WordWolf

Well, these fine folks have to PAY to be there, don't they? I think I just figured out why this is being pushed. JT Ever known twi to abandon a moneymaking scheme on purpose?

I agree with Oldies' rundown of the contents of the books. I also agree with recommending unreservedly the SECOND book, "the Babylon Connection?" Woodrow spent so long repudiating things in his first book, however, that I felt his omission of what he had CORRECT was a lapse of judgement on his part. He did say that there were legitimate reasons to object to immorality and corruption, so claiming a connection to Babylonian worship was dishonest and unnecessary. However, that's the closest he came to saying that his previous comments-like one pope bringing his (DEAD) predecessor into court and putting him on trial being monstrous- were correct. Further, the claim Hislop MEANT to talk over the heads of his readers was incorrect, since EVERYBODY who wrote at the time wrote just like that. (Bullinger did-I have works by one or two others.) ======= I think the condemnation of the RCC-one of the biggest fish in Christianity (no pun intended) and the claims of conspiracy in "Babylon Mystery Religion"- not to mention its low price and easy-reading style- made it a perennial favourite for twi. It shouldn't be THAT big a surprise that some people who discover that its writer repudiated it as a whole, STILL cling to the earlier book, in twi and in some of the splinters.

I just checked Book 3, "the Word's Way", and I didn't find it anywhere in the Burnt Umber Book.

Darn-he beat me to it. "Babylon Mystery Religion" was written first. It was essentially a reader-friendly version of Reverend Alexander Hislop's book, "The Two Babylons". You can see that by looking Woodrow's book over. Despite his book being mostly contents reworded from another author's book, he handled things in an intellectually honest and legal fashion by FOOTNOTING and CITING his sources. According to someone here, to do that would be to distract from the contents of the book. I ask all of you: Were you ever, EVER, distracted from the contents of "Babylon Mystery Religion" by footnotes or citations? EVER? No, nobody else was, either. The sequel addressed how some people confused Woodrow for Hislop on different occasions. That wasn't Woodrow's fault-he made it clear who wrote what. Me? I owned a copy of both authors' books, plus the sequel when it came out. I was glad for Woodrow's book. Hislop's book was a LOT harder to read, since it wasn't user-friendly. Writers writing in the timeframe of EW Bullinger and Alexander Hislop were writing with the expectation that only other academics would be reading their books. The idea that the average schmoe would want to wasn't even a consideration. So, if you think they're TRYING to talk over your head, understand they had no idea you were invited to the party. ==== Mind you, the fact that Woodrow's correct use of citations and sources did NOT detract from "his message" should put to death the lie that vpw refrained from doing so to prevent a loss of "his message". (It SHOULD put that to death, but zealots are rarely swayed by evidence. For that matter, Baghdad Bob's broadcasts that US forces were nowhere near Bagdad had artillery barrages audible in the background.)

Bothered you too, eh? Seems some people would rather overlook the coginitive dissonance generated by the internal inconsistency of such things. vpw decided to rewrite the rules to his convenience rather than demonstrate intellectual honesty. Some would rather silence the truth and forget the past....

They were pretty successful at it, too. Some people still worship that idol....

Well, because it ISN'T, that's why. Each item mentioned in Ephesians 6:10-17 was an item worn in warfare, either as a weapon, or as armour. ===== lcm ran with it ad nauseum because he had 2 skill-sets. The one he learned from twi was how to shout orders. The one he learned before twi was athletics. So, his mindset was athletics no matter WHAT happened. (Having learned to read on comic books, an early mindset of mine was "superhero", but you don't see ME forcing everything to conform to that...) vpw actually started that. Of course, this being vpw, he got it from somewhere else, and pretended it was his own. The Fellowship of Christian Athletes originated the term "Athletes of the Spirit". I imagine lcm introduced it to vpw. I heard something about lcm being in that group in college. Exactly what lcm picked up from them, and what lcm passed to vpw, I have no idea. Somewhere in there, or in vpw's imagination, the whole of Ephesians 6 went into athletics- the "sword" became a javelin, the "shield" became a discus, and so on. twi's own Aramaic Interlinear rendered them as weapons. The Stephens and Nestle Texts (Greek) render them as weapons. In fact the "whole armour" is "panoplian" in the Greek. Specifically, that's the complete gear a Roman soldier carried. I had no difficulty understanding this. I was a fencer, and ALL my gear-swords, mask, uniform-all fit in one bag slung over the shoulder. (It also can double as a light luggage bag, but I wouldn't recommend it.) Ephesians 6:10-17 was a war-equipment metaphor.

