WordWolf

I think you covered it all. This is a social arena, where regulars DO interact, old friendships are renewed, and new friendships start. However, IMHO, the most vital functions of the GSC are its role in assisting people in leaving twi, or in never getting involved in twi, and in offering a place to communicate, and possibly assistance in recovery, for those who successfully escape twi. As I see it, everything else, fun though it is, is a secondary consideration.

Megan: That's one idea among many. I'd LIKE to believe it. IS there any EVIDENCE cited to try to make the case, or is this just another writer declaring their opinion is "the truth" by fiat?

Am I the only person here following the "Hush" story arc? If so, I'll spare everyone my speculations. If not, who do you think is behind it all and why? Bonus if you've already gone down the "official" list of suspects. :)--> I've got it down to 6 official suspects, with two of them the front-runners.

*sketches this in the air a moment* Let's see if I understand that last news item correctly. She's tied down to the bed. Ok. I can picture that. He enters the scene, dressed as Batman. Now, what's Batman doing in this scene? Since she's not dressed as either hero or villain, I'm supposing he's 'rescuing a prisoner' (hey, SOMEBODY tied her down.) Ok. I've got the basic scenario here. One question, though. Why the HECK was he trying to swoop down on her? That's not how he did it on the tv show or the movies. I've never seen him swoop DOWN on a VICTIM in any cartoon or comic book. I wonder what he was basing that maneuver on. Obviously he didn't do the math before attempting this little maneuver. (I'm not even going to wonder WHY a Batman costume or anything else.) ----------------------------------------------- Comedian Yakov Smirnoff, prior to the fall of Communism, on life in the U.S. after growing up in the Soviet Union. "You have freedoms here I never even imagined. I was in the store. I saw a sign that said 'New Freedom'. What a country! Freedom in a box. I bought 15. I bought 'super-maxi', because I figured I should get as much freedom as possible. When I got them home, I was trying to figure them out. The box said 'sanitary napkins'. So, I put them out at the dinner table. I figured they were good napkins-they were expensive. People would go 'yuck'..*pushes away*,,,but no one would tell me what they were. "

Go to "my space", then "private topic" and look-you can do that anytime.

A) Yes, this is not Mike's show. We can post anywhere we want, keeping in mind the next item. B) Yes, this is PAWTUCKET's site. Mike is using bandwidth and memory Paw is PAYING FOR to compensate for his own refusal to make his own website and messageboard. C) So long as Mike continues to push his contraBiblical doctrine on the GSC, people will show up on the threads no matter WHERE they are. D) Yes, I'll do a "Cliff Notes" on the new stuff once I catch up to it. People avoiding his threads to avoid full exposure can keep up on those.

What do you think about the phrase "to the ages of the ages"? That's how I read some of the Greek when passing thru...

That's what I always thought it meant. The sentence is nonsensical if that word means something other than God's authority, power or entitlements.

Mike, So, you quoted Hamlet's "hoist on your own petard" line without reading it in the context? Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are a trap laid for Hamlet. When the 3 of them arrive in England, they are to hand a message to the King of England-"Kill Prince Hamlet. Love, Claudius, King of Denmark." Hamlet outsmarts them, and plans on using their own package to catch Rosencrantz and Guildenstern instead of himself. That's what he meant by saying he would "delve an inch deeper, and blow them at the moon." Their own 'petard' (landmine) would blow up in their faces. Hamlet succeeds, too. He switches their message for one that reads "Kill Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Love, Claudius, King of Denmark". Thus, they are hoist on their own petard. Just thought someone somewhere would like the context of the quote. (from William Shakespeare's "Hamlet".)

Mike, are you saying that, in all the time you were in twi, and supposedly, exposed to other Christians' doctrines after that, you have NOT experienced intelligent discussions on what you called the "Broken Windshield" scenario? I heard discussions about that when I was IN, and there are plenty of discussions of the subject by Christians all over the world, let alone all over the net.

Rafael, please post the WHOLE quote. Some people never got to see it...

Gee, you never looked up the books he DID cite when he cited them, but you would have looked up the ones he DID cite? What are the odds? Very few probably would have bothered to look them up, rather than, say, keep reading vpw's books as a new student. Perhaps some would as they progressed- Advanced Class grads and so on. ============================================ Yes, thank God we never had to separate truth from error in reading any books as students while in twi. *rolls eyes*

I mentioned that once. I said to graduate from even a lukewarm college, you'd need to fill your degree requirements, including the major. a major in theology would require proper citation and crediting WHILE teaching the proper way to research and get the information FROM said sources. This becomes reinforced going for your Masters, all the time. But, as Rafael pointed out... Mike's "conscience is so seared on this topic that it's not worth arguing any further."

Well, there's fiction and non-fiction. If anyone would have pushed a "you can't read" doctrine on me, I would have just ignored it. (I ignored the suggestion of "put everything aside for 3 months", for example.) Non-fiction wise, there's some good stuff out there. I recommend "Lies My Teacher Told Me", by Carl Loewen. It addresses issues of bias and untold stories in our history books, and WHY they're there, and WHY they're ingrained in the system that produces textbooks. Being a voracious reader for fun, there's a lot of fiction I read. I recommend Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series. I recommend Modesitt's "Recluce" series. I do read the "Left Behind" series, and the "Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter" series. I don't necessarily recommend either one, but I enjoy them both. I'm not proud-I read what entertains me. Both include certain elements I really like, which overcome their individual deficiencies. I also really like what they've been doing lately in the "Batman" comic book series. Don't laugh-it's been getting a lot more attention lately, and rightly so.

That's funny, Lindy... We had been posting at the same time, and I had concluded that you had made the same point at the same time, more concisely. Yes, I thought the word "circumlocuitous" was the best word for the job, since its use carries the feel I was looking for, also. (20 syllables when 4 are called for.)

