Raf

Socks, Thanks for the "My Sweet Lord" explanation. You'll notice that I didn't address it originally, and that's primarily because I recognized it for what it was: a distraction/evasion from the fact of Wierwille's plagiarism. You know, I have very little problem with anyone who says the information was more important than the source and they're willing to overlook the plagiarism. That's everyone's right. But when the plagiarism is denied, well, I just giggle. The fact that Wierwille plagiarized is so clear that anyone with two eyes and two books can see it. Those who think it doesn't matter should just say so: Wierwille plagiarized, but it doesn't matter to me. FINE! Wierwille didn't plagiarize? God plagiarized and gave it to Wierwille? As if God couldn't find a better way to express His own heart than EW Kenyon? HMMADD. Wayne, Goey: Brilliant.

Mike, Your understanding of plagiarism is laughably ignorant. Defend it all you want: Wierwille plagiarized from Kenyon. Sorry to break it to you: your alternate scenarios are beyond preposterous. But you go on believing them, and defending your idol. Be my guest. I'm enjoying it, really. Oh, and as for what constitutes a law: Go ahead and take all the time you want deciding what Wierwille meant when he said "Law," but until you do, you have NO RIGHT telling me that my definition is wrong. Some master you turned out to be. Good luck in your continued idolatry, and your HMMADD. Raf

Your ignorance is amusing. It's not called a "deed of ownership" in publishing. It's called a copyright. If you still have trouble finding it, let me know. I'll help you. I commend you on your valiant expansion of the "Blame The Believer" (BTB) explanation of why the Law of Believing doesn't work. I don't see how it's any different from what I said earlier: "You didn't really believe, you know. It was just mental assent." No matter how flowery your speech, it was still BTB, an extension of your overall M.O. of Horse Manure Masquerading As Disciplined Devotion (HMMADD). When HMMADD is being operated, one can easily observe the manufacture of a dichotomy between the way things were done after 1982 and the way they were done before 1982. The Person Exercising HMMADD (PEHMMADD) will then, with a straight face, appropriate the arguments of the post 1982 TVT leadership while claiming to have a pre-1982 heart. Remarkable. But stil HMMADD. As for the definition of "law," I define it the way Wierwille did. "All believing equals receiving." No it doesn't. "What you believe for or expect, you get." No you don't. "Fear is believing in reverse." No it isn't. "Fear is negative believing." No it's not. "God would have to change the laws of the universe not to accomodate you." No, He wouldn't. Why don't YOU define Law? That way I can hold you to it, rather than have you dance around any definition I would put forward. Raf [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on July 09, 2003 at 15:55.]

For someone who criticizes others over typos, it would be nice if you would spell my name right. Your ignorance about plagiarism explains your glossing over of Wierwille's wholesale theft of others' hard work. Please, continue defending him. The more you defend Wierwille's plagiarism, the easier it is to prove. Raf

Horse manure. For those keeping track, this would fall under "distract." It addresses nothing of the point I was making, but it did take up four whole lines. I have no problem with the positive motivation. It just ain't a law. Deal with it. A distinction Wierwille stole from Kenyon, incidentally. More evasion. This is the standard "blame the believer" approach whenever the law of believing doesn't work. You didn't REALLY believe, you see. It was just mental assent. Had you really believed, the law of believing would have worked. H-O-R-S-E M-A-N-U-R-E. Believing is a wonderful thing. It was wonderful as taught by Kenyon. It was wonderful as photocopied, stolen, and reprinted by Wierwille, and it even sounds good coming from you. It just ain't a law. Deal with it.

