WordWolf

Ok, then..... Approximately HOW do you determine WHICH verses, Mike, are "unreliable fragments" and "tattered remants", and WHICH are given by God and accurate? Is it merely which ones agree with you? Which ones vpw quoted? (And anything he didn't quote is a "tattered remnant"?) This is a much, much more important question than any others I have on the table. I'm sure LOTS of us would love to hear this answer. I can stand to wait significant amounts of time on the other questions-so long as I know the answers ARE coming. Please- We've just GOT to hear your criteria. (There ARE criteria, right?)

Mike: Thanks for replying (somewhat). Concerning Steve's question, yes. I followed the discussion, and the points you and Steve made. At last I looked, Steve's last point seems to have illustrated that yours was an invalid statement. You said vpw said something, and Steve pointed out it seems to go nowhere. Therefore, either 1) Prove it goes somewhere 2) Admit it goes nowhere I'm interested in seeing either possibility. (Not to be confused with PRETENDING either possibility.) So, yes, pending further data, it looks like that quote was a statement that, when someone actually examines it rather than blindly assuming it's correct, goes nowhere. ---------------------------------------------- Regarding the other points (C,D,E, or the rape issue, the 1942 promise and plagiarism), I didn't list the possibility you felt they'd been discussed sufficiently, true. I also didn't list the possibility that you're afraid a REAL objective discussion of shame would show that reverence of vpw and pfal is building a house on sinking sand. I made no speculations on that either way. We DID discuss "the 1942 promise" on several threads, which you avoided, covering different aspects. Whether or not it was actual snow or a vision of snow was the least of all the matters discussed. Your complete silence on those threads was rather conspicuous. ------------------------------------------- "Hebrews was written by an AUthor Who had complete foreknowledge of these times we live in now." Make up your mind, Mike. Is Hebrews 4:12 completely unreliable, or isn't it? It's always funny to see you say the Bible's worthless, then quote a verse you like later. Another thing I'd like to ask is if you're aware that your last statement basically said that all of vpw's writings are referred to retroactively as the Word of God, since you've declared vpw's writings as such, and that, as such, Hebrews 4:12 refers to them. --------------------------------- You may like to post "presentations or announcements" here. However, this is STILL a discussion board. Anything you post here, is, by definition, open to discussion. (As is everything I post.) Your preferred format is to control the discussion and talk AT, rather than discuss, prove, disprove. Your decision. That's suited to your own website, or your own book. If you run your own show, you can declare a monopoly on authority, as you prefer. So long as you post on GSC, EVERYTHING is an "argument" (in both senses of the term.)

For those of you wondering if the tally I was doing the other day has changed, here's the latest... A) Concerning Steve's question, it became a "dishonest" question again. Mike suggested that an answer to that one question should be sufficient to convince people to wildly embrace his viewpoint. He asked what Steve would do with an answer- "Drop your present line of research and start mastering PFAL?" B) Mike seems to be less insulting, although his trademark hubris will never change. Still, that's an improvement of sorts. C) Concerning vpw's numerous accounts of rape, he suggested anyone else would have done the same. After saying vpw said people put in top positions were done so regardless of whether or not they were qualified, he said "He often said this of himself, even... God often had a limited number of flawed men He could install as leaders: King Saul and Balaam are two extreme examples discussed here before....All God selected, all got it screwed up royally. You and I'd done the same in one category or other had we been tapped to serve God's people." This, BTW, is on-subject because Mike is convinced that God appointed vpw in a manner similar to King Saul, and, apparently, with the similar level of authority. So, he's still saying anyone else would have done it, and that, since vpw was "Doctor" and "The Teacher", ruining people's lives should be overlooked. D) Concerning the 1942 promise, a stony silence. E) Concerning the pfal class being a photocopying of the work of a handful of others, a stony silence. F) Concerning the "mastering PFAL" "secrets", nothing. He requoted that thing about memorizing pfal, but won't say this is supposed to be 1/2 the task. About the abject refusal to read or consider anything NOT pfal, in a pitiful attempt to hide from anything that could show up pfal as a scam, or show that OTHER Christians can and do exceed vpw's level of skill. ----------------------------------------------------------- Oh, and if anyone is wondering if I'll be adding anything of substance to the discussion, other than pointing out when Mike refuses to do so, the answer is "yes."

