waysider

At least he doesn't wear one of those wacky neck scarves.

It appears we may have run out of time for Shakespeare and Chaucer. Perhaps some John Cleland will suffice. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU7_ukdiqs8

Create Your Very Own Commentary For Fun And Profit. First you quote a scripture. Then you expound upon what it "REALLY" means. Perhaps you use some Greek words to give weight to your assertion. Maybe you elaborate on some long forgotten "custom" or social mores of ancient times. You might even translate it as a total package and explain that this is how you feel it should be translated in order to convey its essence in modern vernacular. (In other words, "adjust it for inflation.") That's what is commonly called Bible commentary. Get it? It's commenting on The Bible. It's exactly what Wierwille did. He was highly critical of others who did the same thing. When others did it, he called it private interpretation and insisted it was unacceptable. What's good for the goose is good for the geezer.

For the benefit of anyone concerned with what is and what isn't acceptable in regards to inventions, patents and trademarks, here is a link to the United States Patent and Trademark Office.(USPTO) http://www.uspto.gov/ For the benefit of anyone concerned with what is and what isn't acceptable in regards to copyrights, here is a link to the United States Copyright Office.(The Library of Congress) http://www.copyright.gov/

Is it not customary for one to avoid the usage of "first person" when writing such phrases as " A researcher must consider, etc.-----"?

It's nothing short of a theological dilemma. Choice #1. He was wrong about this and therefore could have been wrong about virtually anything. Not a good choice regardless of one's stance on theism. This is further complicated by his own teaching that if a prophet is wrong even once, he is not to be listened to. Yes, I know, he never called himself a prophet. He did, however, allow his students to believe he got his material by revelation(ie: as a prophet would). Choice #2. "] He was right and we followed the teachings of a "possessed " man. Again, not a very comforting thought. Is there a third choice I may have missed?

Well for starters, E.W. Bullinger died in 1913. Here is a link that has some information on him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._W._Bullinger In addition to being the person who introduced the concept of understanding The Bible in light of "figures of speech" ,(Figures of Speech In The Bible/ E.W. Bullinger) http://www.peterwade.org/articles/bullingr/append6a.shtml, Bullinger promoted the concept of the "7 dispensations" which were referred to in PFAL as the "7 administrations". (This is from the Wiki link) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Theology Bullinger's theology was a form of dispensationalism on which he wrote numerous articles which appeared in his monthly journal Things to Come. Bullinger described dispensations as divine "administrations" or "arrangements" wherein God deals at distinct time periods and with distinct groups of people "on distinct principles, and the doctrine relating to each must be kept distinct." He emphasizes that "Nothing but confusion can arise from reading into one dispensation that which relates to another." {Companion Bible, [10]} He listed seven "dispensations" in the Bible: 1. The Edenic State (Innocence) - which lasted until the expulsion from Eden. 2. Mankind as a whole (Patriarchal) - from the expulsion from Eden until the giving of the Law to Israel, although in one place Bullinger says that this dispensation ended with the Flood and the confusion of Babel. 3. Israel (under the Law) - ended with the rejection by Israel of the grace of God at the end of Acts. 4. The Church of God (The Secret Dispensation of Grace) - gradual transition from Law to Grace during the Acts period, culminating in the rejection of Israel in Acts 28:24-28. {Companion Bible, Appendix 193} 5. Israel (Judicial) - begins at the "Gathering Together". 6. Mankind as a whole (Millennial or Theocratic) - ends with the destruction of Satan. 7. The Eternal State (Glory) - no end. His name has become virtually synonymous with Ultra-dispensationalism. Although Bullinger was influenced by Edward Irving [11] and although Bullinger shared with Irving's contemporaries, the Plymouth Brethren such as John Nelson Darby, similar dispensational doctrines, members of the Brethren became some of his most persistent critics. Bullinger also taught a form of annihilationism. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- What exactly had Wierwille written prior to 1913 that Bullinger could have copied?

Randy Singer con Franco De Vita y Soledad Bravo

Wierwille stated that God told him that He (God) would teach him (Wierwille) The Word(Didn't say whether by 5 senses or revelation) like it hadn't been known since the first century if he(Wierwille) would then in turn, teach it to others. How many more times are you going to walk that tired horse around the barn?