My, how this thread has grown in my absence. Sigh. Is "The Law of Believing" now considered "on topic?" If so, I'd like to point out God's Magnified Word, p. 79, in which Wierwille states, "Many operate the law of believing without even having a knowledge of God's Word, for this law of believing works for saint and sinner alike." The plain meaning of the preceding sentence is that the law of believing exists independently of God's Word and, therefore, independently of God's promises. Dodge. Evade. Distract. Deny. But never admit an error is an error. Of course, the interesting thing is that Wierwille was often right when he spoke about believing, leading his supporters on this subject to stumble when trying to prove him right. The problem is, as Jerry Barrax put it, Wierwille's thesis works "pretty much as advertised." Did you catch it? "Pretty much." Universal laws do not "pretty much" work. They are absolute. Wierwille's law of believing was presented as an absolute, and as such, it is either ALWAYS right, or it is not a law. To disprove that believing is a LAW, one only needs to come up with one example of something that is either available or promised in God's Word, in which the person with the request honestly believed God for deliverance, that the need and the desire for such deliverance were "parallel" (that is, that the want was not greater than the need, nor was the need greater than the want), and the understanding was present that God's willingness is equal to His ability and yet the deliverance did not come to pass. How many of you have a situation that fits that description? I do. I was at the funeral. Not all believing equals receiving, although it's a good principle to get clear and concerned and maintain a positive attitude and trust God. Not all fear equals receiving, or my mother would have seen to my death before I reached the age of 18, because I am talking a PARANOID momma. Believing is a good thing. It is a positive principle. There are successes that cannot be achieved without it (dancing comes to mind). But it's not a law, because one can believe and not receive. Likewise, one can receive without believing. _____ On another subject, Mike brought up Wierwille's crediting of EW Kenyon in "Order My Steps In Thy Word. Wierwille plagiarized Kenyon notoriously in that chapter, crediting the earlier author with one extended quote while swiping several other significant blocks of text from the very same chapter. For documentation, click here. Mike disingenuously tries to claim that Stiles, Bullinger, Leonard and Kenyon never complained about Wierwille's plagiarism. We now know that Stiles and Leonard DID complain, Bullinger was long dead when Wierwille lifted his stuff, and To put a cap on the issue, Kenyon died in 1948, long before Wierwille's relevant works were published. So what does Mike do? Accuse Stiles and Leonard of succumbing to the world's standards on plagiarism. Sigh. ____ Final point: Mike's handling of the "David was a man after God's own heart" error was so fundamentally dishonest, and his characterization of my treatment of that ERROR was so far from the truth, that I was forced to re-examine the error. In the end, I still think it is in fact and actual, undeniable error. So you might want to revise your table of contents again, Mike. If you have the time. But I know, you're busy. When you get to it, blah blah blah blah barf. Raf

I want the pasta e fagioli too. Oh no, wait, that's plagiarism. I'll have the soup. Oops, not can't have that. Doesn't anyone have an original recipe? Of course! I'll have the Kentucky Fried Chicken, please.

The Point of "Actual Errors" Since it's been a while, I thought I'd remind people of the purpose of this thread. The point of this thread is to show that Wierwille's works are not free from error or contradiction, and as such, they do not meet Wierwille's own standard for what it means to be "God-breathed." It was never this thread's purpose to delve into doctrinal differences with Wierwillian theology. I thought that if we could show, with clarity, that Wierwille sometimes made mistakes, we could establish that he, and not God, was the author of the books that bear his name (plagiarism aside). I was, frankly, unprepared for the brutal intellectual dishonesty and sycophantic idolatry of my "debate" opponent. If people want to believe that Wierwille's works are God-breathed, then so be it. It's not my concern. Nothing in Christ's directives to the church instruct us to contend with lunacy. And clearly, dialogue is only a motivating factor on one side of this discussion. Last I checked, it's hard to have a constructive discussion when only one side is actually listening and while the other side has repeatedly declared its intention not to listen to anything that would contradict its preconceived conclusions. Good advice.