Back to that sentence again..... If pfal is The Word of God-and Mike says it is- then it MUST follow the rules set out in pfal for understanding God's Word. According to pfal, this means it will work with a "mathematical exactness and a scientific precision". This also means that "at least 85-90%" of the weitten content can be understood in a straightforward manner as what is written as is-the most direct meaning. So, when examining an exclusion, we must look at what it DOES say as well as what it does NOT say. If, for example, it says that "not all that Wierwill writes will necessarily be God-breathed", we must look at that statement directly, and using a mathematical exactness and scientific precision. What is excluded in this statement, and what is NOT excluded in this statement? What is excluded is the "ALL" category. "All" is not an option. Has "SOME" been excluded? No. Has "NONE" been excluded? No. We might perhaps suppose one or the other is excluded-if we were NOT using a mathematical exactness OR a scientific precision. If one were proceeding with a "logic proof" of same in mathematics, it would begin with the single "given" statement: "Not all Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed." The excluded outcomes number ONE: "All Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed" is automatically excluded, since a statement and its converse cannot both be true. ("A and not-A" is always false.) The possible outcomes are two. 1) "Some of what Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed." 2) "None of what Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed." Either possible outcome is equally likely, under the rules of mathematical logic. Unless one wants to abandon the approach stated in pfal-abandoning "mathematical exactness and scientific precision", one cannot select one outcome over the other, from a plain reading of that statement. ---------------------------------------------- BTW, if "at least 85-90%" of pfal is meant to be read directly, then statements meant to convey information will be direct and straightforward at least 85-90% of the time. (Simple implication-more mathematical logic.) If pfal was MEANT to say "some of what Wierwille writes will be God-breathed", what would be the profit in couching it in a circumlocuitous statement? It's like tossing into a press conference the question "do you admit confirming not denying you said that?" (Yes. No. I mean- what??) ----------------------------------------------- BTW, quoting directly from Mike's citation of vpw, we have the following: "Let's see this from John 5:39. 'Search the scriptures...' It does not say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or VP Wierwille's writings or the writings of a denomination. No, it says 'search the scriptures...' because all Scripture is God-breathed." (This is immediately followed by the sentence we've run into the ground, already quoted in part.) Who out there can tell me what, in this quote is equated with Scripture, and what's contrasted with Scripture? Right! NOTHING is equated with Scripture! Everything else mentioned is contrasted with it. "Shakespeare, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, VP Wierwille's writings, the writings of a denomination" are all set directly in contrast to Scripture. (Go ahead and read the statement again. Is that or is that NOT the plain meaning of the text?) This is then followed by the "unclear" quote. Since there seems to be much discussion of it, with much difference of opinion what its most direct meaning is, it is, by definition, "unclear". According to pfal, UNCLEAR VERSES MUST BE UNDERSTOOD IN LIGHT OF THE CLEAR VERSES. Further, since this one seems like it may not explain itself fully "in the verse", we must proceed to the SECOND rule of understanding God's Word: All Scripture explains itself IN THE CONTEXT. The context is the clear sentences preceding it, which include VP Wierwille's writings in the category of "not-Scripture". So, based on either or both rules, the "unclear verse" must be understood in light of the preceeding sentence. If pfal is truly God's Word, we MUST use its own rules to understand it. Using those rules, we see here that its internal testimony of itself- just from what MIKE quoted-is that it is not "Scripture". Go back and repeat the steps if you don't see it. ---------------------------------------------- Of course, Mike disagrees that's what it means. Somehow, I didn't apply the rules of pfal properly to the pfal quotes. Well, I just did it under everyone's noses, so all the readers can form their OWN opinion on the subject.

Mike said (7/13/03 5:31pm) "The 9/11 and SARS "fear" you pointed out I see as worry and concern. For SOME people, these worries and concerns can grow to fear, but it takes time and repetition, just like full-blown believing." =============================================== Let's take this chronologically. I mentioned the 50's, and FEARS of "the bomb. There were water rations in the 50's, in preparation for a possible a-bomb. Everybody knew where their local "fallout shelters" were-"there were signs all over the place". I bet you remember growing up with those signs, still up many years later. I did. They were up into the 70's and 80's. People-LOTS of people-build PERSONAL fall-out shelters, for a LOT of money. The doctrine of "mutually-assured destruction" ("MAD") started back then-people thought that it would be the end of the world, since the planet could be bombed into oblivion in a few hours. You said "it takes time and repetition". Well, a 10-year period isn't "time"? ============================================= The Y2K crisis was recent. Didn't people make preparaions in your area? In mine, in the last week of December 1999, you could NOT find a flashlight or a battery ANYWHERE. Ditto bottled water. Everybody HERE knows twi went batty for that time-period also. People were told to pull their money out of banks. I know people who made sure they were in the countryside, expecting rioting. They spent lots of money and MONTHS preparing. (I went out and had a good time.) Ask people who work in the airline industry about SARS FEAR. You call it worry and concern. Their industry lost millions of dollars due to FEAR. These were all FEAR exhibited over extended periods, by many, many people. IF fear was a LAW, then there would have been mass suffering due to mass results of each FEAR incident. ============================================ Rafael already addressed the "soft blame"HMMADD. (Job was BLAMELESS, not free of "hard blame".)

*applauds SirGUess' post* Bravo! You got the point! Rafael has pointed out, on numerous occasions, that God calls Job BLAMELESS. Those who place the blame on JOB, therefore, contradict God. "Why did Job's kids die? Oh, Job was afraid." For those of you who somehow missed it, that's BLAMING JOB. ---------------------------------------------- BTW, just for fun.... A few months after the 9/11 attacks, people in NYC were more than a little hesitant to congregate in groups. In fact, the Halloween Parade that year was feared to be an excellent target for a terrorist attack. (I won't go into the reasons, but you can figure them out yourself.) As a result, a LOT of people who were all set to attend, even those with ready costumes, cancelled their plans. They stayed home, indoors, afraid with their families. In fact, malls in general were deserted that Halloween because of a rumour of an attack. So, millions upon millions of people were afraid there was going to be terrorist attacks, either at the mall, or at the parade. (That includes family of people who cancelled and family of people who attended.) What was the net result of all that fear? Lowered attendance at the parade. People stayed home. What about the amassed fear of an attack? Well, didn't result in anything, no matter how many people feared it. My favourite costume that year? A guy with his head dressed like an Osama bin Laden puppet, in prison stripes, wearing a barred cage around the "prisoner". :)--> I'll tell you, though...it was the FEAR....in the HEARTS...of the people....that made it easier to move thru traffic. SARS, anyone? How about that flesh-eating bacteria from years ago? Or getting AIDS off dirty toilet seats from before that? Or the absolute TERROR of Y2K in 1999, or "the bomb" back in the '50s? Tens of millions of people in the US alone feared all those.