You don't mean to suggest that Wierwille ripped off some other people's work and claimed it was revelation, do you? You don't mean to suggest that Wierwille didn't have the brains to recognize a conspiracy theory when it came up and bit him in the sit-upon, do you? You don't mean to suggest that virtually all of wierwille's claims of divine revelation were completely bogus, and just made to smokescreen the sources he plagiarized, do you? ===== If you don't, then I do, at any rate. "You don't see it? Too bad-I do!"- lcm, in his wap feeble attempt to explain art and the Original Sin.

Funny how that happened. The "chapter and verse, please" approach was one of the things that I liked the most. However, it's amazing how often that came up in the homes, yet how rarely that came up at the root locales. I myself was chided for recommending that teenagers "sit around and read The Word" rather than spend time in the Blue Book and the other SIALs. That was from a corpse grad.

*reads the link* Hm. I wasnt part of the last discussion, but I see some useful information here. Thanks a lot for the link-it's rather illuminating. I thought it was going to relate more directly to "Stockholm Syndrome."

Mike, A) Goey already delivered a beatdown on this some time ago. B) I offered to accept your "Table of Challenge" if you'd address the ORIGINAL "Table of Challenge"-the evidence that pfal is less than God-breathed. With you ignoring both of those answers so completely, do you really think that your usual tactic of announcing a week later "they refused to play my game-so I win by default!" will actually cut any ice with anyone except your drone? We've been thru this a few times already.

BTW, on another thread, Mike commented abotu the two words he never previously commented on in Tom's summary. They only became an issue because, although Mike keeps complaining of the entire summary, WordWolf said he personally was not aware of those 2 words being a direct quote, as opposed to everything else in Tom's summary. In response, Mike has decided-without checking with Tom- that Tom HAS no direct source, and now is banging his drum that he caught Tom lying about him. "I deliberately let that line go for many, many months to give Tom enough rope to...tie himself up!" Personally, I think Mike is not intentionally lying here. I think Mike has deluded himself to the point that he's rewritten his previous posts in his own mind. As such, the posts on the GSC that he and others have made do not conform to the posts as he remembers them. So, he actually believes he did that, and for that reason. It also explains "I disagree that those other disputed sections are direct quotes. They are over-abbreviations, and context-wrenched." Actually, they're NOT. At least a few of those were stand-alone comments Mike posted, so they HAD no "context", and were the posts in their ENTIRETY. However, Mike's hardly going to let a little thing like objective reality get in the way of him remembering things the way he wants them to have been. After all, he also remembers himself having acquitted himself well in debate, when all he ever did was obfuscate issues and avoid certain issues he had no answer to, then months later, declare victory. Therefore, the reality he sees is not the reality the rest of us see. The posts Mike and others have posted here are NOT recalled or understood in any "fair" way by Mike....who then expects us to trust his account of vpw and God Almighty hiding secret messages in the pfal books, which Mike has uncovered. That's ok- it's the same approach he's used when facing DIRECT QUOTES FROM THE PFAL BOOKS THAT REFUTE HIM. So, they're in semi-decent company.

The part about your approval is based on how you've behaved about people not accepting your "Table of Challenge". I honestly don't remember you offering access to "advanced abilities", but that's no guarantee you did not. Your approval was predicated upon accepting your challenge. So, the second part, at least, is most definitely the TRUTH.

Mike replies to Tom Strange. [WordWolf replies in boldface as usual.]

Actually, I thought you took PRIDE in your positions. Nearly everything he said was a DIRECT QUOTE from one of your posts, and Tom isn't changing the meanings. He's just making a concise summary.

Actually when first I read that sentence I thought it could well have been taken as a slam. Debunking the myth that you need to be an "intellectual." Does that mean their team is short on supply so they have to make that attribute seem less important? Shall they ever learn they can only run ahead and change the road signs for so long and eventually people are going to actually notice it! Of COURSE that's what it means! In 1989, when 80% of the membership present as of 1989 walked away, the WOW program applications plummeted accordingly. They proudly trumpeted the verses ad nauseum about God not being constrained to save by many or by few. Gotta try that spin control and make it look like we WANTED it this way..... (Similarly, the seminar on Biblical stuff for writers was all about submitting articles for their magazine right after the writing staff for the magazine walked off.... they started using LOTS of pictures and illustrations per page, too....

