 men were brought together.

(Nothing-each one remained convinced HE was the REAL Jesus.) It was a fair question,

and how GOOD the professor was (and he was pretty good) had nothing to do with me

having a question. Personally, I'm disappointed nobody else had wanted to know.

vpw lacked understanding of that- how questions can illuminate aspects not discussed,

and bring in new insights, new observations, new questions for further study not

previously raised. As such, some of the most apt STUDENTS may have the MOST

questions-because they DID understand the teacher.

Why was vpw loathe to entertain questions?

Was it laziness, or isinterest in the individual students?

Did it cover up a lack of sufficient understanding to discuss outside of the homiletic format?

Sadly, we'll never know for sure.

We know there are no POSITIVE reasons to stifle and suppress questions categorically...

"So, when I teach, I expect people t understand what I teach, ‘cause I try to make it so simple that

nobody is stupid enough to miss it. You just can’t miss it when I teach. ‘Cause nobody would be that stupid."

Nice "False Dilemma".

If you have any questions, then it's because you didn't understand. (Sometimes false.)

P -> Q.

If you "didn't understand" what he's teaching,then you're stupid.

Q-> R.

Therefore,

if you have any questions when he teaches, then you're stupid.

P -> R.

Since the initial conclusion is false, the entire logic equation is faulty, however.

Then again, whether or not he was actually RIGHT was of less concern to vpw than if he

was AGREED WITH.

Seriously, doesn't this bother anyone?

Yes, but I don't log in every 20 minutes, and thus can often need to wait up to 24 hours to find something,

let alone reply to it.

He says be gentle

Then exhorts himself and calls people who do not "get" his teachings -- stupid

This is so typical of the TWI mind screw

Like when I went to him to confront him about the adultry, free sex, sex with leaders is okay because you are sevicing them -- CRAP

He told me, "whatsoever things are pure think on those things--"

Like I did not get it

"To the pure all things are pure"

As if I was not pure because I thought the "antics" and "practices" were NOT pure therefore I was stupid and unpure... Otherwise, I would embrace his "ideas" He could not be corrected.

Afterall, if you did not get his teachings YOU ARE STUPID.

Yes, I can see how gentle you were with people who questioned you --- Geez

This was also the same man who said THE WORST THING you can do after

he's taught is to go up and ask him a question.

That's because he's not "apt to teach."

When I teach, I can go for hours. I can use up all my allotted time, and announce

we're stopping only because we ran out of time to go any further-

and have some of the people stay for further discussion with me until I announce we

have to leave. After I teach, I have no problem being asked a question.

(Providing, of course, it's an honest question, and not someone just throwing

something in to be difficult, to amuse themself.) I may not be the best teacher

in the world, but, apparently, I'm more "apt to teach" than vpw was.

And he was getting paid to do it- generally I teach for the joy of it, and to educate

others eager to learn.

Groucho, maybe you should have used something like "peat bog" or "marsh bog"or "tar pit."

VPW's position did not have anything to do with whether or not the Jews as a people or nation were fraudulent.

Incorrect.

He stated that those who were called Jews nowadays were not the descendants of the Jews

mentioned in the Old Testament, selected out by God. That's why the term "Judean" was

used in twi-to avoid saying either "Jew" or "so-called Jew", either of which was an unacceptable

situation, albeit for different reasons.

Because of this, it has been wrongly assumed that most modern Jews are direct lineal descendants of the twelve tribes of Israel. VPW's position was that scholars (i.e. Arthur Koestler as well as others) have thoroughly documented that the majority of modern Jews are not lineal descendants of Shem, Abraham or Jacob, but rather they are predominantly descendants of an Asiatic tribe known as the Khazars - Gentiles who traced their lineage to Japheth. The Khazars as a whole nation converted to a form of the Judean religion practiced in the seventh or eight century A.D. Apparently VPW got that understanding from reading Koestler - The Thirteenth Tribe.

and you seem determined to remain in abject denial of-

Koestler's claims were DISPROVEN.

