WordWolf

Maybe. Or maybe it means exactly what it says- he knew this Christian who saw this vision. I'm curious as to whether Tertullian or anyone else had a psychological issue with the idea that some guy who wasn't all over the Bible might have a special characteristic like a cool, "special" vision. Is there a reason other than "it MIGHT be that way" to think that Paul suddenly switched to this method of address? Or, was he doing this ALL OVER THE EPISTLES and I've missed it somehow? (If so, please provide examples.)

BTW, this marks the THIRD, count 'em, THIRD time he's said he was going to quit. Twice in 1942, once in 1951.

Please post the exact quote where I did that. What I said spoke nothing of the present nor past. Your inability to read what was on the SAME screen has been demonstrated again, so there is no need to announce it. And I don't "juggle" when approaching the deeper things of God. I don't plan to post them in this forum, either.

No, it's just ONE post of mine where the quote tags are COMPLETELY refusing to work. I've been using the quotes a LOT since arriving.... remember? The Wonderland thread has a lot of those posts... I hope that one post is just a fluke...

*thinks* Here's how I see it right now.... vpw MEANT to say that the others were counterfeits. However, even he knew Rufus Mosley was real and it didn't take with Rufus. We know it finally worked with Stiles, and Stiles spent HOURS with him, going over and over and over stuff, THEN walking him thru. Since others didn't seem to need this (Rufus was SURPRISED it didn't work), I think the only logical conclusion was that vpw was the spiritual equivalent of a REMEDIAL STUDENT. Stiles needed to give him private tutoring because he wasn't able to keep up with the rest of the class.

Is it just me or did the quote tags suddenly stop working?

You put your posts out in public, you take your chances with the rest of us. You don't see me chasing you all over cyberspace, do you? When he's got the advantage, he prefers to respond. When not, he makes vague statements as to being misrepresented. For example, Tom challenged him to dispute ANY of his claims or my direct quotes, in response to Mike's standard claim of being misrepresented. For the record, I've NEVER misrepresented Mike, unless "misrepresented" means "show him as he does not WISH to be seen." I accurately reflect his CONTENT. His posts are on a public messageboard. Thus they stand or fall on their own merits, and face possible ridicule when they are blatantly foolish. Translation: I prefer to run my commercials rather than discuss the faults of my error-ridden doctrines. Speaking of which, here's my commercial: Actually, this is an improvement on his usual commercial. Normally, he prefers to not even allow for the possibility that he might be deceived. He's learned SOMETHING the past few years. You're an adult and can choose to communicate with whoever you want. There are women who are penpals of murderers in prison, also, and claim to fall in love with them. Some people here have opened communications with Mike and have not only regretted it, but they've angrily demanded Mike stop trying to communicate with them, and use their personal histories (edited for his advantage) in his posts. But hey, for all you know, maybe I'm lying. Look around the site, though-I got all that from their POSTS. Only the ones he might have answers to, of course. He's toned down his insults. We used to be called "busloads of bozos" and other things. But it WILL be on MIKE's terms, which should get your attention. Do whatever you want. He's posted it here, and someone posted it in the other board of a twi innie recently. It's called "the Joy of Serving". You can do a search on it if you don't want to wait for Mike to string you along in suspense over it. It was posted BY Mike, of course, so you can use his name as a filter. This giving you the thing to enter in the search engine, this is an example of me trying to "suppress this information". Us providing information and his own words when you weren't in the room is how he defines "suppression", that is, "disagreeing with him". Another thing you probably learned was to beware people who want to hide some of their comments and keep controlling their image.... In case you don't want to bother reading the entire "last message", here's a thumbnail sketch. "Serving people is important for Christians. Therefore, master all three levels of PFAL and serve them that. There are no answers outside the Way Ministry." My initial response to it was that this was the closing remarks of a man with an overinflated sense of his organization, and an underinflated sense of all Christians outside that organization. Perhaps your response will be the same. Perhaps not. Either way, Mike looks like he might resume posting DOCTRINAL posts outside the DOCTRINAL forum. You wouldn't do that, would you, Mike? ---- GreasyTech editing only to find why the quotes are not quotes. No text changed.

