WordWolf

I think we've discussed covenantal versus dispensational before, but I'm not sure what thread it was on, and I think we're due for a new thread, anyway. This is all just my thinking, so make of it what you will. The "dispensationalism" we learned (renamed "administrations" by vpw) came to us by way of Bullinger. His idea was that history (past, present and future) were divided into times that could be explained in terms of differences in how God related to man. If it's called "administrations", then it's described in governmental terms. "Dispensation" doesn't speak to our minds, and the usage has changed over the last century. Back in twi, I took the same Greek word "oikonomia", and preferred its translation "STEWARDSHIP" over its translation of "administration." With "stewardship" I thought the obvious questions were- what is being stewarded (God's Word, IMHO), and who is acting as stewards? The form of "God's Word" and who were the stewards changed over time. As it turned out, I was thinking more along the lines of basic covenantal rather than dispensational. I see an Almighty God dealing with his stupid, prideful children on the Earth. He gives them things, he warns them about dangers and tells them what to do after "avoid the danger", and He continues to Love His children even though they continue to mess things up across the centuries and millenia. God makes covenants and carries them out, God expects us to keep our end of deals going, and humans invariably mess that up one way or another. BTW, dispensationals don't seem to agree with each other. Outside twi, some of them believe in dozens of dispensations. EWB and vpw both said 7- but vpw disagreed which they were. Both had the original Paradise, then the Patriarchal, then the Law (of Moses) as 1,2 and 3. EWB said the next one was Grace. vpw said the next one was "Christ", which was the year JC preached and healed and so on, followed by "Grace" as #5 (Pentecost and now.) vpw said the next will be the "Revealing" (the apocalypse and so on), ending only after the devil is destroyed at the end of Revelation 21, leading to the final Paradise or "Glory". EWB had said that the Law was in effect until the Ascension- Pentecost, and Grace was #4. That made #5 the "Revealing" (apocalypse), leading to Jesus' victorious reign of 1000 years, which is "MILLENIAL" and #6. That left 7 the same- "Glory." I think the 1000 years is more likely to be an "administration" than the single year, no matter how significant.

More or less, that's what I said (I used more words, not less. ;) )

Oldies, Over the years, I think you've had a continuing problem with the subjects of "fiduciary responsibility" and "risk management" (related concepts.) I think it's an "idea barrier"- something like a "language barrier", but with incompatible IDEAS rather than incompatible WORDS. I will try to explain how they relate here. Simply put, a "fiduciary responsibility" is the responsibility someone has in running a system, a program, etc. The RCC's system of ordination- candidacy and all the steps to ordination- is a program (or set of programs) that is meant for people to go through. The RCC has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure it's safe for the participants, and actually does what it's purported to do (i.e. train their clergy.) Now, "risk management" means to look at a system or program and see where possible dangers lie, and eliminate the risks by redesign or by adding counter-measures specifically to address them. (If the candidates have to ford a shallow creek, risk management will either say to make a little bridge or to relocate what they have to do so they don't cross that creek, for example.) The RCC has a responsibility- one which they've shirked- to go over their program, identify ALL the risks, then do whatever they have to in order to eliminate the risks, or at least minimize the risks. Just because no measure is 100% foolproof- especially against human stupidity- does not mean no measures are taken. So, you sound like you're saying that allowing marriage won't do ANYTHING to the risk of sodomy, and therefore marriage should not be discussed nor instituted. Au contraire. Marriage won't solve ALL the problems, but it will alleviate a few: 1) More responsible candidates would step forward, sure they could serve God as well as have a wife and possibly family. This will reverse the current trend of decreasing numbers of clergy, which is a problem. Alleviating this will mean it will be easier to take a hard line on unfit clergy. The current clergy, to a degree, are worried that their numbers are so small that it may be worse to lose more priests than to keep a "potential" molester in place. With more clergy, they can see what is the greater risk. So, those alone will address 2 problems. Furthermore, by allowing priests to marry and have conjugal relations with their own wives, they will have a solution to problems of how to address persistent lustful desires besides "leave the clergy or molest someone." So, molestation cases will go down, at least in part, with SOME of the motives to molest removed. So, risk management would suggest that allowing clergy to marry MAY be the solution they need. (I say "MAY" because they will need to go over the possible consequences of this, and address them ahead of time. Personally, I think it's worthwhile and sensible, but they may not agree with me. I say the benefits outweigh the handicaps.) ======================== What we DO agree on is that those who realized they couldn't do the job responsibly should have resigned rather than molest, and should have been dumped and charged by police if they refused to resign and chose to molest instead. It's not as if the problem is some kind of secret- everybody knows they're supposed to be celibate long before they submit an application. I know someone who went to Catholic school (not me.) They did a field trip to a place where they train priests- a retreat or something (AFAIK, this is standard, and I was on one such field trip, long ago.) In his case, the clergyman leading the trip addressed him privately, and asked if he'd ever considered Holy Orders. He emphatically said he would never consider it, because clergy had to be celibate for life and there was no way he was going to go along with that. Mildly amused, the clergyman replied that he was glad that he'd already considered that and had taken it into account, since it was better to realize that and not apply than to realize it once one is a candidate. (I'm paraphrasing the words but I have the ideas represented fairly.) I think the RCC is going to need strong measures to fix this- and is going to have to make some permanent changes to fix this. They have the responsibility to do whatever they have to in order to safeguard the flock.

