WordWolf

It bore saying. It added to the discussion. Even if it hadn't, it was worth a reminder.

According to his own words, lcm said "I got a Bachelor's Degree. In Psychology." So, I take it that this was his major, and he completed the Bachelors. Looking back, he's mentioned trying to learn how to perform a proper block in college, a move which took 6 steps. (Tape 1055, "Believing Images of Victory.") He mentioned what you already said- that in high school, there was no technique-just brute force. "It was just caveman against caveman." Apparently, he did not excel when finesse was called for. Now that the question is raised, I wonder if lcm just disregarded when he'd been taught precision before. That's because I took martial arts when I was young, and I earned my varsity letter in Fencing (which is a LOT more work than most people think from the old movies.) Both of them had moves that had to be learned with exacting precision. So, when I learned to fence, I had to learn a whole new way of moving, thinking and reacting. However, since I'd already had a basis for learning physical moves when I was younger, I knew that it would only be a matter of putting in the hours (and hours) of practice and repetition. I never became a local legend or anything (except to maybe 2 opponents), but I made a respectable showing for myself, and did well against the Division Champ before I gave it up to spend more time with twi. So, I did make it "off the bench", and earned respect from my peers, at least. Did lcm not put in the necessary time to learn the moves precisely, or did he have a problem learning altogether? "Body-memory" does not require a special education. If he learned the right moves correctly, they should have been habitual to him when he stepped out on the field. Instead, a knee injury sidelined him. Judging from his own accounts, he had some talent at football, but he seems to have lacked the dedication to rise to the top of the class. Of course, the skill of his coach is also a consideration, but it seems obvious the rest of the team excelled since they made it to the Orange Bowl....

No matter how many times you say "if pfal isn't God-breathed, then nothing is!" It STILL holds no water. The origin of any canon has no bearing on any other canon. Muslims say "if the Koran isn't God-breathed, then nothing is!" Christian Science-ites say "If Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures isn't God-breathed, then nothing is!" Many other groups say similar things about THEIR holy books, like you do with your holy books. Their beliefs don't require reality to conform to them. You should know this-I've said this in greater detail before. I'll leave the other comments alone, except to say they illustrate your POV nicely, and new arrivals should easily see why this position of yours is error.

You're not under time-constraints. However, if you just move on and pretend HCW never posted, I'll be posting some gentle reminders, complete with cattle-prod. By all means, address HCW's post entirely before addressing mine. My issues are all coming up for the umpteenth time.

Ok, let's see.... *takes out pointer* As everyone can see, the first slide shows a marked denial of the reasons the prices fluctuated for pfal at different times. If the market would have borne the running of all pfal classes at $200, it would have stayed $200. It only came down to match demand. Adam Smith's "invisible hand", not God's invisible hand, moved the price. Also note how it was "correct and Godly" to run classes at $200, just as it was "correct and Godly" to run classes at $40. If vpw endorsed a decision, it was "correct and Godly" even if contradictory statements are thus "correct and Godly." *moves to second slide* I imagine a detailed comparison of "Living Victoriously" was not attempted, the book to the tapes. Some people sat thru an LV class with an LV book in their hands, and discovered it was a transcript of the content portions of the tapes. (That is, they leave out the jokes and cheapshots at other Christians on each tape.) Even someone who hated vpw, cg and the tapes/book would be able to admit that, if they compared them. *moves to third slide* Here we see Mike rewriting the editing process behind the pfal books. We also have the testimony of one of those editors that this is nothing like what happened. We can believe the word of a PARTICIPANT and EYEWITNESS, or that of Mike who concluded what he wanted to, years later and states away. However, Mike's determined not to allow other ideas to penetrate his mind, and the admission is here. *moves to last slide* Here we see the holy pfal books correcting the evils of 20 centuries of Christians once again. In Mike's mind, anyway. Never lets reality or the evidence get in the way of his doctrine, that one.