Folks, As Mike promised at the top of this page, (7/10/03, 2:33pm), that was Mike "outwitting" me. ------------------------------------------ Mike, Let me clarify what I meant by saying that I cited vpw's books. I did NOT mean I just said " vpw talks about this on page xx". I did NOT mean "vpw, on page xx, means this." What I meant was that I posted extensive quotes from the pages in question, AND I provided the name of the book, and the page number. Therefore, anyone claiming that I had misrepresented its contents could do 2 things: A) Read the lengthier quotes and see what they SAID. B) Go back and look at the pages and see if the context really does reflect that. I'm unclear if you're saying the books didn't say that at all. However, it seems your response is to say "well, the context negates that." Um, Mike? I posted a direct quote, THEN offered an opinion. You offered an opinion. When pressed, you dropped a page number, then offered an opinion. Mike? Why is anyone going to BELIEVE your opinion if you do not provide a quote to support it? If the context of a quote negates its meaning, by all means, cite the quote and explain HOW it does so. Don't just drop numbers or opinions. Anybody can offer opinions and drop numbers. You've offered no reason to indicate the numbers you mentioned have anything to do with your points, and, if I only had your track record to go from, I'd certainly not extend you the benefit of the doubt, even so much as to look them up. Do your own work. ============================================ Actually, the "Law of Believing" is simply stated. If it is a "Law", it does not NEED lengthy codicils and provisos. Its meaning can be stated in one sentence. Claiming it needs support by pages and pages of provisos is to call it a guideline or a good idea, but not a "LAW". Either believing is a LAW and ALWAYS works, or it is a rule-of-thumb and does NOT always work. This subject has been beaten to death on other threads already, by people more erudite on the subject than myself. As we have seen, it does NOT always work as stated. Even quoted briefly on this thread, we see it does not work. (Rafael is still alive, other people believing to stay alive are dead.) Claiming they needed to believe more is that famous evasion Rafael has ALREADY pointed out. ========================================== I noticed that you quoted some of MY quotes of vpw's books, then announced they were separated from their contexts. Well, duh! I provided the lengthier quotes, WITH THEIR CONTEXTS, in my post, THEN I provided the short list. Want to see their context? Scroll up a bit! ======================================= BTW, nothing in vpw's work in the blue book OR the orange book, WHEN MENTIONING THE LAW OF BELIEVING, indicates the explanation is in any way deficient or leaving anything out. Nothing indicates "well, this only applies when the Bible is a factor, and is meaningless when trying to apply it to something else." I have now placed the "burden of proof" on you. I have claimed that the statements of the "LAW OF BELIEVING" never make a certain claim (stated in the previous paragraph I wrote.) To disprove me, you will need to go to at least one place vpw stated his "LAW OF BELIEVING", cite the law, then cite the statement I claimed doesn't exist. To do otherwise is a misdirection meant to hide the fact that such a comment doesn't exist. =============================================== BTW, the explanations I gave on the "Law of Believing" were consistent to EACH quote of vpw's books, as everybody ELSE can see. In making comments about trusting God, vpw FIRST stated his "LAW". He explained it. He then went from the general to the specific: believing as a LAW to believing GOD'S PROMISES. Those are similar subjects, but he was trying to establish causality. God's promises do not come true because we focus our minds like a camera, get our needs and wants parallel, or anything else WE do. God's promises come true because GOD IS TRUSTWORTHY. We never claimed God's promises shouldn't be believed. We claimed vpw's esoteric claims and outlines of a "LAW OF BELIEVING" were contraBiblical and not truly a law. ============================================== Oh, that's novel. VPW made charts for use. VPW made a syllabus for use. VPW wrote books. VPW did classes. Each session builds on the previous ones. Each session does not NEGATE the previous ones. ============== VPW uses several charts with specific outlines, which HE EXPECTED US TO MEMORIZE. The "Listening With A Purpose" questions guaranteed we'd do exactly that-they REQUIRED the exact responses. We were REQUIRED to walk out of Session One with the following information MEMORIZED: 1) What is the greatest secret is the world today? The greatest secret in the world today is that the Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God. 2) To receive anything from God, what five things must we know? a) What is available b) how to receive it c) what to do with it d) needs and wants must be parallel e) God's ability equals God's willingness 3) What are the two sides of believing? Negative and Positive beleiving 4) What defeats the promises of God? Fear. 5) What is the difference between 'apistia' and 'apitheia'? ============== Each session had ONE page in the main syllabus. The title, verse references, and Listening With a Purpose questions took up about 1/2 the page. For Session One, the entire other half of the page is taken up by a single chart. This chart says, across its bottom in BIG LETTERS: "BELIEVING EQUALS RECEIVING". The rest of the chart contrasts confidence, trust and faith with doubt, worry and fear, clearly labelling both as believing, clearly setting them in diammetric opposition, and clearly indicating they work exactly the same. ===================================== The purpose of the chart is to guarantee that EVERY student think of Believing as a LAW, (answer 3, both sides of believing). According to that page, each side of believing is equally powerful, and equally effective. Further, question 2 indicates that we need to "have our needs and wants parallel" to receive. (Your own quote echoes this.) VPW specifically