Now then, first, a few ground-rules. God's Word, I believe we agree, would be the Word proceeding from God. As such, it would be free of errors as issued. (Those of you who don't believe there IS a Word of God, please note that I didn't say there must BE one, only that this would be an attribute should it exist. Please unclench and consider this an intellectual exercise.) If it would be free of errors, another thing it MUST be free of is "internal contradictions." That is, the mathematical statement "A and not-A" can't be found in it. Something cannot specifically be ONE discrete thing, and at the same time be ANOTHER discrete thing. Here's an example. Suppose someone presents you with an odd item. He explains it is a "blorfnot", and is an exotic food item. He then goes into a lengthy story about his travels in Hungary. As he continues his story, he explains that the item he has presented to you is a "blorfnot", and was invented there for use in woodworking and building furniture. He has presented an internal contradiction. The blorfnot is a food item and is NOT a food item at the same time. This is a "contradiction", and it is impossible for both halves of a contradiction to be true. Therefore, any item containing a contradiction contains an error and is imperfect. Since it is imperfect and contains at least one error, it cannot be said to be free of errors. Therefore, it can't be the Word of God, unless this God is imperfect and makes mistakes. (For the sake of this discussion, let us agree to accept a perfect God who doesn't make mistakes, and proceed.) ========= Now then, there's a claim that occasionally passes through here that vpw's books were the Word of God. However, all the errors in it EACH prove it is not. Nevertheless, here's one which hasn't been discussed enough. I present to you the Burnt Umber Book, "The Word's Way", book 3 of Studies in Abundant Living. Specifically, I present to you the strange tale of the Amazing Morphin' Man! (pg-87-88)Based on verse 1, looks like we'll be discussing "visions and revelations of the Lord." Paul speaks of a man he knew who had an amazing experience. Then vpw talks about the words "caught up" and "third heaven" for a few pages. pg-91, he's finishing up on the third heaven. Wait a minute! When did PAUL get "caught away"? Paul knew A MAN in Christ who was "caught away"! Paul NEVER said he HIMSELF was "caught away"! Doesn't that strike you as mildly ironic? vpw followed up a piece of "private interpretation" bysaying this ended private interpretation. What prompted vpw to cause this unnamed man to morph into Paul? It's absolutely amazing, isn't it? pg-91.There he's Paul again in vpw's comments! pg-92. Skipping the "literal translation" and reading what is written,it should be obvious the emphasis is not on Paul getting Revelation- it is on the Lord providing the visions and revelations. The Lord is the one deserving of glory. That's why it's not expedient for Paul to glory. pg-92 It's the guy again. Please note the "more than" was vpw, not me. pg-95. Now it's Paul again.pg-96. So, in this chapter, There's a man Paul knew more than fourteen years ago, who was caught up to the third heaven. No-it was PAUL who was caught up to the third heaven. No-it was the man Paul knew. No-it was PAUL. This chapter contains an internal contradiction, it contradicts ITSELF. Since A and not-A can't BOTH be right, this chapter has error, and is not God-Breathed. Therefore, it is not the Word of God, and the book is not the Word of God, since it cannot contain an error. === For an encore, please note that this chapter was about VISIONS and REVELATIONS. Someone keeps insisting actual TIME TRAVEL was involved. Thank you all so much!

Here we go...pg-196. pg-197, Rufus Mosley prays for vpw, but no dice. Folks?