For those who missed it, Mike accused others on this thread of being "logic-starved". I thought that was too funny to miss. -------------- Mike, I asked a simple question before. You seemed to say earlier that you were going to address Steve's question soon. I asked if that was true, and if so, roughly, when. About 24 hours later, you were attacking Steve's character and accusing him of different things. (I don't mean a few hours ago.) Looked like you were now saying you WEREN'T going to answer his question. Please declare in plain English. Will you be addressing Steve's question about realms superceding each other? If so, roughly when? ----------------------------- BTW, Mike, for someone who claims to have "no hatred to people here", you have felt very free to toss around insults the entire time you've been here. Those who've disagreed with you, and presented LOGICAL, REASONABLE positions, you've called unfit reasearchers, you've all but called us all charlatans, you've claimed, sight unseen, that only YOU have done sufficient amounts of research on a variety of subjects, mostly vpw's writings, pfal, Bible research, and surprise forays into various hard sciences. You've basically said we're all unable to read, and that all conclusions we've reached that do NOT agree with yours are invalid. You've lumped all disagreements with you, including logical discourse, into the category of "personal attacks". Perhaps some were-but so were many of yours, and you feel yours were perfectly justified. It's so much easier to simply claim "you can agree with me, or you can be WRONG!" and claim all disagreements with you are parts of some demonic conspiracy (go back a page- you DID imply that, buried in a lengthy quote), since it absolves you of all responsibility to be intellectually honest. Since you arrived, you've CLAIMED you examined everything we object to for "5 years" before even showing up here. That's a good trick- especially since much of the evidence has come out in the past YEAR-including right under your nose. You closed your investigation before all the facts were in. However, your answers to all the objections that have been raised have largely been evasions. Here's a summary of your responses to the "rape" issue. A) I don't believe he did it. B) Whatever he did wasn't a big deal because we needed him since he's "The Teacher", and we can excuse him of indiscretions since he was indispensable. C) Any other guy would have done the same in his position. D) I refuse to let myself be distracted on this issue. Here's a summary of your responses to date on the issue of whether or not vpw got special revelation in 1942: A) vpw said he did, so he did. B) You can't prove he didn't. C) The proof is that we got results from his writings-that could not happen if he had not been assigned the special God-dude. D) The current proof he did is somewhere in vpw's writings. E) I refuse to let myself be sidetracked with this issue. On the subject of the pfal class being largely a re-editing of BG Leonard's class, with whole sections of JE Stiles' book on the Holy Spirit and EW Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible" added, and NOT, as he stated so unambigiously during that same class, the result of countless hours between himself and God with ONLY a Bible as reference, and only AFTER taking all his other reference books out to the "town gehenna, where the fires never go out", and dumping them in the city dump, where they could NOT be used as references for the pfal class, you've been singularly silent. Whole sentences and paragraphs seem to have been lifted, word-for-word, out of their works and EW Kenyon's works. As far as you're concerned, God dictated the entire thing to vpw, with no regard to what the other authors wrote. Frankly, if I wanted to master pfal in it's REALLY pure form, I'd do the best job by memorizing BG Leonard's class, Stiles and Bullinger's books, and rounding out with EW Kenyon. Also, I think it's about time you came clean about the process of "mastering pfal" you keep mentioning from time to time. I asked you about it before, and didn't expect a straight answer. I got a partial answer, which surprised me. Your answer was that to reach mastery, one step was to memorize the pfal books. OK, not a shocker, but you actually addressed my question, sort of. (The real question was not how to get there, but what the target-goal WAS, what can a "Master of PFAL" expect?) The other part of your answer slipped out when you were addressing Schwaigers. You took Schwaigers to task about actually using other materials besides pfal as source material. You said they should dismiss all other source material. (Not for a short time, as advocated in pfal, but for an indefinite period.) So, putting the 2 halves together, here's what the picture looks like. A person seeking "mastery of PFAL" must memorize vpw's PFAL books. They must read them backwards and forwards, and be able to recite them whole from memory, able to quote them page-by-page on any subject they address. A person seeking "mastery of PFAL" must absolutely eliminate all other sources of input other than the PFAL books. NO other Christian writer is to be trusted, no Bible is to ever be cited-or sighted. Once those 2 tasks have been accomplished, the acolyte has now reached a state where he has discarded ALL information that could possibly interfere with total devotion to PFAL, and possibly discredit it at any point. Having now ruthlessly eliminated any contradicting data, the acolyte is now ready to dogmatically assert that PFAL is the be-all and end-all of things. It's certainly the be-all and end-all of his life, since he's discarded everything else. To those of us glad to be thinking for ourselves, such a process seems remarkably similar to brainwashing, and indoctrination into a cult. But, Mike, go ahead. If I've misrepresented the process to "mastering PFAL", please clarify EXACTLY what I said wrong about it. Does it NOT involve wholesale memorization? (That's essentially the answer you gave me previously.) Does it NOT involve discarding and dismissing any and all materials not directly relating to PFAL, especially anything refuting it? (That's essentially the answer you gave Schwaigers before.) Go ahead-declare it plainly. Is this exactly what you meant to say? If not, EXACTLY what's the difference? No, don't tell me, let me guess... "You've misrepresented me. You do not wish to honestly present my side, and so you distort it. I refuse to address your questions, since they're intellectually dishonest. I have other matters, more important, to address, and I'm too busy. I refuse to discuss this in the discussion forums I post in." Well, Mike? Are you going to invoke the same old cop-outs (see the previous paragraph), or will you level with your readers? Those are simple questions, and I KNOW you're online. This won't require a lot of research, just a statement of your position. Are you going to answer, or run away?

