WordWolf

For everybody now convinced that the con man who conned us into thinking he knew the Bible and conned us about that all the time, and now think that he conned us about "speaking in tongues" and what he said was the Biblical thing was just another con, we're certainly not convinced that hearing anyone "SIT" is proof of any holiness or godly connection. In his case, it was a smokescreen for his evil acts. If anyone's going to heaven, I'm suspicious about where he'd end up.

The opportunity was there- a small window in history. wierwille wanted followers with no roots. He read about Leonard's class and plagiarized the entire class. He heard about Bullinger's work and plagiarized as much of it as he could manage. (About 4 sessions of the later versions of the pfal Foundational class were right out of "How To Enjoy the Bible.") He heard from Stiles and plagiarized his book, sometimes word-for-word, moving a few words around in later editions to conceal his plagiarism more thoroughly. So, wierwille had material, but where where the folllowers? He needed gullible, naive, well-meaning people with no roots whom he could con, trick, and impress, and convince to move around since they were already mobile. Then vpw read about the Christian hippies at the House of Acts. He rushed over there and did his best to recruit them while he trawled for information on orgies. (I'm unsure if he asked Jim D about them only out of prurient interest, or if he was trying to inveigle an invitation. Since he usually used this method to get in places- like the Jain Convention- I suspect he was trying to con an invite to one.) He conned some of the young, naive, well-meaning Christians, and diverted their work from simplicity in Christ to the cult assembly line he was assembling out of people. If there is a God (and I am fully persuaded there is) I'm confident vpw will be punished for all of that in addition to the crimes he successfully committed and hid.

No, but he did play Dr something Bruce Banner, the scientist who turned INTO The Hulk when his work went wrong. (I call him "something" because his first name changed. The very first time was a young, sloppy Stan Lee using alliteration to remember full names of Peter Parker, Reed Richards, etc. He remembered Banner's first name started with "B". So, it was Bruce Banner. And when he forgot, it was Bob Banner. Eventual explanation- Robert Bruce Banner's name included both. (Star Trek novels used a similar excuse when Riker ended up with 2 middle names, both starting with "T".) And then the TV show came along and made him "David Bruce Banner." If Stan's writing at the time was correct, he was confused as to why, and never given a reason, and didn't like it. But Bill Bixby played "DAVID Bruce Banner", (shown written on his headstone from his presumed death), called "David Banner" for the entire run of his role. Despite that, it was all clearly meant to be the same character, creative interpretations notwithstanding.

Looking him up to move this along (allowed when the thread stalls for a few days due to obscurity of movie or actor), I see he was in Oh, God! Paul Sorvino Romoeo + Juliet

Ok, a month with no answer means it's up for grabs. (I hope we don't start getting those "I'll answer and then refuse to take my turn" posts like we got a few years back.) This movie was restored (with all scenes) in 1999. Plans to remake it completely in 2009 fell through, and the chosen director said in 2012 that it was probably better it not be remade. In 2012 and 2018, there were limited theatrical re-releases of this movie. (The 2018 one was chosen for its timing.) In 2016, Hot Wheels made a collectible of probably the most recognizable prop of the movie. Also in 2016, Lego released a set of the movie. This was another movie whose soundtrack was very successful in addition to the movie's success. "Do you think they heard us?" "I hope not." "Ssssh." "What did you say?" "SSSHHH!" "Good plan."

From an emotional perspective, it was a lot more difficult than from any other. We were able to get it all done using resources found in the twi bookstore, using skills any wayfer could have displayed. Digging into "the word in the stars" didn't have to go any further than "JC-OPS",and "the Witness of the Stars", and finding verses that refuted each claim as he made them was done with a simple Concordance. On its own terms, it should have been plainly obvious it was too flawed to hold. "...had God foreknown- or forced or tracked or whatever you'd like to put as the word there...." Honestly, that sentence alone should have been a tremendous embarrassment, and that's not even the whole sentence. We were even able to quote 8ruce M@h0ne to refute him- and BM probably was going around agreeing with him at the time. EMOTIONALLY, it was a heavy burden, and I readily acknowledge that.

I agree.

Jennifer Lawrence Hunger Games Donald Sutherland

If the canon had been decided by a dozen good old boys in a basement with a case of 'shine and a stack of scrolls, deciding what should be "promoted" to canon and what shouldn't, then the question of the authority would ride on Paul's having written them and saying so, and a bunch of drunks. FF Bruce ("The Scrolls and the Parchments") and Neil Lightfoot ("How We Got the Bible") among others, argue an entirely different scenario took place. According to them, what was canon of the New Testament, FOR THE MOST PART, was considered self-evident. They were written within the 1st century AD, and all carried the feel of Scripture and the quality of same. (I'm paraphrasing heavily for brevity's sake.) What didn't make it, FOR THE MOST PART, was agreed to have been clearly of a different caliber. There were books written several centuries later, and most pushed some esoteric or Gnostic POV that felt like it didn't match the others. As for books like "the Infancy Gospel of Thomas", that was written as a fanfic and was accepted as such at the time- considered good for entertainment but hardly Scripture. When just grabbing all old documents together that didn't make it and calling them some sort of "Lost books" or "forgotten books", that's a lot like grabbing the contents of my Bible case (with any songs, poems, short stories, etc) and claiming they're of equal authority as the Bible that's in the case because it's in the same case. That was possible then because they didn't have leatherbound Bibles as a single book- they would have had a bunch of scrolls stored together. So, someone just grabbing all the scrolls indiscriminately could easily think they were all meant to be read the same, with equal authority and equal utility. Obviously, not everyone would agree with either or both writers. I find that it's a sensible position to hold even if one thinks it isn't what happened.

