TLC

Contrary to what you seem to think, the truth of what is (or of what was) doesn't need to be couched in personal drama. I only stated that YOU don't know it (or me), not as any sort of complaint or beggarly plea of some sort, but to point out the mere fact that you aren't as smart or as "intuitive" as you think you are. Quite frankly, you come across as pretty much the same boisterous, arrogant arse that you were in your leadership position in TWI, and will undoubtedly be offended and attack me with the same abusive verbal assault techniques that you learned in TWI (or had previously and have merely managed to honed towards what might be some sort of perverted perfection.) Me, talk about my experience in TWI with you? Not a snowball's chance in hell, Wilbur.

Just because someone (me, in this case) doesn't bump and grind on VP (or TWI) with the ferocity and viciousness that you love to wield doesn't automatically put them (or me) in the camp of an apologist. Neither does my current understanding of and affinity for Pauline Christology (which is a FAR cry from what was/is taught and/or practiced in TWI, by VPW, by jolly lynn, or by any of your other favorite targets.) You are (and will undoubtedly remain) completely and totally clueless as to both: (1) any loss or hurt that my family endured, or (2) our current relationship with God and our Lord Jesus Christ. And while my historical facts might not always be perfect, neither are yours (much as you might like to think they are.) Perhaps yours are "better" than mine. Nevertheless, mine are "as best I might recall" (until or unless something else stirs or jogs my memory of certain things.) Not only was I in a different place to see things from a very different perspective than you on a number of things at the time, it seems we are much further apart and see things far more differently now than you can possibly imagine. (Because in your mind, you are all to quick to find some perverse pleasure in pigeonholing me into whatever place or doctrine you find the most demeaning or derogatory at the time.) But think whatever you want, because I don't give a sheet what you think.

I think you're more interested (impressed even) with your own smart answers to all those questions than what you ever could be with anyone else's. You obviously got it all thought through and figured out already (better than anyone else too!)...

Part of the big hoo ha ha (or so it sounded like at the time) for Donnie (aka, ding dong here at GSC) getting his doctorate was that it was a necessary part of the process towards getting WCOE accredited. (Maybe WC didn't care so much, but retroactive "future accreditation" was surely sold to prospective college division applicants...) Which, of course, never happened (even though TWI did buy DD his doctorate.)

Legitimacy seems rather irrelevant to the (commonly known) fact that he just liked being called "Dean Don."

ask sky.

Okay, so you (and certain others here) don't like me (from earlier posts) and are out to put down whatever I post, whenever or wherever you can... but what sort of dumbass comment is that?

7 posts = "deathly silence" ?? Hmmm... I guess if the shoe fits, wear it. Otherwise, not.

He was the Dean at WCOE.

If that's your perspective and(or) all that you know and think of Paul's gospel, perhaps you think it would be better if his epistles were (or should have been) deleted from the Bible. What say you? (If so, you aren't alone, and certainly not the first to think like that...)

Charm whoever you care or want to with your foul tongue and brash swagger, but it ain't me.

By your own admission you piped the tune right up close alongside him for years, Wilbur, regardless of how far you try to distance yourself from it now. Furthermore, guess and accuse all you want, you still rather plainly don't know for sure just what I do or don't believe at this point in time. (Nor do you know why I left HQ... not that it matters much.)

Well golly shazzamm, Wilbur. Just how dumb, dumber, dumberest does that make you and/or anyone else that followed his music down to the river's edge?

Quite frankly, I think this statements whiffs on a number of key points. How so? Well... Seems to me that Jesus Christ would be most accurately referred to as "the Last Adam" in a historical (past tense) sense, because of the change that occurred at his resurrection from the dead. It also seems to me that it portrays a very, very limited (as well as fuzzy) picture of the what Adam/Eve did to spoil things, the change that resulted, and what Jesus Christ did to remedy the deal. (So, maybe this should be three things instead of being listed as one.) The last "I'll do it..." statement really takes the cake. Because today, it's not at all about us doing a damn thing, except believing what God and Jesus Christ have already done. So there... They can put that in their pipe and smoke it.

Perhaps the post I made in this thread would help alleviate or remove some of the uncertainly concerning my reasoning.

Never said (nor thought) it was deceitful. But wtf does PFAL have to do with my referring to what is written in Lev.17:11 or John 20:27?