Exactly. I figure "the Architect" (white lab coat guy) was lying thru his teeth. As you pointed out, he was already wrong. He has proved unable to accurately predict Neo's actions in the rest of the movie. My prediction for Part 3? Neo and that traitor, in taction with the Matrix at the nexus point of the master control program, fighting it out for whose vision will determine the destiny of the matrix. Yes, as I saw it, the other mentioned were all programs. That includes the Merovingian and Persephone (the guy in the restaurant and his 'wife'), and their minions. Somebody HAD already pointed out that previous programs were the origin of legends like vampires, werewolves, and ghosts. (I think it was Smith.) BTW, Smith seems to have some basic upgrades besides the 'virus' ability, doesn't he? Anybody else caught the "bowling" sound during that cool fight scene with 100 Smiths? Ok, back to the "legends". Persephone points out the Keymaker's guards were unreliable, but hard to destroy. "After all, who carries silver bullets?" (That is, they were werewolves. Slow-reacting werewolves, at that, with lousy, un-wolflike instincts.) We also see those 2 albinos turn insubstantial and pass thru things like some sort of spectre. (That is, they were ghosts.) I think the Oracle and Keymaker, among others, are free programs NOT under the auspices nor the agenda of the main control program. (Like Tron in the movie "Tron".)

Goey, unless you're quoting from something I never read here, Mike called the modern version "unreliable fragments AND tattered remnants." (Then again, the overall meaning was preserved in your quote.) --------------------------------------- Hold everything...... ...Mike, did you say you were currently working on an answer to Steve's question, and would present it soon? "I will produce more references. I've been culling through the 80 I mentioned last month. I've whittled it down to 50, and will soon pick out the best 10 or 20." (6/03/03, 1:49am.) That was in response to Steve's reminder that "It's *your responsibility to bring in 'those many other passages'. If you can't just say so." (6/02/03 1:43pm) I may not be an expert in Mike-idioms, but, by golly, sounds like that's what you said. So, is that what you meant? If not, please explain what you DID mean. If so, give us a ballpark. Will we see this list sometime before, say, 6/15? 7/4? End of summer? (I, for one, can refrain from asking beforetime if I have an estimate to work from.)