The "search" function on this site still works. (I liked the old one better, but I can get approximate results here now.) Look at the commands at the upper right. I provided comments in quotes. You can sort by poster name (Mike) and by one or more words specified there. Almost all of them are still in the archives. (For which Mike should pay for the data storage.) === I'll make your search on this one easily. Please check and confirm for the rest of the new people that he said this. Mike 2/2/04, 12:17am eastern. "When you see Christ in his glory he will be holding a PFAL book in his hand and teaching from it." It is a one-sentence post, so there's nothing else I CAN add to give context. The question as to whether or not he was joking comes up on the same thread, 2/3/04, 7:51pm eastern. "So, Mike, you weren't kidding about JC coming with a PFAL book in his hand." It is a one-sentence post, so there's nothing else I CAN add to give context. Mike, 2/3/04, 7:53pm eastern, replied. "Totally serious. I've already seen him this way more than once." That was the entire text of that post so there's nothing else I CAN add to give context. ===== Actually, when he first made that comment, I certainly thought he was joking, and I expect others said the same.

That's proof you're new. Mike's been saying this for YEARS. Right. Correct. The tally is higher than that, but you already get the idea. Here's a few gems of Mike that you've missed so far. "When you see Christ in his glory he will be holding a PFAL book in his hand and teaching you from it." ("So, Mike, you weren't kidding about JC coming with a PFAL book in his hand?") "Totally serious. I've already seen him this way more than once." "Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman. Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL. He told me so." He believes "God's Word was LOST in the first century." And "Your present approach has failed for all those who tried it for 2000 years." His descriptions of vpw have included the following: he was "born with an overabundance of brains and brawn", was "overgifted", and "where he walked, the earth shook." He doesn't consider that "idolizing", but you might.

It appears that vpw made some claims to that effect. You believe there was such a thing done. You believe there was a reason such a thing was done, which is almost axiomatic when speaking of God. You may believe anything you wish-and you do. rascal paid attention to it and let the word of vpw explain itself. She did not approach it with preconceived notions that it was a Bible. You DO speak a message different from Dr's. That applies to Dr vpw AND Dr WordWolf. Please post them so we can go over them one at a time.That way we can attempt to teach you what is evident to everyone else who reads them. A) There WAS no time-travel incident in pfal. B) The chapter you speak of proves ALL BY ITSELF that pfal is not "The Word of God". If you carefully read it, you would have noticed it. C) When we discussed it previously, I explained it step-by-step. Since you've forgotten, and it's been a while, I'll repost it. The new people will find it interesting. By this time tomorrow, it will be up. :D It's quite provable we understood what he said when he said it. At times, vpw made inflated claims as to his own importance. What he did NOT do was claim his books were a new Bible. We proved that, and you ignored it. Business as usual, so the headlines read.

pg-193, Amil Schaffner teaches him some stuff. Supposedly, A.S. spoke in tongues once as a child, and was told it wasn't of God.pg-194. We're almost to the part where he drops a bunch of names about the holy spirit field.. Comments?

Belle can answer any question she wants to. The question was posted in a public message forum, and as such is fair game. They were presented deceitfully, some of them were error, and many people were hurt by them. Templelady did NOT invite you to attack her personal beliefs. No, they're not "hypocisy", and wouldn't be even if that was a real word in English.She hasn't seen people trying to micromanage and ruin lives in HER group. Yes you will. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/main/forums.htm "In that light, please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal." "All are welcome here. However, harassing behavior will result in being banned from the forums, There is no need for personal attacks. If you have a specific problem with a poster, settle it outside of the forum." "All are welcome here." That means "You can't attack other posters for being in a group you don't like, and you can't attack other posters for not being in a group you DO like. "Harassing behavior"- that's "the type of posts Allan does" "will result in being banned from the forums"-that means "if he keeps it up, he's history." "There is no need for personal attacks." That means "Allan has little reason to post here." === To everyone except Allan, please excuse the sarcasm at the end-I think it was called-for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Island_of_Dr._Moreau