intended us to believe this, else he would NOT have SHOVED IT DOWN OUR THROATS in Session One, as well as explaining it in the blue book and the orange book, in exactly the same way. Gee, you think he was trying to tell us something, or did he want us to subordinate all this, at some later point, to the idea that ONLY God's promises work that way? BTW, your lengthy quote (which addressed one sentence with a multi-page quote) also asserts that we must have "our needs and wants parallel" to receive from God. It claims that the red curtains were "proof" that she had her needs and wants parallel, and uses that "proof" that the needs and wants parallel is a legitimate rule. "People, she must have had her need and want parallel. Look at this. All right! She rented a furnished apartment and it had to have drapes on the window, right? Does it make God any difference whether the drapes are green or red or pink? No, but she had a need, that need was that they might as well have red drapes on, that's what she wanted. She got her need and her want parallel." First of all, most apartments do not come pre-furnished with curtains. Second, furnished apartments can have venetian blinds or any colour curtains. A NEED is a place to live. A WANT is a specific COLOUR of the place to live. If you had an immediate need for a place to live, and the need was filled immediately with an apartment coloured PUCE, would you say your needs had not been met? "No but she had a need, that need was that they might as well have red drapes on, that's what she wanted." This tortured sentence is the sole linchpin for saying this had something to do with vpw's made-up rule about needs and wants. "The need was that they might as well have red drapes on" A need is for an apartment. A need is for something to block the window. A need is not "they might as well have red drapes". "MIGHT AS WELL" is not a need-it's a LUXURY. "That's what she wanted." Well, that much is true. She wanted red drapes. She did not NEED red drapes. (She needed an apartment, and she needed to block the windows.) Her needs and wants were not "parallel". She did get what she asked of God. "She must have had her need and her want parallel." That's what vpw believed, but the facts fail to line up with the theory. Please also remember this was the specific example vpw used to illustrate the "needs and wants parallel". Therefore, this was the BEST, most DIRECT example of his rule. ============================================ You said that in "many places" vpw said the promise of God was "mandatory". "Suppose I found TWO. Would that satisfy you?" No, and it shouldn't. If you found it in EACH place vpw shoved it down our throats in the blue book and the orange book, that would get my attention for sure. If he said it in SOME places, but established his rule somewhere else, that means he remembered to include God PART OF THE TIME. THE FIRST MENTION OF SOMETHING IN GOD'S WORD EXPLAINS ITS USAGE, according to the orange book. (I quoted this already.) In the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, etc. mentions of the "LAW OF BELIEVING", vpw clearly laid down his explanation. That was in the blue book AND the orange book. Therefore, all later explanations must be IN LIGHT OF THE UNDERSTANDING OG THE EXPLANATIONS THERE. Unless the pfal books are not actually "THE WORD OF GOD", which is your assertion. So, you'd have to find it in THOSE places. =========================================== vpw said "the law, simply stated is that what we believe for or expect, we get. This applies in every realm: physical, mental, material, spiritual." Mike said "So, remember, this is an abbreviated version." WordWolf replies "No-this is a 'simply stated' version. There is a big difference between the two." As to claiming I took the numerous references out of context, see above. My comments on Elijah were to illustrate you don't know your way around the Bible. Why is that an insult to you, since you consider the Bible superceded by pfal? My comments on Session One were more significant to this thread. You seem unfamiliar with the MAIN POINTS of Session One. That's after FIVE YEARS. Session One is the foundation for the other sessions. (Sessions work in succession-that's why they're in that order.) Therefore, unfamiliarity with them is unfamiliarity with the BASIS of EVERYTHING ELSE vpw taught. ========================================= You're quoting what vpw said now! How nice! Sadly, you missed the point each time. As has already been pointed out previously, if vpw quotes a verse of the Bible, then says "if you just believe this is vp talking", it doesn't necessarily mean he's saying EVERYTHING he's saying is the Bible. The most obvious, most direct, most straightforward understanding is that when we quote the Bible, correctly, it's NOT just us talking-it's the promise we just read. If I read Psalms and add our understanding, and add meanings that don't exist there, then what we said is NOT the promise of God. This was explained plenty of times, by plenty of people, every time you've done that. ======================================= You also said "How do you know your citations weren't buried in the threads before I could get to it?" You made a flip comment to the part of the same post that did NOT cite Session One. I'll fetch the page, date and time if I can find it. It might be on this or another one of your threads. So, it was not 'buried'. You READ the thing. You CHOSE not to reply. ======================================================== "Again I sense the air of a desperate man?" Mike, I based my statements on evidence. I provided the evidence, laid the foundation, provided my rationale, THEN formed my conclusions. ANYONE reading the thread could follow them step-by-step. That's similar to what attorneys do, and is called 'disclosure'. I've confined my evidence to what YOU'VE called canonical and what you have easy access to-the pfal books. I've invoked THEM, not secret messages. That's why everybody else can see my points. "The air of a desperate man?" Not me. My theology isn't the one that's failing to hold up to scrutiny on many grounds.