True. Mike's very good at doing his best to try to draw attention to that which he is UNABLE to defend. You remember when he stated OUTRIGHT what his policy was, some time ago- distract, deflect, evade-but never admit an error is an error. Since he is unable to answer Steve's question, Steve's question is "unimportant". Since Goey pointed out that he violated vpw's own rules of taking the CONTEXT into account when trying to make a theology out of the placement of the word "necessarily" in one sentence, Goey's guilty of disregarding a "local contra-context." What IS a "local contra-context", BTW? Must be a new term made up to obfuscate the fact that Mike's own vocabulary of legitimate terms isn't up to keeping pace with Goey's own assertions. Mike's been pretty consistent in disregarding ANY part of PFAL (which, according to Mike, is God-breathed) which invalidates his position. ------------------------------------------ Any chance we'll see him actually address Steve's perfectly legitimate question about realms superceding each other, and their use as an analogy? Doubtful. It's either "umimportant" or a "dishonest question" or some other vague accusation.

On other forums where younger teenagers post, I have occasionally had a specific comment. It was this. They felt very defensive that they posted what were seen as silly ideas, and were challenged on them. So, they reacted in a hostile and defensive fashion. My reply was to explain a basic rule of decorum in debate, which works on other boards. You put forth a statement, or advance a position. That position is then challenged by others. You now have three possible VALID responses. A) RETRACT your position- "I've seen the error of my ways!" B) REPHRASE your position- "I've been misunderstood, and here's how!" C) SUPPORT your position- "Here's why you should agree with me!" -------------------------------------------- Like many people here and elsewhere, I have found it necessary to rephrase myself from time to time. That's because I know what I meant, but somehow it didn't translate into a post that others could easily understand. That happens sometimes. We're human. Anyone here who's seen me start a post with the words "thank you for giving me another change to explain that", or "Yeah, THAT'S what I meant" has seen that in action. I DON'T think it's proper to immediately attack people for misunderstanding what I MEANT to say. I accept that I make imperfect posts, and that's not proof of a conspiracy. Some people might reconsider their approach to the INEVITABLE misunderstandings. Shazdancer has ALREADY pointed this out, with both eloquence and greater brevity than me. ----------------------------------------------- Further, it's BAD form to advance a position and then insist it's right without defending it. "My position is right! You disagree because you are too lazy to read up on it, and those of you who've read up and still disagree are wrong because you didn't read it correctly!" Steve Lortz addressed a specific issue. He asked a specific question. Steve pointed out the reasoning is circular and incomplete. Mike then had 3 valid possible responses- A) agree and RETRACT his position B) REPHRASE his position C) SUPPORT his position Mike's response? "..you're more interested in tripping me up in some statement that I made..." "I'm admitting that I am not paying much attention to the details of your demands." "My priorities are such that proving anything to you is very low in how much time and attention I'm willing to give it." That's NONE of the three approaches. That's an evasion. Further, it's a clear violation of Robert's Rules of Order, concerning decorum in debate. That is, you debate the POSITION, not the PERSON. Tossing around accusations and insults does NOT support one's position. Steve was approaching Mike's assertions in a respectful tone, and with honest discussion. Mike's response: I'm not answering that! You're obviously trying to trip me up! NO, MIKE-he's challenging your thesis! If your position is CORRECT, it can stand a little HONEST scrutiny in discussion. If it CAN'T stand up to scrutiny, then it's NOT correct, and you should sit down. (I'm not addressing comments that were not made between Mike and others that were more insult-slinging, just between honest attempts at discussion and Mike's responses.) ----------------------------------------- Further, Mike, "posing challenging questions" is not the same as "I told you to read everything VPW wrote!" That's not a question at all-that's a demand. Further, it's an evasion, and a refusal to support your position. If you're going to post at the GSC, you have accepted the climate here. That includes the reality that you will be engaged in REAL DEBATE. Either roll up your sleeves and prepare for some INTELLIGENT DISCOURSE, or be prepared to have the deficiency of your positions pointed out over...and over...and over...and over...... with your only response being "None of you can read correctly! You are all unfit researchers! You have all decided to misunderstand me! I'm the only honest one here! All of your challenges are invalid!" That's just going to look worse and worse as time rolls on. Tiresome, too. Well, you've got a choice. I figure I know what decision you'll make, but, hey, you might surprise me (and the rest of us who actually discuss things.)

Uh, No, Mike, it's NOT news. Many of us ARE quite capable of reading with comprehension, and have been doing so for years. (Even when material isn't quite up to scratch.)