I'm putting the "David was a man after God's own heart" error back on the list. After learning that David is called "a man after God's own heart" in Acts 13:22, long after the events recorded in II Samuel, my original response was to remove this error from the list. I am no longer inclined to do so. I believe a plain reading of PFAL indicates that, according to Wierwille, David is called "a man after God's own heart" when speaking specifically of a time after the incidents recorded in II Samuel 12. Acts 13:22 is rather plainly speaking of a time before those recorded events. The error stands. Actual Errors in PFAL Raf

I actually don't have much of a problem with that board (aside from the fact that there's one or two posts a month). If people want to concentrate on "the baby," what's wrong with that? They're not looking to expose TWI or re-examine their beliefs. Hey, more power to them. They don't seem to be spending any time talking about this place. Live and let live, far as that goes.

Folks are so nice. Sirguess: the spirit of your post was received as intended. No hard feelings. Different posts have exhibited one or all of the above qualities. Cynic: Oh, I apologize. I didn't realize you were trying to be nasty. Here I thought you were trying to be nasty. I do sometimes get confused you know. Sorry about the mix-up. You know, people, one doesn't have to feel THREATENED by an opposing point of view in order to express opposition to it.

Goodness, some people. I apologize for having a sense of humor. I've always advocated avoiding the extremist positions. I've always advocated NOT throwing out the baby with the bathwater. But go ahead and insult us all for opposing Mike's thesis. And insult us all for holding him to some level of honesty in his discussions/defense of his position. Yeah, we're freaks for standing up for our beliefs. Mike, oh, he's only to be defended. Poor poor Mike. But the rest of us are soooooo mean and cruel and heartless and freakish for actually engaging him in conversation. Go to. And I don't mean "come, now."

To play Wierwille's advocate: Soul life was originally made in man when God blew into his nostrils the breath of life. Therefore, man blows soul life right back out at his last breath. Just as the soul had no independence or personality before God blew it into Adam, it has no independence or personality when man blows it back out. But God will restore it to us at the resurrection. The "law" then, remains intact. Regardless of whether you accept the above explanation, it is sufficiently reasonable to keep this off the actual errors list (that, and the fact that I get to make up the rules as I go along, which I imagine must be getting a tad frustrating by now).

An OVERDOSE of brains and brawn. The earth shook when he walked. He spent an INORDINATE amount of time on the "good side." And they wonder why I use the word idolatry. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on April 15, 2003 at 20:13.]

I forgot who started this, but it wasn't me... Carpe Diem! Seize the Day! Carpe Noctum! Seize the Night! Carpe Carpum! Seize the Seas! Carpe Nostra! Seize the Mob!

Anyone? Anyone? I'd like to look at that a little bit more, Jerry. If I'm reading you right, you're saying the following: Wierwille used Hebrews 13:8 to prove something it does not prove. He drew conclusions based on that verse, but later contradicted those conclusions when they were inconvenient. I'm not sure it's 2+2=5. It looks more like "The Square Root of X PLUS the Square Root of Y is equal to the Square Root of Z when X=4, Y=X and Z=25." In other words, it may be an error, but it's going to take a little head scratching before I agree that it's not interpretational.

Oh my God, he's not joking. You guys don't mind if I go back into retirement now, right? See you later everyone.

Helen Waite approves all credit applications. If you want credit, go to Helen Waite.

Because it's a DODGE, Mike. You're not asking because you want an answer. You're asking because you want to draw attention away from your own thesis. It's clever, but it's a dodge. I doubt your sincerity.

You know, I really used to think that to prove Mike's thesis wrong, I would have to present a strong case. Little did I know: To prove Mike's thesis wrong, all you have to do is allow him to present HIS case! So all Wierwille had to do is succumb to the devil spirit of sexual depravity once, and he was immune to it for a day, maybe two! Yep. That proves... plenty.

I don't recall asking you. Yes, yes, I know. I'm not meek to my teacher and I'm failing to master the material. YAWN. And an incorrect one. By dodging, evading, and refusing to admit an error is an error. Consider your dishonest "mastery" exposed. But then you stopped using your brain. I remember. You told us. I firmly disagree with your use of the word "yet."