MJ, too soon to tell. I think "A" is unlikely. Could be "B" or "C". (Or the longshot "A".) ------------------------------ Aw, Goey, I was hoping you'd post a 'recap'. At least you've got them handy. Please fix the typos when posting. I would have, but I didn't review that many pages when posting. I would have edited them when I realized, but I wanted to avoid accusations I might have made major editing changes. They would have been without merit, but or resident student of misdirection might have capitalized on any chance to distract. *skims the above posts* Oooh! He's going to "outwit" me! You heard it here first, folks...

Goey, part of the reason my post on page 33 (32?) quoted so much of the blue book and the orange book was so that those who wanted to quote directly from them could do so, complete with the context. vpw's "definition" of "law" was in there, and consistent with what everybody else means by "law"-something immutable and sovereign, not a general guideline or a good idea. Mind you, this is consistent with your understanding of what vpw said. I agree with your definition, explanation and exposition. I just object to you saying you only had Rafael's post to draw from, when I spent all that time typing in my previous post. So, if you cut-and-pasted the direct quotes from vpw's books and the discussion we did on the other page, and added what you and Rafael said on the subject, I'd be amenable, even grateful. It's all the same subject. In fact, I suspect Rafael saved himself 45 minutes and just cited the previous page. =============================================== For everybody else, Mike said (7/09/03 7:39pm) the following: ==== "About the word 'law' it seems that you have certain criteria that you apply to determine that it is not a law according to your definition. But it is Dr's definition that we need to determine. I simply have not yet done that." "The best I understand SO FAR about laws is that they apply to every person, in every place, at all times, and they're relatively simple. That's some of the most important elements that go into defining laws in the realm of science, but I'm not sure yet as to what degree Dr defines 'law' this way too." ======== Ok, Mike's understanding of 'law' doesn't seem to be that far from what vpw was saying. (As originally cited a page or so back.) I'd like to point out, however, that Mike has freely admitted he doesn't know what vpw said about "laws". What vpw said about "laws" was all over Session I, the Blue Book, and the Orange Book! (See previous citations from same about a page back if you don't have yours in front of you.) Some time ago, I cited the first Session of pfal, "The Greatest Secret in the World Today", and how its main points contradicted his main thesis. That's also the same session where vpw outlines his doctrines on believing and laws and all that. As we saw (from my earlier post), the collaterals (Orange, Blue) said the same in them. (From Rafael's post, we know the other books include this doctrine also.) A page ago, Mike utterly mangled the story of Elijah, whose name he couldn't even get close to remembering. (He didn't even confuse him with Elisha, which would be understandable.) This is especially strange, since vpw taught on Elijah. This is partially understandable, since Mike has proudly proclaimed the inferiority of the Bible, and, as such, might well not have opened the book for years. So, what does this tell us? This tells us: A) Mike doesn't know his way around the Bible. Many of the church-Christians Mike would view as having an inferior understanding have a greater understanding of the Bible than he does. (Since he doesn't care what it says, this should not be seen by him as an insult.) To those of you wondering if he's using the Bible as criteria for determining things or ANYTHING ELSE, the answer is "no". Mike doesn't KNOW the Bible, and doesn't use it for anything. B) MIKE DOES NOT KNOW THE CONTENTS OF PFAL. Mike periodically makes assertions that vpw said certain things, or "never" said certain other things. Mike never seems to cite the orange book, the blue book or any other book in doing so. This is especially peculiar, since Mike's theology holds that these books hold the same position that the Bible held to those of us who paid attention in pfal. So, when we quote PAGE AFTER PAGE of material that vpw wrote, it becomes obvious what vpw said. We looked at several pages of vpw's writings a few pages back, more than once. These quotes were diametrically opposed to what vpw said. (They said the OPPOSITE what Mike SAID they said.) Mike's response was NOT to amend his thinking to match the pfal materials (which would be internally-consistent to Mike's STATED theology). Mike's response was ALSO not to cite another place in the same books, trying to refute the previous quotes. What was Mike's response? Well, way back when I cited Session One originally, Mike's response was to pretend I didn't, and hope the points would go away if he never acknowledged them. More recently, his responses to DIRECT QUOTATIONS from vpw's writings was to say 'vpw didn't teach that', or claims vpw's quotes were misrepresented. First of all, I cited the books and pages. If vpw DIDN'T teach that, it would be VERY SIMPLE to turn to those pages, and find that when I said "this is the entire content of page xx", it said something else entirely. A simple posting of the true material would certainly have discredited my post. So, vpw DID teach that, and SOME of the pages where he did so were listed, and posted. Second, again, I typed in several pages, often including CONTEXT. I cited the page numbers each time. If the context utterly invalidated my points, it would be a simple matter to turn to the pages, cite the context where the opposite was said, and discredit my points. Mike's defense was to distract, dodge and evade, not to bring in EVIDENCE which would have been very easy to find. (I posted the page numbers.) Mike holds to his POV even when it is obvious that vpw taught the opposite, and, according to Mike, it's vpw's writings that are the greatest way to understand what God said. I mentioned this in passing, but I didn't think about the implications of it until Steve mentioned it as well. Mike does not know the contents of the Bible, and Mike does not know the contents of vpw's books. Personally, I'm curious if he even has a copy of them at present, or if he's relying on his memory of what he thinks the pfal books said. Mike's theology is in no way based on the Bible. Mike's theology is in no way based on vpw's pfal books. This has been pointed out, in parts, many times. At the moment, we can see that we probably grossly misunderestimated the degree to which Mike is ignorant of the contents of the books upon which he claims to base his theology. ======================================= I shall now make a prediction. Mike will react to this post in one of 3 ways: A) Stop posting for a while, then, when he resumes posting, pretend this post never existed. (Denial is not just a river in Eqypt.) B) Resume posting immediately, but post on completely unrelated subjects, pretending this post never existed. (Denial is not just a river in Egypt.) C) Resume posting immediately, making attacks on my character, attempting to discredit my post while UTTERLY FAILING TO PROVIDE A QUOTE FROM VPW'S BOOKS. This will fail to address my main point, but will serve his main technique in discussion, as he stated once. "Dodge, distract, evade. But never admit an error is an error." Of course, in this case, admitting an error is an error would admit his entire theology is in no way based on vpw's books. Any bets on which of the three he's going to use? He's used them all against my posts before...

(somehow, this was a double post) [This message was edited by WordWolf on July 08, 2003 at 10:36.]