Steve, I'm betting you catch what I saw in the last post, in answer to your question. Since it's your question, I'll let you address it, though. :)--> --------------------------------------------- Mike, for now, I'll drop the discussion of credentials, training, education and experience, mainly because, at present, it's not going to enhance the discussions. Keep in mind that I reserve the right to do so if it becomes germane to any thread. (Like someone claiming qualifications.) It's certainly not because I thought your answer addressed my question. For now, I can agree to "table" it.

So, without a degree in ANYTHING, you found a place willing to employ you doing "thirty years of research in quantum physics INCLUDING THE MATH". (Emphasis yours.) I openly challenge THAT happened, then. BTW, if you are under 45, that means that you started younger than age 15, and have just finished doing that research. If you are 50, you started at age 18 and stopped to years ago. (Or just stopped and started at age 20.) ---------------------------------------------- Unless you have your own special definition of "research" or "30 years". Was that it?

After seeing how you "handled" other scientific subjects, I openly challenge you having a degree in physics, qualifying you to do "30 years of research in quantum physics INCLUDING THE MATH". (Emphasis yours.) Furthermore, I'm just a little curious how someone with a veritable lifetime's worth of research in physics is not working in anything vaguely resembling academia, unless he can do better for himself (like, say, run a corporation.) Sorry, Mike, I just don't take anyone's word that they're well-researched, qualified, or "THE anything" anymore.

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 his choices was profoundly silly, and practiced from the top.

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 other hemisphere, they WOULD have run out of food, returning to Europe or starving.) This was OLD NEWS. In the days of the GREEK EMPIRE (BC times), they knew the world was round. A few evidences of this included the round shadow the earth casts on the moon, how the horizon curves, etc. Sailors have plenty of evidence of this, so this was common knowledge. In fact, it was Eratosthenes who calculated out the circumference of the earth using calculus. His figure was correct, plus or minus a tiny fraction/margin of error. In fact, we've discussed this in the GSC before. (That was when someone pointed out that it was Eratosthenes who did the math, not Anaxander.) In case you are wondering, I learned this in college, I saw this on PBS, and I reread this in a book I bought fairly recently. This is NOT secret knowledge. The tendency to speak authoritatively on subjects in which one is not an authority was epidemic in twi, and is more common at the GSC than among most Christians. (From what I've seen.) -------------------------------------------------------- I DID want to address Mike's repeated insult of the rest of the GSC again. Coolwaters beat me to it, of course. Mike, this may come as a surprise to you, again. THE REST OF US CAN THINK. WE HAVE BEEN THINKING. WE ALL CAME TO CONCLUSIONS OTHER THAN YOU. That's not because we were "lazy". Lots of people here are equally determined as you, lots have equal or greater experience to you, lots are smarter than you. NONE OF THEM CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSIONS AS YOU. We don't need to "RE-THINK" anymore. The only things "significant" about your opposition are the huge blocks of time you give it, and the fact that Pawtucket hasn't canned your @$$ long ago. (BTW, I DID vote NOT to force you out. I would rather have had you moderate your tone and learn manners than you be dumped.) You owe Paw an inestimable thanks. Your insistence that you are the one voice crying in the wilderness is insulting and amazingly narrow-minded. "Ever want to obey God on this?" Well, if your definition of obeying God is your idolatrous worshipping of a man-especially THAT man-then I can pass. I'll stick with the Bible's definition of obeying God. I'll obey the things clearly written, and the things He tells me directly, NOT the things one man claims another man was told by God. You know, if your manner was a LOT less arrogant and insulting, you'd get a LOT less flak for your idiotic posts. (Idiotic being from "idios", meaning "one's own", as taught in pfal.) Actually, Coolwaters said it all better than me.

Somebody just mentioned this, so I thought I'd bring it back now, for those of you who missed it the first time.