Former Susan Tedesche guitarist, Sean Costello, (not to be confused with Sean Carney) has passed away just one day short of his 29th birthday. Here he is, pouring his heart into an old Otis Rush tune, It's My Own Fault. R.I.P. Sean

Isn't it ironic that one of the results of brainwashing is the inability to recognize it in one's self? This is from Dr. Singer (on the factnet.org web site) http://www.factnet.org/Thought_Reform_Exists.htm "Thought reform is accomplished through the use of psychological and environmental control processes that do not depend on physical coercion. Today's thought reform programs are sophisticated, subtle, and insidious, creating a psychological bond that in many ways is far more powerful than gun-at-the-head methods of influence. The effects generally lose their potency when the control processes are lifted or neutralized in some way. That is why most Korean War POWs gave up the content of their prison camp indoctrination programs when they came home and why many cultists leave their groups if they spend a substantial amount of time away from the group or have an opportunity to discuss their doubts with in intimate (11). Contrary to popular misconceptions (some intentional on the part of naysayers), a thought reform program does not require physical confinement and does not produce robots. Nor does it permanently capture the allegiance of all those exposed to it. In fact, some persons do not respond at all to the programs, while others retain the contents for varied periods of time. In sum, thought reform should be regarded as "situationally adaptive belief change that is not subtle and is environment-dependent". (8,10) The current effort by cult apologists to deny thought reform exists is linked to earlier protective stances toward cults in which apologists attempted to deny the cults' active and deceptive recruitment practices, deny the massive social, psychological, financial, spiritual and other controls wielded by cult leaders and thus dismiss their often destructive consequences. These earlier efforts to shield cults from criticism rest on a seeker theory of how people get into cults, which overlooks the active and deceptive tactics that most cults use to recruit and retain members. When bad things happened to followers of Jim Jones or David Koresh, the twisted logic of some apologists implied that these "seekers" found what they wanted, thus absolving the cult leader and his conduct. Finally, to promulgate the myth that though reform has been rejected by the scientific community, cult apologists doggedly stick to faulty understanding of the process contrary to findings in the literature, they ---- that physical coercion and debilitation are necessary for thought reform to occur, and that the effects of thought reform must be instant, massive, uniform, universally responded to, and enduring."

We should expect that people would use words and phrases in the same manner as the rest of general populace rather than insist they now have some "special" proprietary meaning.

Any CV on me would, of necessity, HAVE to be short!! Started playing and singing in bar bands when I was about 14. (The drummer's Dad was our manager and always accompanied us to gigs) He had "connections" and got us into the musicians union. Continued playing in bands in high school and also started to study theatre. After high school I played in bands until I got a chance to apprentice with a very well known repertory theatre company. (You'd be amazed how hard up those places are to find eager floor sweepers!!) Did a brief stint in a road company after that until I realized it doesn't pay the rent. Got a day job and played in more local bands at night. One night, when I was in my early 20's, as I was sitting in a park, playing guitar and singing for anyone who cared to stop and listen, I was approached by a twig out on a witnessing night. The rest is kind of a blur. Now my musical endeavors consist of sitting in at local jams when I can. (Which isn't near as often as I would like.) And I'm also messing around with an invention, of sorts, that can help music students learn the rudiments of the tonal aspects of music theory.(It's not nearly as impressive as it might sound.) *Sigh*------------ At least I was always famous in my Mother's eyes.

Da capo----"from the beginning" http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=277 One thing that really struck me was that Wierwille must have been no stranger to the concept of using others' works. You just can't become as skilled as he was at deliberate deception overnight. He had to have been following a pattern of this type of activity for a long, long time. By the time he got to the point in his life where he highjacked Leonard's class, he must have already reached a high level of mastery of his "skills".

edited-----posted on wrong thread

Plagiarism and "Common Knowledge" http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/plagiarism.shtml

Thanks for the "heads-up" Ron. I plan to read that link when I have a bit more time.

Cold Sweat-------The Godfather of Soul(James Brown) Free Post!! Free Post!! Free Post!!

Mike The definition of confabulate has not changed. Yes, it can be used in a context that is devoid of malice and its use does not necessarily indicate the presence of some pathological or organic abnormality. Likewise, the definition of paradigm has remained essentially constant over the course of many centuries. What has changed is the increased frequency with which the term has found its way into mainstream conversation. It is my opinion that your thesis relies heavily on confabulation and extrapolation. Extrapolation http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extrapolation Your attempt to justify plagiarism by associating it with divine revelation is a blatant rationalization. Rationalization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization But for what it's worth, Mike, I like you. It pains me, though, to see you continue to beat yourself up over a "golden pony" that can't be lassoed edited for spelling.

And speaking of selling, there is this------------------- http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=10920

HaHa! No problem. You didn't make me feel bad. In fact----I feel good!!

There used to be a band in Cleveland named Jubal. They took their name from that cat in Genesis(the book, not the band) who is the "father" of all musicians. Gen. 5:21 "And his brother's name was Jubal: He was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ." Hmmmmm. It appears he may have been the first harmonica player as well. Very interesting. Anyway, he probably had it pretty easy 'cause there just wasn't all that much stuff yet to worry about gettin' "right on". Now if I can find a verse that reveals what embouchure he preferred, I might just be privy to "the greatest secret in the harmonica world today". I'll keep looking.

Oh, my. Wierwille is wearing one of those neck scarves I've talked about in the past. Not the same image, of course, just the same kind of scarf. Creepy!

Now I suppose someone will crack a yoke about eggtoplasm.