"It is the oldest story in the book- he desires the one thing he cannot have." "You may have killed me, cousin, but my will is done, regardless!" "We have to get the bullets out quickly, or they end up dying on us during questioning. " "What happens to them afterward?" "We put the bullets back in."

I think the actress might be Catherine Mannheim, but even if she is, that's all I've got so far.

Forgive me for hijacking the thread, but whether I'm right or not, we should address the subject of whether or not the Bible thinks celibacy is a bad idea, and I think all the relevant verses are here. Here's how I see these, please correct me as needed..... ============================================== 7 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3 The husband must [a]fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. [No fooling around. Get married instead, and both of you are responsible to relate conjugally with each other.] 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and [b]come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 [If you take a break, let it be a brief one and then resume conjugal relations, and that's Paul's best idea.] 7 [c]Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. [Is Paul suggesting here that he's not married? It seems so to me, and we never see signs that he was married. (Then again, Peter was married and only one verse mentions that.)] 8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. Sure looks like he's unmarried NOW. Paul even says here that it's good to remain unmarried if you're not married- but if you can't remain celibate, then marry instead.] 10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not [d]leave her husband 11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not [e]divorce his wife. 12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not [f]divorce her. 13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not [g]send her husband away. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through [h]her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called [i]us [j]to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife? [If you're married, stay married.] 25 Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who [n]by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy. 26 I think then that this is good in view of the [o]present distress, that it is good for a man [p]to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. [Still looks like he's saying that it's good to be single (and celibate), and good to marry (and not be celibate.) ] So, I don't see this "you HAVE to be celibate to serve God" thing and think that came later. (Seriously, this "don't have relations with your spouse" thing completely contradicts I Corinthians 7.) I'm aware, however, that someone can read a few verses, take them out of the context of the chapter, and whip up some odd new doctrine.][/b] 32 But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; 33 but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but [r]to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.

1 Corinthians 7 New American Standard Bible (NASB) Teaching on Marriage 7 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3 The husband must [a]fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and [b]come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 [c]Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. 8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. 10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not [d]leave her husband 11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not [e]divorce his wife. 12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not [f]divorce her. 13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not [g]send her husband away. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through [h]her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called [i]us [j]to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife? 17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that [k]condition in which he was called. 21 Were you called while a slave? [l]Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather [m]do that. 22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called. 25 Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who [n]by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy. 26 I think then that this is good in view of the [o]present distress, that it is good for a man [p]to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have [q]trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. 29 But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; 30 and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; 31 and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away. 32 But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; 33 but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but [r]to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord. 36 But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let [s]her marry. 37 But he who stands firm in his heart, [t]being under no constraint, but has authority [u]over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. 38 So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better. 39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband [v]is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 40 But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.

While I heartily agree that the RCC's problems largely stem from their celibacy "discipline", I'm dubious that the subject NEVER came up before 305 AD, as that writer claimed. I Corinthians 7 seems to discuss it. There's verses on being married, and intimacy between spouses being expected and recommended for those with spouses. There's something on not getting out of a marriage. There also seems verses on celibacy- unless I misunderstand them. 1 Corinthians 7 King James Version (KJV) 7 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. 6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. 10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? 17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches. 18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. 21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. 22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. 23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. 24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God. 25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. 26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. 27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. 29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; 30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; 31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away. 32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. 34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction. 36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. 37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. 38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better. 39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. 40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

As for motives, since we have so much information on vpw's life and comments, we can trace a relatively clear path, at least in his own words. We know that vpw told the early corps that he considered business, music AND ministry before going into ministry. (Yes, looks like he got into all 3, I know.) So, going into ministry was a CAREER decision, not a calling. We know that he claimed that in his first 2 years in ministry, each of those years, he seriously considered giving up. So, going into ministry wasn't about CONVICTION, but about convenience. We know that he took "Homiletics" or preaching, as his area of study- not "Bible history" or anything rigorous- he picked probably the softest option. When he was into his second year as a preacher was when he first heard the idea that the Bible was the word of God and that he didn't believe it prior to that. (We don't know what he based the first year's sermons on, but it wasn't on the idea that the Bible was really special.) We also know that he inflated his credentials- like when he claimed he took ALL of Moody's correspondence courses, but according to their records, he never took ANY of their courses. (They have records of all completed courses, and there is NO record of him having turned in even one course.) We know that, around 1970 or shortly thereafter, vpw began claiming he heard from God Almighty back in 1942, in a promise that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. We know that, according to him, his first thought when he supposedly heard that was that EVERYONE WOULD LISTEN TO HIM if that was the case. We also know that he's cited snowstorms that didn't exist to punctuate events he later claimed were important. In 1953, he went to a convention where he met JE Stiles and learned from him, later plagiarizing the entire contents of Stiles' book on the Holy Spirit for his own publication. Of that day, he claimed the city was in a blizzard, and planes, trains AND buses were all out. (There wasn't even a single flake on the ground.) When confronted with this, he never claimed anyone was mistaken- instead he claimed that angels answered the phones at the bus depot, etc and lied to him each time. All of that says quite a bit about the man, and that's hardly everything.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: "I'm glad I got in, and I'm glad I got out." I'm not aware of anyone whose story had NOTHING but negatives, but some people certainly feel that way after suffering quite a bit in twi. I think vpw had ulterior motives when he DID speak the truth, but it was spoken nevertheless. He benefited people almost accidentally- and partly to bait the hook with some food. I won't say there was NO benefits in the process.

