WordWolf

Even when I was in, I didn't find this book particularly insightful.

You really needed US to point that out? Doesn't that tell you something? Doesn't that concern you at all? (If it doesn't, that's REALLY something to be concerned about.)

Something I find interesting about this is remembering what vpw himself said about this. There was a tape set "the Heart of the Way Corps." It was a compilation of 7 teachings addressing the WC from different perspectives. 2 were by vpw addressing them, In one of them, he said that he came up with the 5 principles "in about ten minutes" originally and that they hadn't been changed. Even when I was in, I thought that was an awfully short time to come up with something that fundamental to a program and then have it never change. Furthermore, he also complained about the first principle: "Acquire an in-depth spiritual perception and awareness." He claimed it really should say "Acquire an in-depth spiritual perception and awareness OF THE WORD." He made fun of the idea that this "in-depth spiritual perception and awareness" would be applied to anything else, which I thought at the time was particularly odd. I thought the point was learning stuff to apply it all the time, not just when reading. So, when you encountered life, you'd understand more because you knew more. This becomes particularly odd when you see that vpw said the complete opposite other times! In "vp and me", lcm documented that "Horse Sense is probably the greatest part of Corps Principal 1." Further, he gave supposed examples of this where vpw pointed out things that needed preventative maintenance and so on. That's completely the opposite of what vpw said elsewhere- he was claiming the importance of something he mocked at other times. This would be confusing concerning the average person. Most people are fairly consistent- unless one is possibly comparing them after a span of time, time to change their positions on things. (In this case, the tape and the book covered the same span of a few years, twi after it's big boom began but before vpw was too sick to do stuff.) In the case of vpw, this makes sense because we know he went around and taught different things to different people at the same time. He could teach a CFS class and say that a man wasn't supposed to help himself to a woman and to only do stuff with your spouse (the meaning of "let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband") and turn around a few hours later and tell someone "who was spiritual enough to take it" that God Almighty was fine with sexual adultery and someone "meeting the needs" of some married minister sexually and keep it quiet (his "lockbox" doctrine, very private.) He told the pfal audience that he started over with his Bible as his sole source of information, but turned around and mentioned a few books here and there like Bullinger's Companion Bible (leaving out that his "sole source of information" claim was a complete lie because "his" class was an amalgam of Bullinger, Stiles, Leonard, Kenyon, and a handful of others with virtually NO original content.) So, the idea that vpw would make contradictory claims actually should be no surprise- he did it all the time if you kept track if who he told what. That's a bad sign for someone supposedly honest, but twi has been run like a political entity than a religious entity at the top for a long time.

" What about my Miranda rights? You're supposed to say, "You have the right to remain silent." Nobody said I have the right to remain silent!" "Look, she's not seeing any clients today. Okay? "That's okay, buddy. We're from the union." "The union?" " Head 'em up, Head 'em up, Move 'em on, Move 'em on, Head 'em up, Rawhide! Line 'em up, Move 'em on, Head 'em up, Head 'em up, Move 'em on, Rawhide! Knock 'em out, Pound 'em dead, Make 'em tea, Buy 'em drinks, Meet their mommas, Milk 'em hard, RAWHIDE! YEE-HAW! " "TGIF, eh, buddy? Workin' hard or hardly workin', eh Mac?" "Thank you, gentlemen! Someday, I will repay you. Unless, of course, I can't find you or if I forget." "I hate Mondays." "The sun will come out tomorrow, bet your bottom..." "Bet my bottom??" "...I'm coming Elizabeth!" " Be... good." "It's gonna be champagne wishes and caviar dreams from now on!" "Oh, you got a puppy? All I got in my room was shampoo!" "All right, let's crash this party!" "Are we there yet? " "For five minutes, could you not be yourself? FOR FIVE MINUTES?! "Let's not sit here with our tummies rumbling. Everybody dig in." "Don't mind if I do, Lillian!" "Do you still know the Muffin Man?" "Sure, he's down on Drury Lane. Why?" "Because we're going to need flour. Lots and lots of flour." "Give him the Bob Barker treatment!" " I'm sorry, Lillian. I just wish I could be the man you deserve." "I don't care whose fault this was, just get this place cleaned up! And could someone please bring me something deep fat fried and smothered in chocolate! " "Today, I repay my debt... EN GARDE!"