As quoted on the wikipedia entry on his book, "the Thirteenth Tribe",

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Tribe

"Recent genetic research studies have contradicted the main thesis of The Thirteenth Tribe. For example, a 2000 study of haplotypes by Hammer et al indicates that the Y chromosomes of most Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews are of Middle Eastern origin, containing mutations that are also common among Palestinians and other Middle Eastern peoples, yet are uncommon in the general European population. These results strongly suggest that most male ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews can be traced primarily to the Middle East.

A second study (2006) by Behar et al, based on haplotype analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), also indicates that about 40% of the current Ashkenazi population is descended matrilineally from just four women. These four "founder lineages" were "likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool" originating in the Near East in the first and second centuries CE."

In plain English,

modern Jews not claiming mixed heritage are descended PRIMARILY from the Jews of the Old Testament,

the 12 tribes of Israel.

Modern Jews are NOT descended PRIMARILY from the Khazars. There's genetic evidence of their

12 tribes heritage, but no genetic evidence of a Khazar heritage. That was wild speculation on the

part of Koestler, and has been disproven. Your insistence on ignoring this is sad, but correctible.

However, since you remain determined to miss this, we'll eventually have to have this same

discussion again a year or so from now again, where you paste someone else's quotation of

Koestler and someone will, again, have to link to and post the refutations that everyone ELSE

can easily see disproved Koestler YEARS AGO.

...(Excerpts taken from: Appendix 3, Jew and Judean - Jesus Christ our Passover, by: Victor P. Wierwille)

Well, that's better than no mention at all, but you didn't say what was YOU speaking, and what was

JCOP. You didn't use quotes or otherwise indicate what was their words and what was your own.

That's ok, it's almost traditional for vpw to take credit for the work of others, you're just proudly

carrying on that tradition, I expect....morality and legality don't really figure in...

May I point out the fact that not all victims of The Holocaust were Jewish?

Furthermore, what of the many Americans, both Jewish and non-Jewish, who fought and died to liberate concentration camp inmates?(Jewish and non-Jewish)

The scope of The Holocaust is far wider than museums and public recognitions.

Wierwille placed a great deal of focus on his contention that the Jews, as a people and a nation, are somehow fraudulent and that we, the "born-again believers", have taken their place in God's grand scheme of time.

It appears to me that there are really two distinct issues being intertwined with each other.

1. Was The Holocaust real?

a. Were the victim estimates inflated?

This question is historical in nature.

2. Did Wierwille teach that we(the "born-again believers" )are the "true" chosen people of God?

This question is , by shear virtue of the definition of the word "anti", an issue of anti-Semitism.

I would have to conclude that his teaching on this subject was anti-Semitic.

I won't attempt to answer every comment you made, (it's too late in the evening for that now) but here is link to a list of just a few of the Holocaust memorials and museums:

Holocaust memorials

*counts*

I counted 13 museums across the entire US.

(My count may have been off by 1.)

That's your idea of "every major American city"?

And if you didn't have any better documentation than 13,

why say "every major American city?"

Posting rhetoric you cribbed from someone else- or rearranged the words on-

isn't actually STUDY. It's regurgitation, and is only as reliable as the sources you use.

In this case, you're relying on those who make other wild claims all the time.

Now,

those of you arriving late may have missed some details.

I shall recap, and you can see the documentation all over the longer Holocaust thread.

For those of you wondering-because you never were there when vpw said anything

denying the Holocaust-

there's an amazing correlation on the GSC between the tiny handful of posters who've

argued against the Holocaust-

"it didn't happen"

"the numbers were inflated"

"there were no crematoriums used to incinerate Jews"

"it's all a Zionist plot"

and the tiny handful of posters who keep putting forth that vpw was some sort of

spectacular guy.

Every single Holocaust denier on this board is a vpw-promoter.