Mike in original. [WordWolf in boldface as usual.] [He was saying that ALL your dealings with us have a condescending and patronizing air, and that's either overt, or with an attempt at masking it before the commercial comes in again. Whereas, not every comment anyone makes around here is similarly barbed. ]

Let's see, what shall his response be? Judging from past performance (which is no guarantee of future performance) we could see the following: A) A personal attack "you're spiritually immature, HCW! Yo momma!" or the ingenue version "I'm spiritual enough to rise above your spiritual immaturity" B) absolute ignoring of the post, until it's brought up again ("I was busy and forgot") C) singling out the smallest of HCW's comments, going on for a page about it, and pretending he answered all the charges "Your mention of toothpicks was in error...." D) a filibuster on an unrelated topic to change the subject "Now I'm bringing up the 23rd edition of the Ochre Book, page 93..." E) a claim that he already answered this and he's not going to do it again (no proof cited) I think that's all the usual responses. We've been thru them all over the past few years. ===== HCW, thanks for your contributions to the discussion. It helps make obvious what others already told him: the claim that the books were edited by divine inspiration is purely Mike's, and refuted more than once by those who edited them. I understand why some people, wounded and bitter, avoid all mention of pfal. Me, I think some of its contents have merit. HOWEVER, this refusal to acknowledge its strengths AND WEAKNESSES inflicts a deficiency on the refuser. He is unable to go beyond what's written there. Worse, his search for "hidden meanings" blinds him to the actual contents of the pages.

That's what I said about that.... nothing about "should a bishop abuse his office, and pervert the grace of Christ, he is to cover it up and all the people are to pretend it didn't happen."

Wordwolf, You may have a point, if the Apostle Paul mentioned Alexander the Coppersmith's sins almost every day, for 20 years. Now maybe some folks would consider endlessly mentioning Alexander's evil works "the introduction of light" oh glow-ray -- but I would call condemnation of that frequency more like mega-preoccupation with evil things of the past, and the endless perpetuation of victim mentality -- as if nothing else matters other than Paul mentioning for decades how he was abused by Alexander. (snip) Amazing how you read that one sentence yet somehow skipped the paragraphs following it, concerning the standards a "faithful minister" are to be held to.

There's a difference between looking towards Christ, and living in denial that others have done wrong. If we were meant to REALLY forget the past, there would BE no Old Testament, since the New would have REPLACED it. The Apostle Paul was well aware that there was a difference between "living in denial of past wrongdoing" and "looking towards the present"- otherwise, we wouldn't know Alexander the coopersmith did him MUCH evil. ====== Those in positions of authority are to be of good moral conduct overall, and BLAMELESS in matters of stewardship. If a steward is found to be UNJUST, then, first of all, he is to no more be steward. There ARE standards to be held in leaders, and you should know where to find them in your sleep. vpw, who failed MISERABLY to live up to those standards, taught about them quite a bit-demonstrating that he UNDERSTOOD them, but chose not to LIVE them. I Timothy 3:1-10. 3:2 "must be blameless" , above reproach. His actions must be meet or exceed reasonable expectations for a leader. 3:2 "husband of one wife" He must not have doctrine or practice of multiple wives, including acting as if it is acceptable to have sexual congress with a multitude of his flock 3:3 "not given to wine" He must not abuse alcohol 3:3 "no striker" He must not be swift to resort to violence or wrath 3:3 "not greedy of filthy lucre" He must not seek to use the family's money for his luxuries 3:3 "patient" He must be patient. 3:3 "not a brawler" He must not be quarrelsome and get into fights. 3:4 "not covetous" He must not seek out the privileges of those in the chief seats, the politicians 3:4 "one that rules well his own house" He devotes sufficient and appropriate time and dedication to his earthly family/household 3:4 "having his children in subjection with all gravity" He takes the job of childraising seriously, determined to do it right- as a result, his children RESPECT him. 3:7 "he must have a good report of them which are without" His reputation in public must be a respectable one. ============ Who here would like to use the above criteria to evaluate the viability of vpw to hold the "office of a bishop", which, as he often agreed, was the list for leaders in the church today? A few people, please. ================

