Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by WordWolf

  1. Being born again gives one considerable tools for doing the will of God. It does NOT make one immune to committing sinful behaviour, nor does it make one immune to devilish influence. What one is SUPPOSED to do is make the decision to "make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof." One is SUPPOSED to call on the power of God, not automatically assume He's zapping every devil that approaches you. The idea that leadership could provision places and times for sinful behaviour, inviting devilish influence, and expect God to force His protection on him despite h
  2. seaspray, I'm glad you're tone has improved. I'm hoping we can disagree with fewer insults this time around. HOWEVER, you said "the greatest scientific and religious minds on the planet all agreed the earth was flat". This makes for a nifty song, and a fable exalting eurocentric colonialism, but in NO way reflects the historical accounts. Columbus' sailors and captains all knew the world was round. The REAL question on those ships was whether or not there would be time to reach the East Indies before they ran out of room. (Incidentally, if they did NOT bump into an entire oth
  3. Somebody just mentioned this, so I thought I'd bring it back now, for those of you who missed it the first time.
  4. Mike, you've got a LOT of nerve invoking Joseph and vpw in the same sentence. Joseph suffered quietly for YEARS in prison and never turned his back on God. When a female FORCED HER affection on Joseph, a slave, what did he do? Did he say "well, I've been a slave for years, I have 'needs', she has 'needs', she's obviously consenting, and she's hot, so..."? NO! He was resolved not to sin against God, and, when normal methods of reinforcement proved insufficient, he RAN! He refused to sin against God, no matter WHO consented. ---------- Compare that to vpw, who insisted on his
  5. I was wondering if anyone was going to mention that song.... It's always a good one to remember just in case you're going to be on Jeopardy. Zix, Steve, if I ever get the time, I may start sketching out rules for that RPG you mentioned. However, I'd almost certainly use White Wolf's Storyteller system, since it's accessible, and people can read and understand it within the first 1/2 hour. I just need a catchy name in the "Noun:the Adjective" format.
  6. I can't speak for free internet service providers (ISPs). I CAN tell you something about free e-mail services. I disdain hotmail and yahoo. You can find free e-mail services by going to http://www.fepg.net/ and using their "Posty" widget. Select from their list what advantages you want, and they'll tell you which free services offer it.
  7. *grabs pen and paper* Let's see. Three-thousand people, prayer for 60 seconds each. That's 50 hours a day each day to pray for them all one minute. Let's cut the time in half. Thirty seconds of prayer a day, for all 3000. That's half the time, or 25 hours a day , each day. (Reminder: each day has 24 hours.) Let's cut it in half AGAIN. This means 15 seconds of prayer a day, every day, for all 3,000. That's not a lot of time to pray for someone. *steps away for a moment* Having just timed 15 seconds of prayer, I have indeed determined that 15 seconds of prayer CAN cover the
  8. A) When discussing any work, whether in the spoken or written medium, it is always understood that the CONTEXT and FORMAT affects the discussion. In the case of storytelling to little children, (or adults), the expectation unless told otherwise is that you are passing along a story that you've heard. I've enjoyed hearing such stories, and enjoyed passing them along. (Having a high-recall is great for reciting entire stories verbatim.) When referring to things anecdotally, however, I always give my source. That's usually considered intellectually honest, and is expected o
  9. Translation for the home audience: Yes, Mike thinks it's perfectly fine for vpw to lift exact quotes from the books of others and put them in his own book, without citing that they are quotes, or citing the source. He does NOT view that as intellectually dishonest, since he deems that the end-teaching- justifies the means-misrepresentation, and what's now referred to as "idea theft". Further, the act of citing would have cluttered up the book and make it difficult to read, despite the fact that many books group all their footnotes at the END of the book or chapter to prevent just
  10. Dizzy: A) Yes, you were right. You didn't come to the same conclusions he did, therefore, you didn't REALLY arrive. Mike knows the material better than you. QED. B) Dizzy, if you return to the "discussion", PLEASE cite page, paragraph, etc, and provide a quote. C) Please consider returning. I hate being the only canine in the discussion. ------------------------------------------ Mike, A) I honestly thought I did a fair job of summarizing your previous statements on what I cited. With the exception of a single parenthetical editorializing, they were near-verbatim quotes o
  11. Dizzy, let me brief you on a little that you missed. Mike has rather proudly proclaimed, on several occasions, that vpw's writings-pfal as a class and the collateral books-are of superior value than that Bible you respect (as did vpw, in that SAME class.) He's called the modern Bible versions "remnants", as if they were left-over pieces of something useful left behind. He's said it's of dubious benefits to study at all, and thinks believing it is silly, simply a kow-towing to religious traditions and blind acceptance of leadership's statements. On the other hand, Mike has PR
  12. Anyone here heard the claim that we expected Jesus Christ to show up during vpw's lifetime? 'Cmon, don't be shy, I know SOMEBODY heard it. You don't even have to admit you said it...