I wrote... Mike replied... My reply: WordWolf is correct, but I'll put it more simply. My comments were qualitative, not merely chronological. They were not dealing with the timing of your answers, but the quality of them. Further, they were dealing with the fact that your method of dodging and delaying made an honest discussion impossible, as an honest discussion requires you to make an honest admission. You can make that honest admission tomorrow or a year from now, but until you do, the next step of the conversation cannot be taken. So no, I'm not rushing you. Take your time. But until you admit that errors are errors and not just ink blotches that accidentally fell onto the page and accidentally formed a major thesis, I will NEVER trust your honesty in handling this material. Clear enough for you, or should I use smaller words?

Mike, when we try to discuss the so-called "purity" of the books, you attack our integrity. When we try to discuss errors in the books, you attack the Bible. When we show inconsistencies in the book, you tell us we have to adopt your position in order to see things your way (well, DUHHH). Your reasonings are circular, your methods dishonest, and your canon impure and riddled with errors FAR more significant than those we've listed. It took you 32 years to come to us with this thesis, and I know you want us to take a fraction of that time to come to agree with you. But it takes far less time, and far more reason, to show that your thesis is flawed - and to see what those flaws are. But we can't argue with you. We can't even get you to admit that the book has mistakes introduced by the fact that their author was imperfect. I'm not talking about typos and ink blotches, I'm talking about flaws in its thesis and its conclusions. But we can NEVER get to those flaws, because you won't even admit that the black-and-white errors are errors. It's pathetic. Why should I trust your analysis on important matters when your analysis on simpler matters are so filled with deception, when indeed your very modus operandi is to dodge, evade and refuse to admit the black-and-white truth before you? Wierwille's works are less than perfect. They are NOT the God-breathed Word, even if they did help point many people to it. Your house is built on sinking sand. Keep the door open if you want, but don't expect me to walk through it anytime soon. And it's not because I'm not an "older grad." It's because I have enough sense in my head to see just how pathetically erroneous your thesis is.

I'll agree with you on certain points and disagree on others. 1. It does not take "revelation" to judge someone. Sometimes all it takes is evidence. That is, the testimony of more than one credible witness. I believe there is more than enough evidence to conclude Wierwille's attitude toward sex and sexuality tainted his presentation of God's Word on the subject. His written works are all but silent on the matter. He has his most devout followers thinking that "Victorian" (ie, BIBLICAL) attitudes about sex are somehow LESS damaging to individuals and society than rampant promiscuity. Laughable. 2. You claim to be unwilling to peer into other people's hearts, yet you judge our motives in coming to you with "actual errors." You mock our integrity and call us "unfit" researchers. Yeah, whatever. Some display of reluctance on your part. 3. Jesus NEVER tells us to wait for revelation in determining "judgments." He tells us very simply that we will know them by their fruits. He doesn't say "ye shall know them by what God tells you about their fruits." Revelation sometimes comes into play, but there are times you don't need revelation to tell you that someone is motivated by money and lust. All you have to do is look at the fruit of the person's life. 4. I totally agree that judging another person's eternal rewards is not my call. Or anyone else's on these boards. Any statement made to the contrary is speculation. 5. In criticizing the "Esteemed Panel of GS Cafe Character Judges," you sure leave the impression that you're above such behavior. As I've repeatedly shown, you're not. And by the way, in reference to your earlier post, I KNOW I'm not going to change your mind about Wierwille's character. I'm not out to change your mind on the subject. All I'm saying is YOU HAVE NO RIGHT, Biblically or otherwise, to criticize or condemn someone else's decision to dismiss your thesis based on their assessment of VPW's character.

FINE! You're still JUDGING. Period. Goodness, won't admit an error is an error. Won't admit that judging is judging. And hasn't used his brain in five years. Why am I arguing with this guy? :)-->