Is this PAUL REISER?

Next one. "It is the oldest story in the book- he desires the one thing he cannot have."

When it comes to stories of "and a twi leader abused his office and sexually assaulted the flock", it all comes back to twi. He educated lcm and some other leaders that this was ok with God or that God WANTS this sort of thing, and they went along, foolishly equating every fool thing out of vpw's mouth with Divine Revelation (mainly because that's what he taught them to think.) vpw started it, set up the ring of silence, and set up the whole system to use to get away with it.

http://minet.org/www.trancenet.net/noway/experiences/jennifer.shtml After the 1988-1989 exodus, those of us who left had little idea just how bad it would get in the following years. Many of us had some bad stories (many more than others), but the real horror stories often came for insiders starting in 1990.

All right, then let's try... wait, that was correct? Ok, then.

Hannibal Gary Oldman Batman Begins

To make sure I don't bypass the answer, how about "BUMBLEBEE"?

Howard the Duck Jeffrey Jones Sleepy Hollow

I haven't seen any of the movies, but let's try the first movie called "TRANSFORMERS."

I don't know if it's exclusively American, but it's not just a twi-thing. I once had a copy of "Pocket Quips" (copyright 1984) https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11253742-pocket-quips-777-quotables and it said the following on applause during a sermon (approximately if not verbatim): -Applause at the beginning of a sermon is faith. -Applause during the middle of a sermon is hope. -Applause at the end of a sermon is love.

That's him. The name I added was "Frank Barone" , from the TV show "Everybody Loves Raymond." The only name I skipped on purpose was "Frankenstein's Monster", Moe Shrevnitz was the taxi driver in "the Shadow", and "Wizard" was a taxi driver in "Taxi Driver." Edsel was in "Speed Zone" (Cannonball Run 3.) Dr Sebastian Melmouth was from "In God We Tru$t" and so on.

Joe Curran Jack Mitchell Marvin Lucas Eagle Thornberry Barry Fenaka Charlie Datweiler Ras Mohammed Lord Durant Max Graham Joe McGinnis Andy Mast Frank Mazzetti Dr. Sebastian Melmoth Mark Sheppard Jimmy Ryan Jocko Dundee Cornelius Vanderbilt Cmdr. Lou Donnelly Jack McDermott Spiro T. Edsel Roger Boisjoly Arnold Teague Matt Duffy John Marlan Poindexter Fred Ford Justin Maciah Ron Rudman Frank Barone Gus Charnley Jay Glass Belted Galloway Detective Erik Lönnrot Chief Orman Captain Green Moe Shrevnitz Mr. Whittle Lt. McEllwaine Dr. Herman Cromwell Buck Grotowski "Old Man" Jeremiah Wickles "Wizard" Joe Bash Phillip Greenlow J.J. Killian Dan Breen Bill Church, Sr. Clyde Buckman Walter Eliot Father Time NOW you should get it. I added exactly one name.

Joe Curran Jack Mitchell Marvin Lucas Eagle Thornberry Barry Fenaka Charlie Datweiler Ras Mohammed Lord Durant Max Graham Joe McGinnis Andy Mast Frank Mazzetti Dr. Sebastian Melmoth Mark Sheppard Jimmy Ryan Jocko Dundee Cornelius Vanderbilt Cmdr. Lou Donnelly Jack McDermott Spiro T. Edsel Roger Boisjoly Arnold Teague Matt Duffy John Marlan Poindexter Fred Ford Justin Maciah Ron Rudman Gus Charnley Jay Glass Belted Galloway Detective Erik Lönnrot Chief Orman Captain Green Moe Shrevnitz Mr. Whittle Lt. McEllwaine Dr. Herman Cromwell Buck Grotowski "Old Man" Jeremiah Wickles "Wizard" Joe Bash Phillip Greenlow J.J. Killian Dan Breen Bill Church, Sr. Clyde Buckman Walter Eliot Father Time

No. I think Martin's characters tend to have more memorable names. In the case of this round, I liked Moe Shrevnitz, and had no recollection the character's name was ever stated in the movie where it appeared.

I remember someone once saying they became a big fan of "General Hospital" after being a big fan of a previous soap opera, so it can't be "General Hospital." Is this "Days of Our Lives"?