Mike, the blue book "the Bible Tells Me So" says the following on the subject of believing: (page 28) "WHAT WE BELIEVE EQUALS WHAT WE ARE" (pg-29) "What We Believe = What We are The law of believing is dynamically powerful, yet so simple. The law, simply stated, is that what we believe for or expect, we get. This applies in every realm: physical, mental, material, spiritual. Thus it is this law which basically controls the abundant life. Only if we believe and expect abundance will we ever realize abundance in our lives. 'The Synchronized Life' shows that our lives are molded by our believing-both by positive and negative believing. This law is further explained and proved in 'The Law of Believing' so that we will become aware of our own thinking and then be able to control our thinking so as to manifest the abundant life which is promised in God's Word." -----------------------------------====== That was the entire contents of both pages. except for the last 2 words of the second page, God doesn't enter the picture. (page 31) "Chapter Four. The Synchronized Life Whatever a person believes is directly reflected in what he confesses. What a person confesses in his innermost being is what he brings into manifestation in his life. If a person goes through life confessing that he has great need, he will definitely have great need. If he confesses sickness, he will continue to be sick and afflicted because of the law that what one believes in the depth of his soul absolutely appears in his life. The "synchronized life" is simply stated by this formula: confession of belief yields receipt of confession." ---------------------------------------------- pg-43 and 44. "The law of believing brings phenomenal results to all those who apply and practice the principles. You may believe rightly or wrongly. Believing works both ways, and you bring to yourself whatever you believe." pg-44."Fear, worry and anxiety are types of believing. If you worry, have fear and are anxious you will receive the fruit of your negative believing which is defeat. The law of believing works equally effectively for both the sinner and the saint..." Chapter One, "Release From Your Prisons". pg-8. "How have you mentally pictured yourself for the past week, month, year, ten years? The picture that you carry of yourself with clearness and with concern is what you are. This law works for positive and negative thinking alike." pg-6 and 7. "A camera offers an appropriate analogy of the means by which you can get results to prayer and find release from your prisons. If you want an answer to prayer, first get your object in mind. You select what you want in your picture. This is step one: youre CLEAR on what you want. Secondly, you use the range finder and focus the subject properly. Then consider the length of exposure of the picture so that all factors may work together for a perfect picture. After all this, shoot the picture. When you are focused on the picture of what you want, keep your mind stayted on it. If you allow something else to come in and take precedence over that picture you will get a blurred answer to prayer; you will not get the results you desire; you will not get release from the prison which is encasing you. If you want to get rid of something today, youmust focus, dwell on what you want. It is the introduction of light that dispels darkness, not the dwelling on the darkness that introduces light. If you want more business, better relations between employer and employee or a better job, get your desire in mind, focus on it and then determine the exposure time needed to accomplish the task. If you want to get out of your prisons today, immediately change your thinking about your situation: change your subject of focus. As you change your thinking, you will draw a mental pattern for the things you DO want in your life, which in turn will dispel and root out all those things you do not want." ----------------------------------------------- Mike said "Dr never taught that random, personal or 8-ball wishes could be indulged with this law." "It's not just any old random desire that can be believed, it has to be a promise of God, and this is stated over and over in PFAL." "This is the second big lie about Dr propounded in those years." VPW said "What we believe for, we get." "Our lives are molded by our believing-both by positive and negative believing." "What we believe equals what we are." "What one believes in the depth of his soul absolutely appears in his life." "You bring to yourself whatever you believe." "The law of believing works equally effectively for both sinner and saint" "The picture that you carry of yourself with clearness and concern is what you are. This law works for positive and negative thinking alike." "As you change your thinking, you will draw a mental pattern for the things you DO want in your life, which in turn will dispel and root out those things you do not want." WordWolf, commenting on VPW, said of VPW's teachings in PFAL, "As stated, God is irrelevant, and so is the content of what is believed." Mike said of WordWolf's comment, "Wrong, wrong, wrong! You're propounding the same lie now." Really, Mike? I say the references to God, and prayer are incidental in the instructions on believing. As you saw, the requirements to receive involve BELIEVING, and focusing your believing. At no point is a REQUIREMENT made for your believing being believing a promise of God. It was believing and your mental focus and picture that determine success or failure to receive. At NO point is it said that if you believe, but what you believe is NOT what God promises, you won't get it no matter how much you believe it. BTW, the Foundational class syllabus (which you got when you took the Advanced class) mentions a few of these things, and says: "What you fear, you will receive-it is a law." ------------------------------------------- The orange book ALSO addresses the subject of believing. page 32. "The law of believing is the greatest law in the Word of God. As a matter of fact, it is not only the greatest law in The Word, it is the greatest law in the whole world. Believing works for saint and sinner alike." page 35. (after referencing Mark 11:23) "This is the great law in the Word of God. 'Whosoever...' It does not say Christian or non-Christian; whosoever means whosoever. "Whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removes, and...cast into the sea and shall not doubt...but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.' In other words, say it, believe it, and it will come to pass." "The law of believing is the greatest law in the Word of God: whosoever says it, whosoever believes, will act and receive." ------------------------------------------- page 38. "If one is afraid of a disease, he will manifest that disease because the law is that what one believes (in this case, what one believes negatively), he is going to receive." his 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." page 42-44 cover the story of the woman whose fear "killed her son". page 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." --------------------------------------------- Mike said "It's not just any old random desire that can be believed, it has to be a promise of God, and this is stated over and over in PFAL." We just saw what PFAL said. Oakspear said "Mike, are you also unfamiliar with the section of PFAL where Wierwille states that if a man believes that he will die within a certain time frame that God would have to rewrite all His laws not to accomodate him? What promise of God guarantees that people will die if they believe to do so?" Ok, we saw the account. Sure enough-that's what PFAL says in the orange book. (Page 44.) Shazdancer brought up the red drapes. I don't know if it's in the books, but we ALL remember the "fire-engine red" curtains mentioned in the PFAL class. Shazdancer said "are red drapes a promise of God?" Mike said "Dr never taught that random, personal or 8-ball wishes could be indulged with this law." So, Mike, the "fire-engine red curtains" mentioned in the live class, the redness was not "personal"? ============================================== As VPW taught it, believing IN AND OF ITSELF appropriated results, REGARDLESS OF THE CONTENT OF WHAT IS BELIEVED. "The law, simply stated, is that what we believe for or expect, we get. This applies in every realm: physical, mental, material, spiritual." Mike said "Dr teaches over and over that God's promises are a MUST in the law of believing.... The page references are numerous." Really, Mike? We just SAW "numerous" references. BTW, Mike, don't pretend I said vpw said God's promises are irrelevant, or that we shouldn't believe God. He did say we should believe God, and to believe His promises. What I AM saying is that as vpw taught it in pfal, the CONTENT of what is believed is incidental to appropriate it. The page references are numerous AND GIVEN ABOVE. =============================================== Please stop speculating on the contents of the pfal books when it's obvious you're rather unfamiliar with their contents. Finally, Looks like you owe me an apology for saying I misrepresented the contents of the pfal books. I'll put it on your tab. =============================================== Other than Mike or seaspray, does anyone out there Mike was correct on pfal's points on believing, and that I was INcorrect? If so, please speak up. (If you think I'm wrong, please cite some evidence.) ================================================ Oakspear, now THAT was my full attention on a post. :)-->

