waysider

"You want to know what killed that little boy? I'll tell you what killed that little boy, a 1935 Buick Roadmaster."

*Sigh* Wish I had listened.

Ever heard of the Neo Nazis? They extol the virtues of Der Fuhrer. But what difference should it make? Old Adolph left this planet over 60 years ago. Too bad he didn't take his toxic idealism with him. Likewise mit herr vierville.

Ain't my job, Pal. I'm not the one who made the claim. God called us to TWI???????? Holy cats, I actually have a story of how I think He may have told me to run like the wind to get away but I didn't listen because my twig leader told me it was "unrenewed mind".

Hey, Dove Had any luck finding those "studies" yet? Just wonderin'

Happy Birthday, young lady!! (Sorry I'm late for your party. Had to work and all that.)

She referenced her source, that being our lessons in Figures of Speech(the class). That particular source is a well known reference amongst this community. Were you fooled into thinking these words originated with her?

Ya know, for a guy who says we ought to just get over it and move on (yes, I know that's not a quote.) you sure seem touchy about the past, no? BTW---I think the figure of speech that describes that comparison is hypocatastasis. Here is a Wiki that shows how Bullinger defined it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocatastasis ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hypocatastasis From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Hypocatastasis is a figure of speech that by implication declares or implies a resemblance, representation or comparison. It differs from a metaphor, because in a metaphor the two nouns are both named and given; while, in hypocatastasis, only one is named and the other is implied, or as it were, is put down underneath out of sight. Hence hypocatastasis is an implied resemblance or representation: that is an implied simile or metaphor. A hypocatastasis has more force than a metaphor or simile, and expresses as it were a superlative degree of resemblance. Bullinger gives the following example: one may say to another, “You are like a beast.” This would be simile, tamely stating a fact. If, however, he said, “You are a beast” that would be metaphor. But, if he said simply, “Beast!” that would be hypocatastasis, for the other part of the simile or metaphor (“you”), would be implied and not stated. This figure, therefore, is calculated to arouse the mind and attract and excite the attention to the greatest extent. For more information see Ethelbert William Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (London; New York: Eyre & Spottiswoode; E. & J. B. Young & Co., 1898), 744. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocatastasis" Categories: Rhetorical techniques ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HMMMMM! Curiously, if you change the word "beast" to the word "dog", you have an almost verbatim VPW quote from PLAF (The Wonder Class). Now, is that LIKE a coincidence or IS that a coincidence? oops! Dooj beat me to it. Let's see, now, "If any two shall agree------"

It's like tryin' to tell a stranger 'bout Rock & Roll

You really nailed it, newlife. I think one of the reasons people usually don't understand it is because they don't have a concept of how mind control and behavior modification works. Hollywood has created a mystique that conjures up images of zombie-like people in trances. Even here at GSC, there are people who refuse to believe they were ever victims of "brainwashing" and insist they were always in control of their own actions.(And these are folks who were actually there!!) I used to work with someone who had also been in a cult (not TWI) that used similar techniques. We got onto the subject of cults one day and discovered we had this commonality in our backgrounds. It was like an spontaneous camaraderie sprouted right there on the spot. I'm not sure if that's what you're looking for but that's my 2 cents.

Hi, jen-o Maybe I should have stated that in a more neutral tone. I certainly didn't mean to sound as if I was making a derogatory statement about people who SIT. I personally still use speaking in tongues from time to time but not for the same reasons as given in PLAF (The Wonder Class) I use it to refocus under chaotic circumstances or to take my mind off things like the impending pain of a dental tool. Here is a link that discusses the "turning off" aspect of speaking in tongues. http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~tim/introframe/tongues.pdf Taking this one step farther, I believe that when a person is engaged in the sort of glossolalia that produces these physiological changes, it should be considered "real" because the evidence is there to clearly examine. It's "really" happening. On the other hand, if a person is merely repeating memorized sounds and words or forcing the process through practice sessions(ie:"exceller sessions"), the speaking in tongues should be considered "fake" because it appears that this conscious variety would not produce the same changes in brain function, though that is my own conclusion, not one that was drawn by the study. I think it would be interesting to see this study conducted during a "practice session". I would also be personally interested in seeing it conducted while a vocalist is scat singing or an instrumentalist is ad libbing.

Jen-O Mark includes a link to his site at the bottom of each of his posts. http://www.godskingdomfirst.org/ Is this the article you are referring to? http://www.godskingdomfirst.org/KingdomLiv...m#livingbyfaith

A friend of mine became acutely ill with a very serious disease. Rather than seek the medical treatment he desperately needed he tried to "believe" his way back to health. He died. Then he was blamed for his own death because he shouldn't have "freaked out". There are thousands of such records here on GSC. It's a dangerous kind of fire to play with and it really is not Biblical in origin. You simply can't change reality by thinking about it, visualizing it, or trying to speak it into an altered state.

We can correctly identify pizza because we (most of us) have had verifiable previous experiences sampling pizza.