Every single one.

(I haven't checked if every single vpw-promoter is also a Holocaust denier.)

I ask you,

if Holocaust denial wasn't part and parcel of what vpw taught them,

why the connection?

vpw-apologists are often quick to claim that anything they don't like wasn't vpw's

fault at all- but the fault of those who came along later.

Why, then, embrace this faulty, demagogue-based ideology of Holocaust denial?

I think this is at LEAST as strong a testimony as the poster who posted what

they heard vpw say directly.

In other words,

"This is your brain on vpw. Any questions?"

The "Holocaust" is nothing more than a propaganda campaign fostered by Hollywood and the media to sell American's on remembering the Holocaust.

Actually, it's a historical event where millions of people, many of them Jews, were imprisoned

by the Nazis and most of them (the prisoners) were killed by the Nazis while imprisoned.

That's so well-documented by now that only the most severe Kool-Aid drinkers can bring

themselves to say "it didn't happen" "millions of Jews weren't slaughtered" and so on.

But for some people, there was no mass-murder, just a media event decades later about

some made-up problems.

It is becoming a ruling symbol of our culture. Hardly a month passes without a new TV production, a new film, a number of new books, and the flood is increasing rather than abating.

So, from the last 12 months, you can name 10 different NEW TV productions, films, or books,

at least? Drawing from all 3 media? Shouldn't be hard if that's really happening,

and not just rhetoric from a poster....

Every major American city has at least one Holocaust museum or memorial

Got documentation for this claim?

EVERY major American city?

Is this hundreds of memorials,

or are you creatively redefining "major" so that there's only a few "major" cities?

and there are more than 250 memorials or museums worldwide, most in the US and Europe.

I'm doubtful there's fully 250, but there's probably many that represent specific people,

memorializing THEM, and those are being added together to make a false impression....

The largest is in Washington, DC which is taxpayer funded run by a federal government agency and draws more than 2 million vistors a year. The public is continually reminded of Jewish suffering during WWII. Between 1989 and 2003 alone, more than 170 films with Holocaust themes were made. In many American and European schools and all Israeli classrooms a focus on the wartime suffering of Europes Jews is obligatory.

Wasn't in my education. How many American schools in this "many"?

And ONE Holocaust museum for the entire country hardly suffices as emphasis.

There's more than one museum in this country just for aeronautics,

one in the same town as that Holocaust museum.

And so on, for many other subjects (the American Indian, Natural History, Criminology...)

Sometimes it costs very little- just overcoming reluctance to step outside your comfort zone-

to make a small gesture which makes a large difference to the person you made it to.

On the positive side, yes. On the negative side, no.

I think that's where VP could have gotten it wrong.... i.e., "The Law Of Believing on the Negative Side".

It doesn't make sense to me and as I look at the scripture I don't see where Jesus taught this...

Ok, here's what we agree on, and what we don't agree on.

"vpw got believing in reverse wrong"- check.

"We should believe the promises of God"- check.

"God made an immutable law for sinner and nonsinner of believing"- no check.

Believing God? Good thing.

Claiming that's some sort of "law"? Not so much.

We agree on quite a bit, though.

There are contradictions and errors in PFAL. It isn't God Breathed, after all. :)

But it isn't atheistic either.

As written, I agree with this post.

As a whole, the 12 sessions of pfal are not atheistic- not in the usual sense of "antagonistic to religion"

nor in the specific sense Juedes meant- which was technically correct- of a 12 session class

where God was irrelevant.

However,

Juedes didn't say the entirety of pfal, all 12 sessions, were atheistic.

He said the so-called "LAW" of believing was "atheistic", that is, God was irrelevant to the

system. It required "laws of the universe", and occasionally mentioned God,

but He was incidental at best to any practical application of these supposed "laws".

Believing could get you RED DRAPES, or kill your child, or give a hypochondriac illnesses he

never had-just claimed he did.