Albert Cliffe, on the other hand.... vpw has criticized ministers for teaching the dead were alive, but somehow missed that Albert Cliffe taught that very thing and credited them for some of his writing. "Many of the subjects I have given in my Bible class have been dictated to me by my loved ones long since passed on..." Cliffe is one of his main sources for the so-called "Law" of Believing. Cliffe wrote the books "Let Go and Let God",(copyright 1951) and "Lessons in Successful Living."(copyright 1953) and "Signposts" (copyright 1949) (His magazine was also later called "Signposts".) Chapters in "Let Go and Let God" include "There is Magic in Believing" "The Law of Cause and Effect" Chapters in "Lessons in Successful Living" include "Spiritual Healing" "Positive and Negative Thinking" and "TITHES AND THE LAW OF PROSPERITY" Those of you looking for the tithing source can now mark this off your scorecard.

E. Stanley Jones.... Seems he was the real deal. He also was the author of "the Way" (copyright 1946) and "Abundant Living" (copyright 1935). "Victorious Living" (copyright 1936). http://www.vaxxine.com/eves/jones.htm http://www.aabibliography.com/aahtml13/esjones.html

There's a significant difference. Here's a quick example. Oldiesman considers "Christians Should Be Prosperous" to be error. Oldiesman believes that if CSBP was God-Breathed, it would not have errors. Therefore, Oldiesman does not believe CSBP was God-Breathed. If it is "open to checking and rechecking" then it is not "inerrant", which is a requirement for "God-Breathed".

It is not difficult to determine if the letter of the law has been broken. All you need is the letter of the law, and the specifics of what action was taken. In the case of a dispute over the printed word, this is pretty easy. The opposite of "illegal" is not "justified".Someone may commit an illegal action-steal a loaf of bread- which EVERYONE may consider justified. This does not mean the law was not broken, but punishment may be mitigated or foregone if it is believed to be justified. In New Orleans, doctors broke into a pharmacy to get the medications needed to save lives during the worst of the emergency. THEY HAD A POLICE ESCORT. Was the law broken? Yes. Did the police know this? Duuuuuhhhh. Was a crime committed? Yes. Why did law enforcement personnel participate in the commission of a crime? They judged that the illegal action was illegal but justified in order to save lives. I expect there will be a short investigation and no charges will be made to them. --- Now then, in the case of vpw, he did not have to choose between "plagiarize and fail to cite sources" and "people die". There were perfectly legal alternatives to what he did. He chose not to exercise them. It's a lawyer's job to argue a position whether or not he believes it to be true. That's why I mentioned a JUDGE. What is legal or not is hardly opinion. ANYTHING is debatable.

Plus their posting styles are completely different.

Well, since it's from some notes you made on the book, I'd make it clear these are from your notes on the book, not direct quotes, but that you don't have the original with you to make a comparison. It might read something like this.... "The book, 'the Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse', has much useful information you may be thankful to have. Although I don't have my copy anymore, I DO have my notes from it. Here's what some of them say:" or it might read "The book 'the Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse' says something like this on the following subject..." or "Here's more from my notes based on the book 'the Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse'" or something along those lines. Just so we can see that this is FROM it without being direct quotes. A little background on the book wouldn't hurt, either. For example, I think the writer was never an innie, and thus never used the expression "devil spirit" which you used. If that's true, then that part of your notes is a paraphrase or entirely your impressions of the book.