Goey: If memory serves, you have a background in philology, or at least a firmer grounding in the languages of the Bible. Please explain the term "condesensio" from the Latin and explain precisely WHY its not a license for us to be snide and arrogant with each other. (I'm amazed it even has to be said.) It came up on the bottom of page 32 (the page where I quoted the orange and white books' explanations of how they came to be.) As any student of pfal should have been able to remember (let alone an afficionado of same), the figure of speech "condesencio" (Latin) is also called "anthorpopatheia (Greek) or 'derech banai Adam" (Hebrew). It describes the attributes of humans. The Greek name of this figure was said to mean literally "pathos of man". Anyway, Goey, please explain it more fully, in that manner in which you are rather qualified. ----------------------------------------------- Mike, It doesn't surprise me that you're seeking to wiggle out of the direct, obvious and expressed meanings of the relevant citations of the orange and white books as to how we got them. Both pretty much tell the same story. VPW had a background with lots of work of people who tried to explain the Bible. He concluded that the proper solution was to discard what they wrote (3000 volumes, according to the orange book). Once he had done that, he then did all his OWN study, using only the Bible. It would be appropriate to consider TRANSLATIONS of the Bible-interlinears, texts in Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin, concordances- to be included in this (or at least fair), since they don't constitute commentaries, just translations of the same book. (Or an index, in the case of the concordance.) Your attempts to try to depict "The Word" as referring to "the Bible, and specific commentaries"-Stiles, Bullinger, Leonard, Kenyon- as opposed to all other commentaries, which were discarded as useless, is without merit. We can wrangle exact meanings of this in the orange book, since there are few words discussing this in the relevant passage. The white book is another story. Just going from the preface (quoted in its entirety on page 32 of this thread), VPW was VERY specific, excruciatingly clear, notably unambiguous, concerning the contributions of others to the contents of that book. The best thing he could say of ANY other Christians when seeking material on the subject was that they were "sincere", then saying the famous quote "sincerity is no guarantee of truth". This means that the nicest thing he said about other Christians was that they meant well, but they did not have the correct information. He did not say "most of them don't know, but a few DO understand", or say, "only a bare handful of Christians teach anything of substance on this subject". He said rather clearly that the material contents were the result of work alone. You can NOT say that he was using the term "The Word" to mean "the Bible and a handful of other books I found useful" here under anybody's definition. That's because he was more specific in his description. (However, the orange book's answer is clear to everyone except you.) In the white book, he said he made "THE BIBLE" his textbook. (Feel free to review the preface) He was very specific about the work of other Christians on this subject-they were clueless- and he was specific on his research texts for the white book-the Bible, and that's it. It is fair to expect that small asides-like the properly-accredited Lamsa notes in one appendix-do not invalidate this claim. After all, a minor quote hardly counts as the bulk of the work. I'll reply to your characterization of me in the appropriate manner at a time convenient to me. You have until then to anticipate my reply. (Which you should have no difficulty doing, as it is very predictable.) I will say this much at this hour- my use of the term "miracle" and the term "instant" as nearly interchangeable was per VPW's definitions of "miracle", in that miracles occur "instantly". That's per the Advanced class and was taught by VPW on a number of other occasions. The one that springs to mind for me is from the keynote teachings of ROA '76 (Healing), the night he taught on the man at the temple gate beautiful (Acts). Let me know if you need me to dig out the precise quote on the subject. (If you have that tape, it is right where he claims that all 9 manifestations are shown in that exact account.) ------------------------------------------------ For those of you curious about copyright law (something that all Christians except, apparently, vpw and Mike think is a legitimate legal, ethical and moral issue), you might want to check out the following links for a little background (what does it mean, why does every country subscribe to them, etc.) http://www.iccwbo.org/home/intellectual_pr...ntation/wwh.asp http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Mike: A) I'm not going to keep pushing the anomalous references in OMSW, since you refuse to get the most likely reason for it. That's ok-anybody ELSE could see it. So, I'll move on to some fun stuff... :)--> B) I had said "The point was that vpw deliberately gave the impression that, regardless of any other person out there, the orange book and the white book were the results of his OWN work, and NOT primarily the contributions of others." You replied (7/5/02. 10:46pm, this page) "WordWolf, I don't know how you can say [that]. Dr never made a point of his originality..." Well, since I was addressing the orange and white books, I thought I'd direct you to what the ORANGE AND WHITE BOOKS say on the subject..... -------- Power for Abundant Living, pages 119-120. "For years I did nothing but read around the Word of God. I uesd to read two or three theological works weekly for month after month and year after year. I knew what Professor so-and-so said, what Dr so-and-so and the Right Reverend so-and-so said, but I could not quote you The Word. I had not read it. One day I finally became so disgusted and tired of reading around The Word that I hauled over 3,000 volumes of theological works to the city dump. I decided to quit reading around The Word. Consequently, I have spent years studying The Word-its integrity, its meaning, irs words. Why do we study? Because God expects us as workmen to know what His Word says." ---------------------------------------------- For those of you following along at home, if he read FOUR books a week (as opposed to "2 or 3" as he said) every week, every year, it would take 15 years to make it thru 3,000 volumes-without rereading any. (4 books times 52 weeks is 208 books a year. 15 years at that pace would make it thru all those books.) Considering he had to be either completing his education, working, or both during this time, and including things like a trip to India interrupting this, this would be an INCREDIBLE pace to maintain. (Of course, if you think he was at the pinnacle of human ability, this is not an unreasonable feat.) Just thought you guys would like the numbers crunched. Ok, back to the main point. He contrasted "reading 2 or 3 theological works"-his past behavior-with his current behavior. After he dumped "over 3,000 volumes" , he "decided to quit reading around The Word." He contrasted reading 2 or 3 theological works a week with "spending years studying The Word." In plain English, what would a normal reader make of this citation? He or she would say that vpw has just claimed that he gave up reading commentaries and other books ABOUT Scripture, discarded his entire library of such books, and set about reading only The Word, and no commentaries. Yes, that's not what YOU'RE going to say it says, but that's what anybody without a vested interest in the sentence would take its meaning to be. (Anybody know where he kept such a collection of books? If he could fit 25 books on a shelf-which would mean they are pretty small books-he would need 120 shelves. If he could fit each shelf in a 3-foot space, and stacked the shelves 7 high, he would need over 40 stacks. This would require at least 2 regular rooms just to store all the books, or one room with 48' on 2 walls, and 12' on the other 2 walls.) -------------------- So, if we are to consider the orange book AUTHORITATIVE and CANONICAL, we MUST accept vpw's statement at face value- he had such a storage space for that many books, he had that many books IN that space, he had read all of them over a period of time 15 years or more (more if he read "2 or 3" every week), he made the deliberate decision to trash them all and forsake commentaries, and he then spent the next several years studying The Word while forsaking any further commentaries. Do you DARE contradict the "clear meaning" of that passage? If the orange PFAL book is canonical-The Word of God-and perfect, as The Word of God MUST be, and its own explanation