Rrobs, presuming everything you posted was serious, you're running into some very elementary and very obvious problems. 1) You do not know where you are. The GSC exists specifically to "tell the other side of the story" with twi, and sometimes with its offspring, the offshoots. That means that, not only is it NOT a vpw admiration society, it is the opposite of that, and people have told about the many felonies for which vpw would have gone to prison if he had been caught, and if he hadn't been as thorough as he had been in covering his @$$ when raping women and making sure they wouldn't tell on him. So, posts extolling his brilliance, or ignorant of the rather fundamental flaws of pfal and twi materials, will reflect poorly in this crowd. (vpw plagiarized and often didn't really understand what he plagiarized, so he reproduced correctable errors entirely, and sometimes quoted incorrectly and contradicted himself, and sometimes added a few things to make himself sound like he was walking around getting revelation when he was using hidden sources for his (often wrong) claims, and occasionally adding a bit of charlatan showmanship to make it look more convincing.) 2) Furthermore, posts which reflect a vocabulary centered around twi-speak that also include claims that the poster examined vpw's work independently and thoroughly expose a rather marked lack of thoroughness in that department. 3) The GSC exists to "tell the other side of the story." It is not a Christian messageboard, nor does it need to be. There's no universal consensus on doctrine among posters that represent a variety of Christian positions, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, wiccan, etc. So, expecting everyone here to agree on the Bible as THE standard is not effective, even if it's not as volatile as trying to get them to agree on twi materials as THE standard. 4) Because there's such a variety of posters, there's no one official consensus. However, you'll notice that nearly all the posters agree about vpw's plagiarism having been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and about his rapes and molestations having been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That's because they're so well-documented and tracked after the fact that people from greatly-differing perspectives agree on them. 5) If what you're looking for is "the cheerful posts", the GSC is not the best forum for you. It's here to INFORM. Do you look to the evening news for your daily dose of sunshine? Furthermore, there's threads that are fairly cheerful. They're NOT in the forum where we discuss vpw's felonies. 6) Much of the time, we don't need to rehash the same felonies here- except when someone arrives and announces they didn't happen or that they were exaggerated or that it's fine that vpw was a plagiarist and rapist or whatever. THEN we have to get into the same old horse manure all over again. 7) The fact that we've informed people about vpw's felonies and so on does not mean we spend all our free time being depressed, negative people. We all have lives, and they're not on this board. The blithe dismissal of people with fantasies that this is how they spend their off-time is trite, and one defense mechanism of those who desperately want to imagine vpw was half the man he claimed he was. 8) If you really want to get into Doctrine, post in Doctrinal. If you want some light-hearted fun, we have gaming threads. in the Movies/Music forum. If you just want to repeat how wonderful vpw was and twi was without finding out why we disagree so strongly, this is the wrong messageboard for you. There's closed communities online that do little else but that very thing. They welcome another poster parroting the party line and would love to have you. If that's NOT what you want, then pay a little attention and consider changing your approach here. All the wayspeak, posted here, is a lot like someone showing up to a Holocaust Survivor panel in a Nazi uniform and playing the jackboot.

Very few people nowadays make a claim of "operating all 9 all the time." It's an outrageous, ridiculous claim. You rattled it off like nothing when you arrived. To the rest of us, that told us a lot.