WordWolf said Oldiesman commented on this. Actually, Oldiesman, citing sources is a LEGAL requirement and is legally-actionable. Actually, what we're discussing at this exact moment whether or not citation of sources is legallyrequired-or morally required. What you're asserting is actually "I believe and state that when he read an idea, then wrote about it in his book, without citing his source, that there was nothing wrong with this." What I am asserting is actually "I believe and state that when he read an idea, then wrote about it in his book, without citing his source, that this was morally wrong and legally wrong." No I don't-which post did I say that? Please provide the thread, page, date and time, and provide the quote. I say it is wrong, but I didn't say that THIS was theft. If it IS, then I'm unaware of this. (Perhaps one of our legal-eagle posters can fill us BOTH in.) A lot of it would. Now, if someone was actually claiming that was stealing, we would have grounds for discussion of that. Since this appears to be a manufactured complaint (pending an actual quote from a post), This is a complaint without merit. It's as valid as complaining about someone's charge that "When he rose from his grave in 1986 and sucked the blood from people on grounds, it was wrong." Right-nobody claimed that EITHER. (Duh.) Direct sources for a literary work are legally required to be cited. Direct sources for a sermon are not legally required to be cited. This is not difficult to understand. ****** Actually, in the PFAL books, if the section cites Bullinger, then he's fine.If the section fails to cite the source (the Companion Bible by EW Bullinger), then it's wrong. At least one running of the taped class, the live staff provided a Companion Bible, open to the picture with the 4 crosses, AND an interlinear with the missing word open, for the students to look over. Bravo. I appreciate that. However, that is STILL not legally equivalent to citing his source in the book. This is not difficult to understand. I lose track of how many times we've said this. Whether or not something is plagiarized, or sources are not cited, or anything along those lines, has NOTHING TO DO with the validity of the printed material. If Manson writes a book and is the original author, that does not guarantee merit of the material. If someone writes a paper that is a segment of Leonard's best work, that does not guarantee the material itself lacks merit. Whether or not the material is true has nothing to do with the illegality of what vpw did in printing it. It reflects entirely on the character of the supposed "author". vpw KNEW what was required-he couldn't get out of COLLEGE without knowing this, and couldn't graduate and get his Masters without knowing this. (Both his college and where he got his Masters are schools with certification, and ALL such schools make this an elementary requirement on all submissions.) Furthermore, whether you were happy to hear it has nothing to do with ANYTHING. You were happy when you first sat through him explaining how "technically, all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king", which was completely wrong, and when first reading "Christians Should Be Prosperous" and when vpw said that people should be giving their money to Bible organizations in the class. I don't blame you for that. Nearly EVERY first-time student of pfal was happy at both times, also. (There are 3 types of first-time students of pfal- those who were happy to hear most of it, those who dropped out before or just after Session 12, and revisionists who rewrote their memories.) HOWEVER, it has NO BEARING on whether or not illegalities were performed. If you were starving and someone gave you a loaf of bread, you'd receive it happily, even if they told you they had to steal it to get it to you. The bread was good-the act of stealing it was bad. The theft didn't "taint" the bread, the "worthy cause" of feeding the starving did not "sanctify" the theft. Perhaps the owner of the bread may choose not to press charges due to the situation, but he is still entitled to recover damages. See it now? (I can hope, can't I?)

Um, what part's a direct quote from the book, and what's your commentary? Or is all of that a direct quote? Or is all of it a paraphrase from a chapter?

I believe someone wrote this article. As for the supposition this "study" used, it's ridiculous. There's no "control group", and no isolation of variables. It basically says A) Britain has a healthier society than the US. B) The only real differences between Britain and the US are religious beliefs. C) Therefore US' religious beliefs are the sole reason the US' society isn't as healthy as Britain. Let's suppose A) is true for the sake of discussion. (Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But let's get to the real objections.) B) is silly. For starters, we know there are more shootings per capita in the US over Britain. Is it reasonable to presume this means that Britons have lousy aim? No, duh. There are more HANDGUNS per capita in the US over Britain. No one's allowed to own a handgun. Period. "The police don't have a gun, and you don't have a gun. So the police say 'Stop, or I'll say 'stop' again.'" (Robin Williams.) (Yes, there are a kind of SWAT team with guns, but they have to be called in, they're elite units.) However, this article seems to say that the higher per capita shootings are due to belief in a god. Supposedly, the ONLY differences are religious. Do I believe that societies lacking religion are necessarily 'sick' societies? No. The odds may or may not be a bit better. A healthy society has a clear system of order, a healthy economy (eliminating the need for street crime to survive) and clear rules, along with a respect for the law and clear punishment for lawbreaking. A belief in a higher power who orders such respect for the law can make this easier, imposing a reason to respect the law. On the other hand, it's also another tool that some people can use to seize power in a society. (We've all seen that one...) So, I hardly think the answer is as cut-and-dried as they made it out to be.