"Okay, you're focused on what Geer might have taught. " That's what I thought you were asking me about, and I answered making it clear I was addressing HIS positions specifically. "(I say "might," because I don't actually know. Seems like I may have heard some of what he taught years ago, but if so, I'm just not sure when it was or what he said about it, or what his reasons were for it.) " I'm giving him the credit of the doubt when I say that his reason was an honest attempt to understand God that went horribly off-track into what vpw called "private interpretation". That's the best possible motive he could have had for what he taught. I'm willing to grant him the best possible motive by speculation. "However... I have read and given some thought (again, some number of years ago) to what others have said on this matter. As a matter of fact, I think most of it (if not all) falls under a category called "open theism" (which appears to be quite alive and well among some number of bible scholars.) So, I have serious doubts that Geer was "original" with the concept, and if (as you've alluded to previously) he had ulterior reasons to use it to endorse or promote something else... well, he may have either taught it wrong or not understood it well enough. " He wasn't original, and I certainly knew that at the time. The book "the Trivialization of God" was published around that time, a book addressing "Open Theism" (I was familiar with the term, and with the existence of the book.) In fact, "Christianity Today" addressed this subject around that time also-which is how I heard about this stuff pre-internet. "Otherwise, I suspect a couple of teenagers would not have had as easy a time with the rebuttal of it as you say they did." I assure you, we had an easy time of it. He spent 3 different tapes laying out his position, and we successfully refuted each tape point by point, as well as the entire premise. Perhaps it might have gone differently with someone else presenting "Open Theism", but I'm skeptical it would have gone DRASTICALLY different. We refuted the premise in addition to every point he made, attempting to make his case. But that's an exercise in imagination, at this point. "'Cause the concept appears to be much more than merely "defensible"... (and when presented correctly and cast in the right light, I'm inclined towards believing it.) If anyone is interested in pursuing this a bit further, there's a number of books out there (I don't recall the titles.) A quick search brought the following site up, maybe it will help: https://probe.org/god-and-the-future-examining-the-open-view-of-god/ ======================================== Well, anyone's welcome to explore different POVs, and different ideas. I have too much to catch up with now that the World Cup ended.(Vive la France!)

Yes- in the sense that Geer said that God "knew what could be known", and then set about to make that definition cover as little knowledge as he could convince people to go along with. AFAIK, nobody or almost nobody he taught that to currently believes it. Frankly, if 2 teenagers can write a serious rebuttal that refutes every point you make, and makes solid counter-arguments you can't shoot down, then you as a career preacher have adopted an indefensible position.

It IS a matter of perspective. vpw fancied himself a big deal. However, even twi's total numbers, compared to society in general or Christianity in general, were insignificant. They were too small to rate even a historical footnote. However, if someone "only" ruins 3 lives, it's very important to you if you're one of the 3 lives they ruin. In 1982, I was hit and almost killed by a careless driver who was driving carelessly. That's not noteworthy among the statistics of pedestrians hit by vehicles, but it made a big impression on me at the time. When one looks back at vpw trying to grab power, I think it helps to look back to BEFORE his professional career. He was a child who shirked his chores and ran off for hours rather than work on the farm like his brothers. (According to TW:LiL.) He was a show-off and a bully who zoomed around on a motorcycle trying to get attention. (According to a big fan of his who actually went around and talked to people he knew in his childhood.) He considered careers in business and in show business before settling on ministry as a career. (According to vpw himself talking to the corps.) When he decided on it, he was met with disbelief that he was serious because he wasn't appropriate for it (according to TW:LiL). He chose to study "Homiletics" or preaching rather than any rigorous, academic ministry path- which is odd when contrasted with how scholarly he portrayed himself. And in the first year of his ministry career, he seriously considered quitting for the first time. All of that paints a rather specific picture- one of someone unsuited for such a career path but on it anyway.

"However, I would agree that a whole lot of doctrinal mistakes and missteps have been made as a result of the misunderstandings and the guesswork that has taken place right here in Genesis 3... so much so, it's as if it's designed that way - to purposefully confound and fool puffed up minds and the (egotistical) intelligentsia of mankind. " I don't think mankind needs the help. Old joke: Two Freudian Psychologists pass each other in the street. "Nice day," says one. "Yes, it is," replies the other. After they pass each other, both wonder "What did he mean by that?"