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 creature comforts, and everyhing being EXACTLY the way he wanted it. Compare that to vpw, who premeditated sin, who designated places for sin, figured out targets for sin, conducted approaches to said targets (separating sheep from the herd), approached said targets or sent designates to approach them, had them sent to places so he could sin, violated them, then did whatever he "needed" to gag or silence them when awestruck devotion was not enough to silence someone who was the victim of a "Hophni/Phineas" level of sin. ------------ You've got a lot of nerve putting those 2 men in the same category. vpw was not fit to loose the sandals of Joseph. vpw a victim of persecution? Tell that to the women he violated. Tell that to their families. Tell that to the people whose lives he ruined by turning them into accomplices. Tell that to all the writers that he (and God, you suggest?) stole from. Tell that to everyone whose reputation he ruined when they challenged any of that, and whom he counted on to vanish-before the internet. Oh, BTW, their suffering at his DIRECT actions (not the actions of those who somehow "failed to follow his teachings") was NOT the result of their failing to believe or carry out anyone's instructions. It was the result of being the victim of someone else's crime. Are you ready to claim the victims of crimes are generally responsible for the crimes, since they failed to believe-away the criminal? (Edited to correct Joseph's timeline.) [This message was edited by WordWolf on April 30, 2003 at 19:22.]

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.

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.

*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 basics for a person, although it leaves no time for specific needs or intentions. So, let's suppose 15 seconds. (My experiment showed LESS time would be insufficient unless you were PRETENDING to pray.) That's half the time AGAIN, or 12 1/2 hours a day, each day, CONTINUOUSLY, without a pause, to pray JUST for the WOWs. Pulling that off ONCE would be taxing, and be a peculiar absence of the person 1/2 the day. This does NOT include any prayers for the WC, the onsite staff, the grounds, or the "huge network of believing" to protect the USA. Adding even 15 seconds-worth of prayer for each, EVERY day, would require the ability to pray and believe at speeds exceeding a tobacco auctioneer. That's not in the Superhero category? The Flash could keep up with you, but Batman couldn't. Remember, he wasn't a machine in the basement- he needed to at least spend minimum amounts of time eating, sleeping, meeting the fans, and blessing a few of them in the back of the prayermobile once in a while. -------------- Man, Dot beat me to it. We could give life and take it away. ----------------- I think IGotOut and Dot Matrix's combined believing was what saved us from Y2K returning us to the Dark Ages, before the internet and cellphones. Well done, you two. :D-->

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 of my by everyone whom I respect. (Including some sharp children.) In any literary format, including comic books, the writer is morally and LEGALLY bound to cite his references. Now, unless you're trying to say that vpw's collateral readings were morally and situationally equivalent to bedtime stories to children, that's another strawman. ------------------------------------------ B) Technically speaking, I suppose I could dream up dozens of theoretical ways that vpw's sentences could mysteriously duplicate those of other authors that he'd been previously exposed to. That's a mental exercise, though. To state that any or all of them have any reasonable chance to have happened, though, is silly. One addresses the possibilities that had any reasonable chance to have occurred. I've seen some sad conspiracy theories. One thing they have in common is an absence of facts. Another thing they have in common is the concealment of a lack of data by insinuating and suggesting that various theoretical possibilities are likely. Unless one is trying to blindly push an agenda, though, this is never seen with respect. I suppose Johnny Cochran sees this differently than I do. C) Yes, you caught me. No denying it. I assumed you had NOT spent extensive amounts of time among Christians outside the OLG twi framework you are fond of. The reason is very, very simple. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Since there are PLENTY of wise, experienced, learned Christians out there, and you STILL have the expectation that only the pfal grads know stuff, there were 3 possibilities: A) Mike has met other Christians, and utterly dismisses their knowledge as effectively worthless (especially compared to pfal) B) Mike has met other Christians, but had somehow missed meeting any with significant knowledge due to being sheltered from them C) Mike has NOT met other Christians, and is honestly overgeneralizing. Since "C" was the most intellectually-honest, I assumed that was the correct answer. That is, you have NOT met other Christians and blown off all those whose opinions differ from your own. ----- So, if I NOW understand correctly, you've been exposed to the learnings of OTHER CHristians, and you STILL honestly believe there's no REAL wisdom outside of pfal? And that the English versions of the Bible are nearly worthless "remnants", made virtually useless by time and forgery?? Let me know if you really do want to address the whole idea-theft concept. Normally, you evade it whenever possible, but I'm game to supporting my view if you're game.