I'm highly in favor of sticking to the facts, and labeling anything as appropriate- speculation, supposition, guess, and so on. (I also think this is beating a dead horse, but you revived the post, so...) We KNOW that vpw died of cancer, and that this cancer that killed him was from the liver. We know this cancer began in the eye and spread to the liver. (We all agree on this because his death certificate says much of that, and it's common enough for the cancer to spread to the liver from the eye, and not vice versa.) So, the cause of death is not debated. We KNOW (or should know) that chronic exposure to both alcohol and tobacco are damaging to the body, including damage to the eye (tobacco, that's known) and damage to the liver (alcohol, that's also known.) So, we know that vpw's chronic drinking and smoking did damage to his liver and eye. The question there then becomes- did this have a connection to his death and the cancer in his liver and eye- and, if so, what connection was that? We KNOW that vpw exposed his eyes to bright lights for a period of about 2 weeks in the 1960s when filming pfal. We know he had sore eyes as a result of the bright studio lights, and they hurt a lot during the filming. The question there then becomes- did this have a connection to his death and the cancer in his liver and/or eye- and if so, what connection was that? It has been shown that CERTAIN exposures to light can damage the eye and increase the risk of cancer. To be specific, it's been shown that WELDERS have an increased risk and they have eyes that are exposed to brilliant UV sources inches from their eyes over a period of years. It has not been shown (I await a specific source) that other types of bright light, over a period of less than a month, are a cancer risk. Since vpw was NOT exposed to the level of light of a welding torch, at the proximity of a welding torch, with the wavelengths of light of a welding torch, for the periods of time in which welders are exposed, I'm HIGHLY skeptical it's connected in any way. So, the only study I've seen with an increased risk factor for bright light in ocular cancer is IRRELEVANT. If there's a different one, with the same kinds of light, time exposure and light proximity, that would be a different story entirely. For that matter, we're "cherry-picking" here if we insist that bright studio lights MUST cause cancer because they're bright. I had a small chat with someone who did DECADES of stage work. He's a minor actor, who acts as a hobby. In relevance to the discussion, he's been either on the stage or a stagehand for hundreds of shows at dozens of venues of different types. He's had the bright stage lights and studio lights pointed at his eyes lots of times. He's assisted in lots of productions where the bright stage light and studio lights were pointed at other people's eyes. He's known lots of actors in passing, and spoken to lots of actors. He was legitimately puzzled at the suggestion that bright studio lights might cause cancer. I asked him. He gave it some thought. He's known actors who died, but none who had ocular cancer. He also never HEARD of an actor who ended up with ocular cancer. Granted, that's hardly authoritative. However, what is interesting is that there's no report. IF bright studio lights were a significant cancer risk, IF bright stage lights were a cancer risk, then SOMETHING would have been reported. There's no warning by doctors that news anchors should consider early retirement, or amateur actors should do the same, or that soap opera/telenovela actors are coming down with ocular cancer into their retirement. So, we not only have no proof that bright studio lights are a cancer risk over LONG PERIODS, we have an ABSENCE of cases and warnings about that. We've had warnings about tobacco and lung cancer since the 1940s. So, pending ANY contrary evidence, it's irresponsible to SPECULATE that LONG-TERM exposure to studio lights would cause cancer. I'm sure vpw hurt his eyes, but that's proof that he hurt his eyes. If someone's got a link that says that injuring they eye in general with bright light is a risk factor for cancer, please post the link, it's certainly news to mem and nobody's posted that. (Let's have some facts on that rather than speculation and name-calling, I say.) One thing which should NOT be overlooked is that hurting his eyes like that would make him more "sensitive" to complaining about eye pain later. (If his eyes hurt, he would be more likely to complain, and would not hesitate to claim his later eye pain was connected to this one even if there was no reason to think so, just because this was when his eyes hurt before.) We KNOW that tobacco is a carcinogen. We probably know that wierwille carried some sort of risk factor for cancer (it's unreasonable to presume Don's death from cancer was a remarkable coincidence, and Don didn't have behavioral risks like chain-smoking or alcohol that we are aware of- at least to the degree of chronic user vpw. People saw vpw smoking and drinking constantly but not Don.) We know that cancer can't be predicted with mathematical certainty. (This genetic factor plus this exact behavior = cancer and this other behavior plus the same risk factor does not, etc.) So, what can we say with any reasonable certainty? A) Bright studio lights over 2 weeks will hurt your eyes. Bright studio lights over periods of a few months over a lifetime are NOT shown risk-factors for cancer. Bright studio lights over even shorter periods should be less so, not moreso (thus, are also not shown to be a risk-factor.) B) Welding tools used over long periods are known risk-factors for eye cancer. vpw did not use welding tools over long periods. C) Cigarettes are known to damage the eyes of the smokers, especially over long periods. Tobacco use is a known carcinogen, and has been shown to be a risk factor for all sorts of cancer. I'm not aware of any study to determine definitively if eye cancer should be in the list. vpw smoked a lot over decades, and introduced carcinogenic smoke to his body over long periods, in addition to damaging his eyes with the same smoke. D) Alcohol is known to both damage the immune system (which decreases the body's ability to fight cancer), and damages the liver specifically (which decreases the body's ability to fight cancer). E) The accounts that the bright studio light usage over a few weeks causing eye cancer were NOT documented by medical experts. The sole source of this story was vpw, who is known to have been a habitual liar who spent his life inflating his own image and framing himself as some noble person. If the eye cancer was the result of his chronic smoking and drinking and he knew that, he would certainly have lied and said it was due to his "noble sacrifice" of filming pfal for 2 weeks over a decade before. If that was the cause and he didn't know the cause, he would do exactly the same thing. In short, the only account claiming this is why he got cancer was from the mouth of the biggest liar of whom we're all personally acquainted. ====================================== If any definitive conclusion can be drawn with no new information introduced, it would be the following: vpw spent a few weeks exposed to bright lights which hurt his eyes and did no carcinogenic damage. vpw spent decades before and after this damaging his immune system and introducing carcinogens to his body in general. vpw had a genetic risk for cancer. Sometime later, vpw was diagnosed with eye cancer which spread to his liver. vpw, a known liar, spread a story about how his eye cancer was the result of his "sacrifice" of being exposed to bright lights "for the benefit of God and others." It is true, that no ABSOLUTE conclusion, mathematically, can be drawn as to EXACTLY why he got cancer. We do, however, know what the KNOWN risks are. We also know what vpw CLAIMED the known risks are-and the medical professionals disagree with vpw on that one, imagine that! So, I think there's little REASONABLE doubt (pending new, clear data) that vpw was factually wrong and the story that goes around was factually wrong, and that the known carcinogens did what carcinogens do all the time, and- added to his risk if exposed to them- caused vpw to die of cancer. Pending some reliable studies or reliable sources that say otherwise, I really think this has been discussed into the ground and would prefer to move on to other things. Which is why I let it drop before.