Pardon the interruption, but I felt the need to make a Public Service Announcement. "What constitutes a school? Not ancient halls and ivy-mantled towers, Where dull traditions rule With heavy hand youth's lightly springing powers. Not spacious pleasure courts, And lofty temples of athletic fame, Where devotees of sports Mistake a pasttime for life's highest aim. Not fashion, nor renown Of wealthy patronage and rich estate, No, none of these can crown A school with light and make it truly great. But masters, strong and wise, Who teach because they love the teacher's task, and find their richest prize In eyes that open and in minds that ask." By HENRY VAN DYKE. ======== I felt the need to document the actual SOURCE of the poem we were led to be "original" to twi. Like the others, it wasn't. Sorry to interrupt. Carry on, everyone.

This thread, pg-2, 1/22/05, 12:14am, eastern. A) This may surprise you, Mike, but starting from the position that anything vpw did was AUTOMATICALLY right produces a GREAT many problems. (As it would assuming ANYONE was automatically right, except Jesus Christ.) This is why you got static when you started toying with the idea that rape and molestation might have been, in some way, related to the "toughening up" process vpw supposedly directed at the corps. (Yes, you left that position fairly early.) Few others reacted in anything BUT horror when you tossed the idea out, because it's horrific. It's like saying God might suggest boiling a newborn infant for some Godly purpose. Your automatic assumption that PFAL is correct runs into similar problems when facing even SOME of the ACTUAL ERRORS IN PFAL. Since you refuse to consider their existance, they can be quite pesky for you. (See "the Emperor's New Clothes" by Hans Christian Andersen.) B) I'm sure you missed the obvious flaw in your statement. You said "if pfal is not God-breathed, then NOTHING is God-breathed." pfal's status or NONstatus has ANY affect on the status of any OTHER document. A Mormon might say "if the Book of Mormon is not God-breathed, then NOTHING is God-breathed." A 'Christian Scientist' might say "if Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures is not God-breathed, then NOTHING is God-breathed." A Muslim may say "if the Koran is not God-breathed, then NOTHING is God-breathed." A Hindu may say "if the Bhagavad-Gita is not God-breathed, then NOTHING is God-breathed." Does ANY of their statements change the status of their book or anyone else's? No-they stand or fall on their OWN merits. C) Finally, Mike, the ORIGINAL Table of Challenge predates yours, and you've refused to address it. That's the one with a partial list of ACTUAL ERRORS in PFAL. (Not even counting the Amazing Morphin' Man.) I offered to accept YOUR challenge over a year ago IF you dealt at least with a FEW of the most obvious items that show your Table of Challenge itself is an inferior product. You seem to have forgotten I was ready and willing to offer an exchange, one on your turf, on on ours. That's when you asked for more in return for what you need to address anyway.

Oh, this was too good to lose... Mike, the pro-pfal thread, pg-6, 1/23/05, 2:36am eastern. ========= "Abigail, You wrote: 'How does studying PFAL defeat death, Mike? We will all face death one day, unless the return comes first, no?' PFAL stands for (and I'm sure you know, but it's worth spelling it out) Power For Abundant Living. Death is the opposite of living, it stops life. The power God wants us to have is the power to stop that which limits abundance of life. With all nine manifestations in operation in the Body of Christ death can be avoided, because it's always against God's will, and God will always supply the information and the power to defeat death. The reason we say we face death is because no one has tapped into this power God supplies in Christ to its fullest. It's been available in one sense, yet elusive for 2000 years. PFAL is God's move to remove that elusiveness through the most up-front, all inclusive, yet simple teaching of how that power can be finally put into operation. (snip) We have it all in place except for one thing: we have been temporarily talked out of using what we have. But that's changing. The time of our return to God's revelation is at hand. It's time to see Jesus Christ NOW, by becoming like him through this Word we've been given. When we return to PFAL we learn how to see him and his perfect example of perfect believing. The time for waiting passively for Christ's return is over. We can return to God and see NOW. The time to see death defeated has arrived. Who wants to be among the first to believe (act) and see? THAT's how studying PFAL will defeat death." ============ Well, if that's true, then the degree to which you are in harmony with PFAL is the degree to which you defeat death. If you are MORE in harmony with PFAL, you defeat death more. If you are REALLY in harmony with PFAL, you really defeat death. Add a level of believing where you're gifted, or even OVERgifted, where the earth shakes where you walk because of your titanic believing, then you should easily reach towards the 120 years that some of the men of God of old reached, where your eye is not dim, nor your natural force abated. This, of course, sounds good on paper. However, when given the "acid" test, the performance test, when it's tried out in real life, we get this: Death:1, PFAL:0. So, this concept has been disproven by the person who was most likely to have PROVEN it since Jesus ascended into heaven.