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 that sort of thing. Since vpw was a genius with a degree, he obviously considered such an approach, but obviously deemed his normal method-absence of citation-would be so much more beneficial to us. That's how much he loved us-he would use an approach unpopular among intelligensia and in virtually all 'research' books in order to provide the maximum blessing to us. Further yet, since those approaches were typical of the establishment, he used his 'anti-establishment' posture to claim solidarity with us. ___________________________________________________ I am unsure if his current stance also reflects a belief that vpw did NOT lift whole sentences word-for-word out of the books of others; his earlier statements had reflected a stance that got "airlifted" whole sections verbatim to vpw, coincidentally using EXACTLY the same words as writers vpw just happened to have read before. That assertion was alluded to on page 10 of this thread and addressed. -------------------------------------------------- Mike, If you spend significant amounts of time among learned Christians who never heard of vpw or twi, you'll make at least one amazing discovery.... They've learned amazing things that somehow were never part of our "education". Among them are far MORE detailed studies of the history of Scripture than we were exposed to. If you go out there expecting you know it all, you will get a rude awakening from experts in areas you've barely scratched the surface in. Our education was grossly deficient in showing the history of the texts. However, some information DID reach us. What do the names "Masoretic Text" and "Samaritan Pentateuch" mean to you? (That's in initial response to the question you claim no one wants to address.) It's only fair, since you've made an attempt at my question, that I make one at yours. This is not my FINAL word on this subject, just as I'm hoping for a definition of mastery. (Seems someone else is asking for it, as well, Mike-perhaps you didn't define it as clearly as you thought?)

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 of what you've said on various subjects, As someone pointed out, they may not be the WAY you'd like them summarized, but they are the same points. Frankly, although they're phrased in a way that most GSC'ers would disagree with them, that does not mean that any point was misrepresented. Honestly, pick ONE. If you'd like a point-by- point analysis, we can do that, but you seem inclined against it. So, pick ONE and make a case. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I'm going to misrepresent you, intentionally or no. (Unless you're convinced that's impossible.) ---- B) Technically, I'm still waiting for a "definition" of mastering. You provided a checklist of things to do to GET to mastery, but you still haven't defined the end-gial, the destination. That's a partial answer, and does give me some information. As I said from the beginning, I thought about what you wrote on the subject. I will think some more on it before coming to any conclusions, and I'd prefer the rest of the information before forming an opinion. The world is not filled with 1) your acolytes, 2) your enemies 3) people who've not heard enough to believe the doctrine of Mike. If you REALLY think I've been coming after you, you grossly underestimate my persistence.

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 PROUDLY proclaimed that pfal and all vpw-written pfal materials are of far surpassing benefit. He's said they are God's communication to us, just as Romans, say, was God's communication to Christians in Rome. He views them as superior in every way to that Bible-thing you value. He bases this claim on the "1942 promise" and the snowstorm, and vpw's claims that vpw heard from God, saw a miracle vision of snow, and received all his important writings at the direct communication of God Almighty. In the event vpw's work and the Bible in your hands contradict, your Bible is in error and vpw is right. That's because vpw was superior in both the mental and physical categories. ----------- Mind you, that's not me, that's from various posts Mike himself has made. (I'm not counting anyone else's claims to Mike's account.) ---------------------------- There's a lot more, but that's the basics. This post directly above mine illustrates the contrast. "..the not-so-God=breathed KJV..the very-much-so- God-breathed PFAL writings..." -------------------------------- Let me know if you need to be directed to specific threads where he's made claims.

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...

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. ------------------------------------------------------------ This thread IS, specifically, for the wild, grandiose, inflated claims you've heard over the years. Some of you've heard all sorts of wild fanboy adulation about vpw. I suppose anyone's entitled to be a fan(atic) when they want to be, but there's a limit to REASONABLE claims. I'd like to see some of the ridiculous abilities, experiences and claims attributed to vpw. ------------------------------------------------------------- I'll start off. I was told, back in 1989, one of the reasons there were problems after vpw's death was that, as a direct result of his death, "that huge network of believing vanished." That is, an ex-corpse person, who was in "active rebellion" against twi's draconian statements in 1989, had said that during vpw's life, his believing, and his believing ALONE, acted like a huge net over the entire USA, thwarting the devil like some huge construct of Green Lantern's ring. Once vpw died, it vanished, forcing the rest of us mortals to deal with things as best we could. ------------------------------------------------------- Please chime in anytime, on any subject-I know we've got TONS out there....