as to how it is to be read is to be accepted (more than 80-85% of The Word of God read plainly, just as it's written), then we DARE not claim vpw did anything other than forsake all commentaries and study ONLY The Word. ----------------------------------------- If you are prepared to claim the orange book is WRONG on this, and that it is NOT The Word, and perfect, then you can discard this passage, but you must forsake your theology as well. ----------------------------------------------------------- So, the orange book PLAINLY claims it (the orange book) was the results of his OWN work, and NOT primarily the contributions of others. In fact, its claim is that the work of others is the ANTITHESIS of its contents-it is the OPPOSITE of a book containing work of others-studies of other theologians, scholars, etc. I don't know how you can claim otherwise- if you TRUST the orange book's testimony of itself. --------------------------------------------------------- What about the WHITE book? Does the white book contain such a claim as well? ------- The white "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" book... The preface, pages ix to xi (the ENTIRE preface.) "When I was serving my first congregation, a Korean missionary asked me, Why don't you search for the greatest of all things in life which would teach Christian believers the HOW of a really victorious life?" This challenge was the beginning of a search which led me through many, many hours of examining different English translations, the various critical Greek texts, and Aramaic "originals", looking for the source of the power which was manifested in the early Church. Finally I realized that the experience referred to as "receiving the holy spirit" in the Scriptures WAS and IS actually available to every born-again believer today. I believed to receive the gift og holy spirit and I, too, manifested. Ever since receiving into manifestation the holy spirit, I have had the desire to put in written form the longings and fears that were mine regarding the receiving thereof. I believe that sharing my quest with the believers who are today seeking to be endued with power from on high may be instrumental in leading them to the answer of their hearts' desires. I knew from the Bible that what God sent at Pentecost was still available. It had to be, for God does not change. I knew that the receiving of the power from on high on the day of Pentecost had meant increased ability for the apostles and disciples years ago, and that I needed and wanted the same blessing. I knew that if the Church ever needed the holy spirit in manifestation it needed it now. Throughout my academic training in a college, a university, four seminaries, from the commentaries I studied, and from my years of questing and research among the various religious groups claiming adherence to the holy spirit's availability, there appeared many things contradictory to the accuracy of the recorded Word of God. I knew their teachings were sincere, but sincerity is no guarantee for truth. The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook. I did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for, the Word of God being the will of God, the Scripture must fit like a hand in a glove. If you are a Christian believer, I sincerely encourage you to study this book. Do not allow your past teachings or feelings to discourage you from going on to receive God's best. If you need power and ability to face up to the snares of this life, you may find your answer while reading this book. It is my prayer that you may be edified, exhorted, and comforted. For those searching the Scriptures, desiring to know the reasons why, how, what or where, I suggest you do a carefult study of the introductions as well as the appendicies in this volume. For those who simply desire to receive, read chapters 1 through 5 and enjoy God's great presence and power. II Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. To his helpers and colleagues every writer owes a profound depth. This seventh edition has been read and studied carefully by men and women of Biblical and spiritual ability. To all of these I am most grateful." ---------------------------------------------------------- Ok, that's a lot of writing. The meaning is straightforward, however. The preface says that this book is the result of vpw's own personal search for "the source of the power which was manifested in the early Church." This search was prompted by a question from a Korean missionary, and was conducted through "translations", "Greek text", and "Aramaic". This personal "quest" "put aside" everything he had "heard" from "college, a university, four seminaries", "commentaries", and "various religious groups claiming adherence to the holy spirit's availability", "sincere" thought they were. This personal "quest", instead, was conducted with the Bible only, as "handbook" and "textbook". So, in plain English, this book was the product of vpw's studies in the Bible, and contains nothing from religious groups, commentaries, and so on. In case you are wondering, the introduction and appendicies do NOT invalidate this claim. There's 2 footnotes on Lamsa in the LAST appendix, and NO mention of Stile, Leonard or Bullinger in them at all. So, that is what the white book clearly claims of itself. It is the byproduct of the work of one man, vpw. This one man consulted with Lamsa on a few points in the last appendix, and several other people proofread the finished work and latest edition, but NOBODY else wrote the material upon which the book is based. That's the plain meaning of the preface, as anyone CAN clearly see. (Whether or not everyone would ADMIT to it is a different story.) -------------------------------------------- You said "Dr never made a point of his originality." vpw clearly wrote the opposite in RTHST. Now, if RTHST is The Word of God and canonical, you DARE not contradict its claim to be an original work. If you dare to claim otherwise, you must repudiate your claim it is canonical. (Either it is wrong, or you are.) ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------- BTW, you said of Stiles, Bullinger, Leonard and Kenyon, that they didn't mind that vpw plagiarized them. "It seems that the men Dr utilized text templates from were also operating in Daddy's family, and that neither they nor Daddy minded. It's you who inappropriately bring into God's family your worldly ethical system for students, professors, writers, reporters, and the like. I see some wisdom in their application to the respective arenas from which they were devised. Within the family of God, I completely reject your worldly system of man-made ethics." ------- First of all, Mike, Bullinger was DEAD when vpw added one of his books to the RTHST book in one edition (and all successive editions), and could hardly endorse this from the grave. Second of all, Mike, you're speculating wildly when you say the other men didn't mind, and neither did God. Neither such endorsement was ever given. That's mainly because none was SOUGHT. VPW claimed it was his own work, then kept it carefully from public circulation. Stiles probably never heard of RTHST before HE died, and Leonard added elaborate copyright warnings to all his work after he learned of it. So Leonard, at least, DID mind, quite a bit. Perhaps it was because he was mindful of fellow Christians that he did not seek to recover damages, as he was legally entitled to do. A "worldly ethical system" would try to "get away with whatever you can". An ethical system for the family would seek to treat each member respectfully, whether they be present or not. The fact that all OTHER Christians besides YOU are mindful of copyrights and respecting the property and work of each other does not move you, I suppose. I suppose you think this disregard makes you more "spiritual" somehow. (I am a little curious how you'd feel if someone else rereleased vpw's books and claimed to be the author of original works. No, don't answer-I don't expect a truthful answer to that one.) ========================================================== ========================================================== In case you missed it, side-comments made in a few tapes here and there don't absolve one from responsibility of giving proper credit where it is due. Several editions were made of BOTH books. In ANY of them, credit could easily have been added. vpw CHOSE not to do so. Since we were unaware they were not wholly original books, we didn't pry when he made comments that he learned a few things here and there from other Christians. We believed vpw would never lie to us, and that if his books contained work by someone else, he'd CERTAINLY have told us. We were trusting fools that way. Never again. ----------------------------------------------------------