Let's see, what does that mean in English.... *activates twi decoder* "pseudo-Christians" and "anti-Christians" "Pseudo-Christians" means "people who aren't current twi memberfollowers." "messages of animosity" means "messages that weren't rewrites of current HQ tapes". "promoted homosexuality" means "challenged twi's infallibility practice" "old news-very very old 20 year old news". Meaning uncertain. May mean "they exposed the plagiarism and lies of the organization's founder" or "they exposed the rapes and molestations of the organization's founder" or "they exposed the rapes, molestations and lies ruined by the organization's successor, chosen by the organization's founder, from 1985 until a few years ago." or "they exposed the conspiracy and lives ruined by the organization's current leader, in the past decade, who has yet to be indicted." Unsure which. "Most of those people didn't look to the Word of God, instead they focused on people" means "they didn't look the other way like good wayfers when confronted with accounts of their spiritual siblings being raped, molested, taken advantage of, treated as indentured servants, and other acts of malfeasance". "I am not igorant of the past. I lived through it. I know what occurred and why" means "I accept that whatever answers leadership give are true. I refuse to consider evidence or testimony of any kind that might suggest they are lying or incorrect. I refuse to consider the idea that leadership might EVER be less than truthful to me. If I did, they'd destroy my life, and I consider the cost of rebuilding it too great to look outside my cage."

"What's your favorite body of water and describe it in 3 adjectives..." "the human body. "What do I win?" ---- Maybe your reply was entirely a joke, but otherwise your answer missed the question, possibly demonstrating a lack of reading what's written. (Unless it was in jest.)

Then again, Mike, Maybe they think you're wrong about what those instructions mean. Maybe they think your concept of the word "master" is wrong. Maybe they think that what pfal says about pfal is true, and it's KEYS, not holy writ. Maybe they don't think there were snowstorms that vpw kept encountering, either vision or real. Maybe they think God spoke in the Bible, God speaks to each, but God didn't designate vpw as God's first real spokesman since 99 AD. Maybe they don't think pfal is an updated Bible. Maybe they don't think Jesus will be teaching from pfal when he returns. Maybe they don't think Jesus will have the Orange Book in his hand when he returns. Might some, any, or all of those be reasonable options to "they're all deceitful and sleazy"? ======= I hate it when I try to watch a tv show I like, only to discover I end up catching the exact same episode on a repeat each time...

Is your AVG updated to the latest update? (Every few days, there's an update.) You should be able to clean out every virus by using the online antivirus scan one time at http://www.trendmicro.com Which can take an hour. After that, I'd do it once a season to get anything that made it thru your antivirus. From what I've heard, stubborn infections can be stamped out by running antivirus programs and so on while your pc is in safe mode. (If a program is running, it can't delete the program-which is why safe mode, with everything not running, works here. Is your Spybot's "immunization" function on? I hope so. If you want to increase your security, AdAware is free and catches a lot of stuff. Further, you can download another antivirus for use when online or offline. AntiVir is more effective than AVG, if less user-friendly. If you ran it fully while running AVG fully, you'd have system glitches. So, here's what you do.... You download AntiVir, then carefully read the options. Where it has a box checked off for installing the antivirus GUARD/SHIELD, UNcheck that box. Now, you have a program that won't interfere with AVG, but will serve as an active scanner when you switch it on. Make sure ALL your stuff is up-to-date, including your Windows-there's been updates since SP2.

I recommend a software firewall regardless. Since ZoneAlarm and Kerio have decent FREE firewalls, I don't think there's an excuse not to use one. A router's firewall, IIRC, is great for screening incoming traffic, but does NOTHING on outgoing traffic. That means that if something DOES elude your defenses, there's no additional layer of defense. With a software firewall, an attempt by a program to dial out or whatever will be stopped and you'll be notified. Now you know there's a problem program infecting your pc. With the router only, you have no warning. I prefer not to assume ANY program or device is 100% effective.

....and yet, with all your reading of pfal, you STILL miss its testimony about The Word of God, and how reading the English Versions, it is possible to get to The Word of God....