I noticed you skipped most of the points I've made, and seem determined to ignore my use of an example of a book you owned/own. You do today. I have a bet with myself that about 3 months from the expiration of this thread, you'll reverse this position. I'll have to see this maybe February or so. I believe the only way to prove this isn't semantics used to label everything as "not plagiarized" would be to give examples of what you consider plagiarism, undocumented sources but NOT plagiarism, and something where a source need not be documented at all. IF you are game to an intelligent, polite discussion along those lines, please open a thread for it. I'd gladly participate in it, and do so playing nice. That's a gross oversimplification of my position.He claimed to have no source for some materials other than the Bible and GOD ALMIGHTY. When he did so and lifted sentences, that was plagiarism, and any judge can tell you that. When he did so and rewrote sentences, that was ALSO plagiarism, and any judge can tell you that. When he took an idea from someone else and taught aloud, it is not necessarily expected that he cite his sources-nor would I expect him to. When he took an idea from someone else and WROTE IT IN A BOOK, it is a LEGAL requirement that he give the source. In some cases, a footnote is called for, in others (like Woodrow used all over Babylon:Mystery Religion) endnotes are called for. When he took a concept that came from THE BOOK of someone then writes about it WHETHER OR NOT HE BELIEVES IT- he is legally bound to, at the very least, place it in the bibliography of the book. Book to book concepts mean SOURCES. SOURCES must be cited in your bibliography. I learned that in JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL. If I didn't cite sources in high school, I would have been in trouble. If I didn't cite sources in college, the paper would be given a failing grade- OR I'd be given the chance to re-submit it WITH the sources or face a failing grade. Further, if I write a book and claim "I had no sources" and have even ONE source, I lie AND can get into trouble. That's the case with the White Book and the Orange Book. (I explained why above, again.) The context was 95% of us on the messageboard OR partakers in the threads explaining plagiarism. It was not "ex-twi" or "people posting in cyberspace" or "lurkers". I don't know enough about THEM to make comments-those are people I've never interacted with. I believe you think that.I think the vast majority of people who post here believe he plagiarized, hid his sources, and did so to support his claim he learned from GOD (with slight side-trips to taking tiny bits from others after he "got the error" out of their work.) By both of us using the words "I think", we indicated we're speaking of OUR OPINIONS, which makes our statements less universal, and thus, less objectionable to those who we are not speaking for. Yes it is. Since Leonard never told me, anything I say would be a guess.However, he DID give clear indications that plagiarism is wrong in his books afterwards. I addressed this several posts back, and I don't feel the need to keep reposting the same comment you missed the first time. Feel free to scroll up. But you expected me to know? Usually.I've seen people who had cause but chose not to. The reasons are their own. In your opinion. In my opinion, the material of much of vpw's teaching was good material. Presenting it was a good thing. The framework in which it was presented was a bad thing. Some of it was error-but the framework DEMANDED it was all above questioning-which is a worse thing. When he said things like adultery was ok with God (reserved for "private teachings") and that "all the women in the land belonged to the king", it wasn't legally a crime, but it facilitated what WERE crimes. When he self-published books that were entirely cut-and-pastes of the books of others, and failed to footnote the other books, endnote the other books, or include them in the Bibliography, THOSE were CRIMES. AND they were morally wrong. The holders of the copyrights were entitled to sue and recover damages. If they knew about it, of course- but "his" books were never distributed nationally among anyone BUT pfal students and grads.