A) The "ethics discussions" will keep coming up because GOD ALMIGHTY declared how His people should act and deal with each other. When someone is supposedly put forth as a paragon of Godliness, a virtual avatar of God, a titan of believing, who shook the earth where he walked, Then, it behooves us as Christians, to examine this person and see if they are at LEAST demonstrating principles designated by God to be exercised by people claiming to represent Him. Disregarding the laws of the land entirely, and deceiving the brethren do NOT exist on such a list of Godly behaviour. Since your erstwhile prophet was woefully deficient in them as he broke laws and defied commonsense moral codes (don't rape, don't lie, don't pretend it's your work when it wasn't), morality will KEEP coming up. B) It's obvious, Mike, that even when we bring up that you have NO UNDERSTANDING of what it means to "CITE SOURCES", you STILL make no effort to understand what it means to "CITE SOURCES". I've even made it VERY EASY to understand what it means to "CITE SOURCES". Look at the first page of this thread. Under the heading "citing sources", there's a whole thing of links. Take as many as you want. Hint: When vpw mentioned in pfal that he read some old book on Jewish customs about age 12 and bar mitzvahs, but never mentions the name, that's not a CITATION. C) I'll post an example of vpw claiming he originated the words he wrote-AGAIN. Amazing how you can keep forgetting them....

Mike posted the original. [WordWolf in boldface as normal.]

Same old Mike, isolating statements out of context and attributing new meanings to them that suit him. Acts:4:18a "And they called them...." Who are "they", and who are "them"? The "them" includes Peter and John in the next verse, so we know "them" are disciples of Jesus. Who's "they"? According to Mike, this is a meeting of the local courts under Caesar, this being a Roman province. I get that from Mike saying that this citation refers to "man's lower courts" as opposed to God, and in using this to attempt to refute the idea that Christians are supposed to obey the laws of local government. HOWEVER, since this verse doesn't tell us who "they" are in the verse right where it is written, we must read the context. According to Acts 4:1, we're seeing "the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadduccees". According to Acts 4:5, we're seeing "their rulers, and elders and scribes". That's not an appelate court. What was the "crime"? Acts 4:2 says they "preached thru Jesus the resurrection from the dead." Preaching was NOT a crime under Roman Law, unless you preached sedition. The disciples NEVER preached sedition. So, who ran this meeting? Acts 4:6 says it was the high priest and his family (nothing like a little nepotism to stack the deck in your favour.) "Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest..." What was the charge? Acts 4:7 says it was: how did you do this miracle? When the council concluded, they told the disciples to stop preaching in Christ's name, and let them go. No fine, no lashes, no jurisdictional investigation into sedition. Why? This wasn't a legal trial. This was an ecclesiastical "trial" that had no force of law. The disciples obeyed every law of man. Jesus set the example-he paid his taxes and said everyone was supposed to. What about Acts 5? I'm not going to go over the entire chapter when any grad of pfal should be able to make sense of it without me. I will, however, point out that the context of chapter 5 is, of course, chapter 4. Acts 5:27 shows who's running this meeting: the high priest again. Here's a guy who's not afraid to disregard the law and use his connections to have the captain of the temple (Acts 5:24) act as his trained monkey-boy. Even this illegal meeting, you notice, wasn't fought against by the disciples. They COULD have said "it's illegal for them to beat us" (Acts 5:40.) Instead, they rejoiced they were counted worthy to suffer in Jesus' name. Paul spent a lot of time in jail for serving Christ. Paul didn't ignore the law, either.

Courtesy of Rafael, some links on how Christians approach plagiarism (unless they're vpw)... http://www.freshministry.org/articles/plagiarism.html http://www.belief.net/story/94/story_9413_1.html#cont http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/8844.htm

Mike in normal font. [WordWolf in boldface as normal.]

Def59, please check your links. When you added the comma in the sentence, it altered the URL you typed. I moved it over in this reply so people can see what you linked to.