There you go, rewriting history again. Those of us who were here saw exactly what happened. Raf demonstrated that "believing" is not a "law". Then you kept trying to crowbar exceptions into various definitions of the word "law". Then you told him you rejected the meaning of the word "law" as defined by everyone else, and asked him for more definitions. Then Raf, who ALREADY had provided SEVERAL, said it was YOUR TURN, since you claimed to HAVE a definition that worked, and said that you'd refuse to give it, since to give a definition would mean you'd have to remain faithful to it, rather than change the meanings and definitions as you always do. Your response was to refuse to give a definition. Now you're claiming HE dodged the question. (That's as intellectually honest as the claim that Jesus cast out devils by the prince of devils.) Further, HE asked YOU repeatedly. You must be reading a heavily-edited version of your own posts.

If one treated ANY book with the attitude you approach the pfal books, that book would be seen as "perfect" also. pfal IS riddled with errors. Lying about Raf doesn't change that. It doesn't require ANY kind of toolkit to see that the Orange Book gives a standard that something God-given can not have one single error. It doesn't require ANY kind of toolkit to see that early in the book and class, we're told that "all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king." It doesn't take a degree in history to notice that this claim was never substantiated, because it was completely wrong. If it was technically true, Nathan would have had no basis on which to confront King David. If it was historically accurate, it would not contradict all the laws of the Old Testament. Therefore, that claim is an ERROR, and, according to pfal, any book with a factual or doctrinal ERROR is NOT divine inspiration. (This was not an "inksmudge" or an "editing mistake", either-that's exactly what vpw MEANT to say, AND it was WRONG.) Therefore, using the "toolkit" of pfal ITSELF, it failed by its own standards that quickly. This is not a problem to 99.99% of the graduates of pfal, who don't think it was supposed to be divine revelation. An entire book was added, "Christians Should Be Prosperous", written BY vpw for inclusion in the pfal materials. It's main premise and its documentation are both in error-God does not require a tithe now. By pfal's standards, that error-BASED book is NOT divine, but then again, it wasn't claimed to be so. Hiding from the ERRORS, pretending the ERRORS don't exist, and outright LIES and PERSONAL ATTACKS on people who've seen the ERRORS don't change the reality of the errors. You can slap the label "apples" on the pickle-jar, but that doesn't turn the pickles into apples.

Cynic, If you've something of substance to offer in this discussion- as you insist you do, and moreso than all your detractors- can you please offer it and try to keep the "argumentum ad your momium" to a minimum? I'm not even asking you to STOP it- just to present your case and TRY to stick to that. Mind you- this is not intended as a trick. I WANT to read your "argument" if it's got something compelling, or at least worthy of consideration.

Ok.... I know of better (and free) antivirus programs than Norton. I know of better (and free) firewalls than Norton. Do you know of a decent "parental controls" she can use instead of her Norton all-in-one?

Well, it did INCLUDE some keys. I've never said the class was devoid of merit. I object to the thinking that it is the be-all and end-all of merit. Likewise, I understand that the evil actions taken by vpw in ruining the lives of some people queered them off opening a Bible and reading it. I don't think that's the best response, but I understand, and I understand that the healing of their hearts may take a lifetime. Myself, I think I benefitted from the time I spent putting down my Bible, then picking it back up again with fresh perspectives and new ideas. BTW, Mike, I STILL don't think most posters here are going to do homework assignments when you assign them. You might try plain speaking. Then we can agree or disagree, but we can do it plainly.

JustThinking, I'm sure Pat will want to sample this list when he gets out for his website, so let me ask before I forget: If he copies this list to there, is that ok with you?

And all this time I thought dowsing was playing with devil spirits... That's what my copy of "Angels of Light?", recommended reading for Advanced class candidates, says. Must be an old wineskin.

Ditto. I had already figured they were all gone for good, anyway.

Um, she said she likes Norton. Norton and ZoneAlarm, I hear, don't play so nice together. I hear that in this forum, in fact. I like ZA, myself, but she likes Norton. Therefore, Kerio might be a better free firewall for her.