Perhaps they found their inspiration here: Norman Wexler Biography (1926-1999) Born August 6, 1926, in New Bedford, MA; raised in Detroit, MI; died after aheart attack, August 23, 1999, in Washington, DC; son of Harry and Sophia (Brisson) Wexler; children: Erica, Merin. Career: Writer. Cleveland Playhouse, Cleveland, OH, playwright-in-residence, 1970. Also worked in advertising. Member: Writers Guild of America West. Awards, Honors: Academy Award nomination, best writing, story and screenplay based on factual material or material not previously published or produced, 1970, for Joe;National Endowment for the Arts grant, 1970; Cleveland Playhouse Award, c. 1970, for Red's My Color, What's Yours? A Play without Love; Writers Guild of America Award, best drama adapted from another medium, AcademyAward nomination, best writing, screenplay based on material from another medium, and Edgar Allan Poe Award nomination, best motion picture, all with Waldo Salt, all 1973, for Serpico; Image Award, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, c. 1975, for Mandingo; Writers Guildof America Award, best drama, 1978, for Saturday Night Fever; National Science Foundation grant.

http://www.paulnoll.com/Books/Clear-Englis...ate-advice.html Debate Rules and Suggestions Advice on Debating with Others 1. Avoid the use of Never. 2. Avoid the use of Always. 3. Refrain from saying you are wrong. 4. You can say your idea is mistaken. 5. Don't disagree with obvious truths. 6. Attack the idea not the person. 7. Use many rather than most. 8. Avoid exaggeration. 9. Use some rather than many. 10. The use of often allows for exceptions. 11. The use of generally allows for exceptions. 12. Quote sources and numbers. 13. If it is just an opinion, admit it. 14. Do not present opinion as facts. 15. Smile when disagreeing. 16. Stress the positive. 17. You do not need to win every battle to win the war. 18. Concede minor or trivial points. 19. Avoid bickering, quarreling, and wrangling. 20. Watch your tone of voice. 21. Don't win a debate and lose a friend. 22. Keep your perspective - You're just debating. You need to be very polite when disagreeing with someone in English, even someone you know quite well. With someone you know very well, you can disagree more directly.

I wasn't the one who presented them as "proof". I believe that puts the onus on you.

QUOTE(WhiteDove @ Jun 23 2008, 12:14 PM) * It has been proven in studies that such sharing's (positive experiences) help victims, in recovery as they are inspiring. [Bolded words added for clarification] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Would it be too forward of me to ask for a sampling of these "studies"?

There was a mean man from "the corn field" Whose family was not very well-heeled He preached to tree stumps Saw snow on gas pumps That mean,mean old man from "the corn field".

Hi, Speck Excellent post!! Welcome to The Cafe.

And speaking of G.A.S. Check out the red and blue Harp King amps in the clip below and then click on the Harp-l link that follows http://harp-l.org/pipermail/harp-l/2008-June/msg00450.html

Here are the scripture references used in PLAF(The Wonder Class): Philippians 4:19, Matthew 18:19, John 14:13; 15:16, I john 5: 14 Personally, I think he got a good bit of the believing material from Norman Vincent Peale's The Power Of Positive Thinking. But, I really don't have the ambition right now to check and see if that's where the needs = wants portion originates. Here's a Wiki if you're interested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Vincent_Peale

Wierwille taught that water baptism ended with Pentecost. ("For John baptized with water but ye shall be baptized in holy spirit".) And, yes, "holy spirit" is not capitalized when using Wierdwillian logic. According to VPW, the word "baptism" means "to be totally immersed". Since God, THE Holy Spirit(capital H, capital S) gives his gift of holy spirit (lower case) with the new birth, we have "Christ in us" which makes us "completely, completely complete". 'Nother words, we were totally immersed in the gift of holy spirit when we were born again. Wierwille went on to state that the indisputable evidence of the new birth is speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues, according to Wierwille, is but one of nine "manifestations" that are available to anyone who is born again. The nine 'manifestations" are: Utterance 1. Speaking in tongues. (used as as substitute for prayer in ones private prayer life.) 2. Tongues with interpretation (used in group settings) 3. Prophesy (Forth telling but never foretelling) Revelation 1. Word of knowledge 2. Word of wisdom (what to do with word of knowledge) 3. Discerning of spirits (good and evil) Action 1. The manifestation of believing ( the ability to believe for the impossible) 2. Working of miracles 3. gifts of healings This is what he said replaced water baptism. BTW----Wierwille plagiarized this entire subject right down to the very words in the definitions that are given in greater detail in the Advanced Class and led us to believe it was given to him personally by revelation from God. Whew!!--That was probably more than you wanted to know.

Here's a good knock-knock joke, you start it.

Just wanted to add that I think SIT can be both real and fake. If a person is indulging in glossolalia and it is discernible with brainwave testing, then it is "real". And, there are some proven, marginal benefits to glossolalia in this category. If, on the other hand, they are consciously repeated memorized sounds, words, etc., the evidence would present itself in the brainwave testing, as well. I think "practice sessions" probably fall into the latter category. The question, though, is does it originate with God? The evidence would suggest it does not but you be the judge.