" " What about my Miranda rights? You're supposed to say, "You have the right to remain silent." Nobody said I have the right to remain silent!" "Look, she's not seeing any clients today. Okay? "That's okay, buddy. We're from the union." "The union?" " Head 'em up, Head 'em up, Move 'em on, Move 'em on, Head 'em up, Rawhide! Line 'em up, Move 'em on, Head 'em up, Head 'em up, Move 'em on, Rawhide! Knock 'em out, Pound 'em dead, Make 'em tea, Buy 'em drinks, Meet their mommas, Milk 'em hard, RAWHIDE! YEE-HAW! " "TGIF, eh, buddy? Workin' hard or hardly workin', eh Mac?" "Thank you, gentlemen! Someday, I will repay you. Unless, of course, I can't find you or if I forget." "I hate Mondays." "The sun will come out tomorrow, bet your bottom..." "Bet my bottom??" "...I'm coming Elizabeth!" " Be... good." "It's gonna be champagne wishes and caviar dreams from now on!" "Oh, you got a puppy? All I got in my room was shampoo!" "All right, let's crash this party!" "Are we there yet? " "For five minutes, could you not be yourself? FOR FIVE MINUTES?!

" What about my Miranda rights? You're supposed to say, "You have the right to remain silent." Nobody said I have the right to remain silent!" "Look, she's not seeing any clients today. Okay? "That's okay, buddy. We're from the union." "The union?" " Head 'em up, Head 'em up, Move 'em on, Move 'em on, Head 'em up, Rawhide! Line 'em up, Move 'em on, Head 'em up, Head 'em up, Move 'em on, Rawhide! Knock 'em out, Pound 'em dead, Make 'em tea, Buy 'em drinks, Meet their mommas, Milk 'em hard, RAWHIDE! YEE-HAW! " "TGIF, eh, buddy? Workin' hard or hardly workin', eh Mac?" "Thank you, gentlemen! Someday, I will repay you. Unless, of course, I can't find you or if I forget." "I hate Mondays." "The sun will come out tomorrow, bet your bottom..." "Bet my bottom??" "...I'm coming Elizabeth!"

No, although Mrs Wolf thought it might have been also, with the reference to the union, and the singing of "Rawhide", But look a little closer at the lyrics that were sung...

That happens sometimes, but now you have the answer. Ah, "alternative" actually applies more to Cake, Weezer, and Talking Heads. Ramones is "punk" (as is "Offspring.") I have no idea HOW to categorize Gorillaz, I just listen to it when it plays.