  13. This thread's purpose is NOT to claim that all evil in the world proceeded from vpw. (Some did, most did not.) This thread's purpose is NOT to claim that vpw's works-his teachings, his books, etc. were of zero usefulness whatsoever. (Some were quite nice, some had considerable error, in doctrine as well as phrasing, as written by the author.) Since certain people keep trying to claim this is the stance of anyone who fails to fall in a prostrate manner and venerate his writings, I felt the need to get that out of the way AGAIN. ---------------------------------------------------
  14. ALL of us are quoting from "fading memories"? Guess you've missed a LOT of threads. A lot of us post with quotes directly from book or tape, with citations. If we're quoting word-for-word from a source directly in front of our noses, how then could it be a "fading memory"? --------------------------------- No, wait, I know- anything that shows vpw as unfit somehow is unreliable. Either it's a deliberate lie or forgery, or the frame of mind of the reader somehow invalidates a direct quote, or it's a misquote, or something. Whatever it is, anything that depicts vpw as somehow ta
  15. OK, now THAT one I'd call a 2 plus 2 equals 5 error, when documented and stated that way. I'm just casting my vote. :)-->
  16. Actually, you'll want to read up on Harry Houdini before calling yourself an authority on him. (No, you didn't go that far yet-I'm going somewhere.) Harry Houdini was perhaps the biggest SKEPTIC of his time. He was well aware that his OWN skills were not supernatural, but practised. So, much of his later life was spent debunking hucksters and frauds. (The Amazing Randi currently does this type of work.) Even in his death, Houdini left a lasting challenge. He challenged anyone to bring him back in a seance. He left behind secret passwords that, if they ever were revealed to
  17. Ok, addressing points in the order I saw them... A) Mike, I did read your "many many words posted on mastery." I noticed that at no point in ANY of the posts is a definition given that is not reflexive. My junior-high school history teacher refused to let us use a word in its definition. (This came up when we could not use the word "fur" in explaining what a fur trapper was, since we had not explained what a fur WAS.) That was a legitimate lesson,and AFAIK, a proper rule in teaching. You've posted that we're supposed to master, that we are supposed to master until we reach certain goa
  18. I can argue either end of whether or not an ellipsis and exclusion in discussion is appropriate in this verse. So long as an ellipse indicates the admission something WAS deleted, I see no reason to call this one an error outright, either. It's open to differences of opinion.
  19. Mike, one of these years, in all the posting about "mastering" stuff, will you ever get around to a plain English definition of "mastering" that does not contain the word "master" or "mastering" in it? I'd like a clear under- standing of what "mastering" is, since it's supposedly something I'm supposed to be doing. I keep asking, you keep ignoring. ------------------------------------- JesseJoe, at one point, you asked about whether Mike thought the Advanced Class was canonical or not. Mike's reply said he didn't say either way, but that he hadn't determined what parts were
  20. ...this same figure, in the Greek, is called "fullashidamI", for those of you unfamiliar with the Greek.
  21. That's just it, though, Mandii. As fas as Mike has said, without pfal, using only the Bible (aka the Bible remnants, fragments, tatters, debris, or whatever you'd like to put as The Word there), those Christians, no matter HOW many signs, miracles and wonders they've seen, no matter how much joy in their lives, no matter how much deliverance, don't REALLY have a relationship with Christ. They can't. They lack the tools as much as someone without a rocketship can't reach the moon.
  22. Hey, CC, it's called keeping them honest. If they're legit, like, say, Stanley, it's no harm. If they're moneygrubbers, you catch it fast.
  23. Rafael, in case you missed it, Mike reiterated his previous assertion that you were a latecomer, and, as such, are unqualified to read vpw's books and actually comprehend what they were about. If you had arrived in the "good old days" like Jerry Barrax and Zixar and Research Geek and Goey and ex cathedra and Mike, no doubt you'd have no problem coming to exactly the same conclusions Mike has, and probably would be quite contrite for daring to suggest that vpw's books were the work of man, not the work of God, who now took this chance to fix all the problems with His previous bo
  24. Weeeeelllll.... If you're trying to stretch interpretation so that even the slightest wiggle-room is enough to let vpw off the hook (which is a legit position), then, yes, this would be enough of an excuse to drop Error 1. You want my opinion, though... We can make a MUCH stronger case that the Acts verse in no way addressed his point. My take on the matter is that if vpw was right and Acts "proved" it, it was by accident. Otherwise, why not just cite the verse in Acts? Heck, why not just toss it on the verse-list for that session and let reviewers look at it then? Now, i
  25. Ok, I can see where you were going now. I think the "metonymy" thing will probably not be a major issue for a few reasons. It's technical. It won't hold interest in many people, and some of those won't be able to fully understand it. So, either side, if cleverly-phrased, could "convince" most people who WANTED to believe in it. It is on that principle that the Research Dept got an easy ride for a LONG time. Of course, feel free to pursue this-I just wanted to point that out.
  • Create New...