The entire purpose of rendering it "overthrow" rather than "foundation" (BTW, the Aramaic usages of the corresponding word match "foundation" but not "overthrow") was to support Geer's decision to declare God was not All-Knowing. He moved God's choosing us in Him "before the foundation of the world" as in Genesis 1:1 or thereabouts, to "before the overthrow of the world" which is supposedly Genesis 3:15 and preceded Genesis 3:17. This introduces several problems. One, if we were actually chosen in Genesis 3:!5, we would have been chosen after the ground was cursed (Genesis 3:6-7) but before God announced "the ground is cursed because of what you did (Genesis 3:17.) Two, Geer blamed God for the ground being cursed, when God was only announcing the results of what they did (Genesis 3:6-7, Luke 4:6). as well as the one who did curse it. Three, it isolated off everything else, and assumed God Almighty was asking questions in Genesis 3:9-11 because He actually didn't know the answers, and not like a parent who already knows everything, but is getting specific to a disobedient child as to why there's trouble. This assumes God Almighty was in complete ignorance of the voluntary fall of man in Genesis 3 with 3 participants in the picture, but that the verses saying He's watching over us (all of us) are reliable. This doesn't even make sense on paper. So, it was an elaborate structure that went completely away from the subject at hand. All of it was to support Geer's failure to be able to account for an Almighty God who is Love and yet also allows for human suffering and the existence of evil. Smarter men than him have crashed against that particular reef, but Geer really built up an elaborate house of cards to support where he limited God (he rejected "God is All-Powerful" by limiting God's Knowledge, and that allows God to be Love but also Oblivious.) So, to Geer, that's the difference it made. Bullinger claimed it but didn't say it made any difference that I recall offhand.

*wild swing* "The Man from UNCLE"?

Yes, but if you have one, take it. I probably won't have one until the World Cup finishes.

"For our learning." "..is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction..." Same word in Greek. What was written aforetime was for our DOCTRINE. vpw took a single verse and ran with a whole doctrine- which is often a sign the verse didn't mean what he said it meant. Jesus endorsed Peter, Peter endorsed Paul. As text goes, that's good enough for me.

You can choose where to go and who to hang out with. It's unfair to judge everyone- and what they do all day- with what a handful of posts say in one thread that a few minutes were spent on. But you can prejudge everyone that way. There's posters who don't debate or argue- you're judging them based on posts they never made. And there's posters who disagree with the same posts you disagree with. "Wacky", you called them. Well, if you ever reconsider, you're welcome to return and try again. Perhaps you'll learn something.

The original poster may well think that. Some people do. Others do not. Don't be shocked to discover either in posters here. Oh, and learn to live with people disagreeing with you. In the real world, outside the cults, there's differences of opinions. There's morons who miss the obvious even when diagrammed in front of them, and there's brilliant insights we'd never imagined that were obvious to other people, Learn to evaluate it all. "Prove all things, hold fast to what is good." Sound advice, if strange to follow when in twi.

For the most part, I agree with you. (I'm sure I could find SOME far-out doctrines SOMEWHERE that don't seem to make even a little sense, but that doesn't count. Not even the people who say that vpw was getting revelation from God and pfal REPLACED the Bible.) Of course, there's no money in that doctrine, so don't be surprised that group leaders aren't pushing any form of eclecticism.

I agree with you on that, Keep in mind there's lots of positions represented by posters here, so don't be surprised if someone's posts sound like what you just said. Freedom to think and disagree tends to have side-effects like that.

What little time I spent live with him (and Sean, for that matter) made positive impressions on me. Then again, I can say the same of Geer, and he was nuts when I wasn't in the room with him. I know VF was defending Geer's "God doesn't know everything" doctrine even when he wasn't making sense doing it. (Really, VF? "Maybe God Almighty didn't know what the 'signs' meant in the Heavens when he MADE the 'signs'?" You mean He was following a careful design but He had no idea what He was designing or why?) Add that to the normal consequences of "you can lose your salvation" and it's a recipe for disaster. The questions are "when" and "how big" and "what type of disaster".

A) I agree, but not everyone here does. B) I agree again, but where there's people, I expect there will always be SOME caca, and I think it's referred to in prophecies of what's to come. C) I agree, and the splinters know there's lots of money in shoveling this caca around and selling it in one form or another.

You are correct. We all left twi, facing lcm's claim we'd all be "grease spots by midnight." Midnight has come and gone, and we're living our lives, thank you.

Of Some type or another, yes. Please keep in mind, however, that titles and categories are no excuse to stop thinking. I think more in terms of "covenants" than "dispensations", but I'm not interested in what's "standard" in "covenant theology" because I don't have to just jump on some bandwagon. If some doctrine makes sense to me, that's one thing. I'm not a fan of any theology in the same sense that sports teams have fans. So, technically, you're some type of Dispensationalist, and then go on to think for yourself concerning specifics. BTW, vpw would have HATED you to do the thinking for yourself, lcm and rfr also. So, every time you think for yourself, that's another poke in the eye for them, if you think of it that way.