Well, that appears to circumvent the issue of distinguishing between soul and spirit... unless (perhaps) you're somehow intending to equate "the image of God" with spirit. But that leaves me wondering what you think or suppose the image of God is, or how it might be (or what it means to be) "tarnished." I suppose much of the difficulty in understanding the reality of what occurred and took place in the Garden of Eden is that it goes so far outside the realm of what PFAL or TWI taught that it simply escapes detection by reason of the binding thought of "I already know it." I'll have to disagree, as it appears to me that there is a more direct and distinct relationship between the soul and "the life of the flesh" (which is in the blood.) And personally, I don't believe it was ever a part if the original design or plan for Adam to live forever, even if he hadn't sinned. That doesn't say that I think he necessarily had to die. It just means that there was a "change" (at the end of the age) that would eventually take place. (Probably not unlike the change that occurred at the resurrection of Christ.) In other words, if the resurrected Christ is said to be a "quickening spirit," is there any need or place or need in his new body for blood and/or whatever life it relates to? (There's certainly no indication of there being blood present in his new body when he tells Thomas to stick his finger in the holes in his hands, or to thrust his hand in his side...) Problem is, exactly what all "spirit" is or can mean is rather tough to put a finger on. I've no doubt raised the ire of some already (given I have a knack for it 'round here), and won't go deeper into it, but there's a lot of medical/scientific work that's been done in recent years delving into the workings of the mind, consciousness, and... well... 'nuff said.

Hmmm... while it may be close to what I believe, it's certainly not exact - as I prefer to think of "spirit" as the life-force (which, needless to say, doesn't much "jive" with what was/is taught about spirit by twi.) While this may or may not communicate some of my thoughts on the matter (as worthless as some will undoubtedly think it), I'll give it a whirl anyway. IF the body is (or can be) thought of as a (two dimensional) halographic plate, the soul is the (three dimensional) halogram resulting from light (or spirit) moving upon it. Can the halogram be separated from the plate? Or can the halogram be separated from the light? Yet, are the halogram and the light thought or said to be the same thing? Of course, the analogy itself can lead to other questions or issues, and probably isn't perfect. Such as, where does "free will" emanate from (if it even exists)?

Given that you claim to have never met the man, you appear to be treading where angels might fear to go... Ever consider or remember the meaning and/or implications of Philippians 4:8?

Well said. Thank you.

Why take things I post so personally? Why try to draw so much focus, thought, or attention upon yourself (or what you suppose others think of you)?

And what does it mean if and when it reaches Him? Is it something that God needs... or something which man needs?

Cast your interpretation (of anything) in whatever direction you want. But if (as it appears) you're intending to relate it to something I wrote, then I'll point out that I plainly stated that I was inclined to think that it's the worship that identifies which God is followed, served, or believed - and not that it's the worship itself which defines God. Furthermore, given that I actually said nothing previously concerning what I thought worship was or should be, you're mighty quick trying to pigeonhole me into whatever corner you think I ought to belong based on your prejudiced views of Pauline based Christology. Frankly speaking, I'm not sure whether you might know less about that, or about what I really think or believe... neither of which are at risk or in imminent danger from you or any of the "diversity" you think you represent or bring. And btw, fruit of the spirit (which is spoken of in Galatians) is exactly that - being "of the spirit." In other words, not of our own selves. It's the attributes of the inner man that starts to eek through the cracks of our mortal bodies and fleshly minds.

Quite frankly, it's rather difficult for me to read through or beyond the vitriolic spew you start off with DWBH. However (as it had my moniker mentioned later in the post), I read it anyway. But contrary to your self aggrandized projection, I never said the process or procedures of ordination were mysterious to me. (Though, back in the day, why some number of folk like you were tapped for such "lofty recognition" and adulation from so many may indeed have seemed rather mysterious. Since then, and since realizing the "less than spiritual" aspect of a great many things of that day and time, much of the enigma has dissipated.) It just so happens that was one of the first links I clicked on and read, and it stirred up a thought or two of something that had been talked about elsewhere here at GSC. By the way, you failed to mention that certain earlier corps were invited to be ordained, but for reasons that might elude others, simply chose not to.

Yeah, and there were numerous others written earlier that are not posted there. But somewhere (I forget where) in one of these threads there was a discussion and/or comments on ordination, and whether they were (not always, but largely) requested by the individual. Perhaps this letter (from among those that were posted there) will add some clarity and/or credibility to what as said concerning the matter.