There's stuff in the Documents section. I forget if there are both recordings of his as well as letters on the subject. One of the letters, however, mentioned that he'd be "happy" to kill gays in twi. (From the context, I can't clearly tell if that meant ONLY gays that considered themselves twi members, or all gays in general. I have speculation, but that's it.) Ok, what we had was documents on the subject, not recordings. But the one lcm himself sent out is available on PDF. Select "War declared on homosexuals with the way corps." You can download the PDF. http://wayback.archive.org/web/20060922182308/http://greasespotcafe.com:80/waydale/pdf-docs/pdf.html Or just look at the excerpt. http://wayback.archive.org/web/20060622123001/http://greasespotcafe.com:80/waydale/html-docs/homo-excerpt.htm I'll be redacting some of it, so you'll have to click on the link to get the explicit stuff. ========================================================= Excerpt from letter in July 1994 to the Way Corps declaring war on homosexuals. The author is Loy Craig Martindale - President of The Way International. I'd like to say to you "closet" homosexuals in the corps household that you'd better run, because you cannot hide! If I have to personally take on every Corps fellowship in this country and world to smoke this out, then I will. You will be exposed and embarrassed and flushed; so you might as well make up your mind to get out now. Even you who are genuinely convicted of your terrible behavior and finally and genuinely want help, you will probably still be dropped from the Corps household because you have lied to God and me and your Corps brothers and sisters for so many years to justify your insane thinking and sneaky behavior. However, that is not the end of the world if you genuinely want help.....we could still allow you to be a part of Way Ministry fellowships, although not in the Corps household; and perhaps somewhere down the road you could do the Corps again and do it clean and proper and pure in your thinking. Remember, the Word says that homos are the "lowest of the people," and that is certainly true. You female [REDACTED]! You [REDACTED] men who still think that somehow you have the right to take the grace of God in vain might as well be [REDACTED]! That's the way I feel about you and your thoughts and your repugnancy. You are an abomination to God and the household of The Way Corps and The Way Ministry. You are detestable and despicable and repugnant and worthy of death. You are so far beyond saltiness that you are the ultimate illustration of being worthless and not even fit for the dunghill. You are liars to God and His Word and a total disgrace to everything God did in Jesus Christ to bring the Corps training to you. I want these [REDACTED] out of the Corps household! If you Corps on the field and in leadership responsibilities, starting with the clergy and our Limb coordinators, can't do it, then I will personally have to do it myself; but it will get done down to my last breath if that's what it takes! How dare you take the grace of God in vain, some of you, to think that you can continue to harbor homosexual fantasies and passions in your mind and soul. Do you think you're fooling God? Do you think you can keep fooling me? Eventually your thoughts will lead to your behavior, and have already. Some of us walk by the spirit of God, and if you give us time we will smoke your sorry asses out and bring degradation to your lives so that you can't hurt anybody in The Way Ministry again. You should be thankful you're not in the Old Testament times, because there are some of us who would gladly execute you."

Strictly speaking, her renting a room to 2 lesbians who allegedly were "former" lesbians is proof of nothing in that regard. Strictly speaking, her choosing to travel with Donna on trips and choosing to share a room with exactly 1 bed is proof of nothing- but by itself, it should be enough to raise suspicions. However, the eyewitness account of one female poster a long time ago who walked in on them immediately "after" pretty much settles it. That completes the picture. If anyone's still questioning the situation after that, it's someone who REFUSES to consider what's before them.

CFF is the parent splinter group, and SOWERS seems to be hiding their connection to "Christian Family Fellowship." So, SOWERS might be considered to be a group that soon may be a splinter group that split off FROM a splinter group (CFF). It's probably to hide the fact that SOWERS is based on a handful of old farts who want to relive their glory years decades after the Jesus People movement was almost snuffed out by vpw. They're selling it as a group composed entirely of the young turks. If you have time, you can read through lengthier discussions that brought some of these points up as well as the more practical concerns about SOWERS. "Here We Go Again." "Legacy of the Way Corps Principles."

It's neither. :)

It's not "The Clash." Can you remember the chorus?

Next film: " What about my Miranda rights? You're supposed to say, "You have the right to remain silent." Nobody said I have the right to remain silent!" "Look, she's not seeing any clients today. Okay? "That's okay, buddy. We're from the union." "The union?" " Head 'em up, Head 'em up, Move 'em on, Move 'em on, Head 'em up, Rawhide! Line 'em up, Move 'em on, Head 'em up, Head 'em up, Move 'em on, Rawhide! Knock 'em out, Pound dead, Make 'em tea, Buy 'em drinks, Meet their mommas, Milk 'em hard, RAWHIDE! YEE-HAW! "

In any legal sense, there is no corporate connection between twi and sowers whatsoever. They are organized by different people, and their paperwork reflects a complete distinction between the 2 groups. In the doctrinal sense, both sowers and their parent splinter group are an attempt by ex-twi'ers to clone the earlier twi days, based word-for-word on the earlier setup of twi, using the exact phraseology vpw did, in an attempt to relive their glory days. It can't possibly work because the twi numbers explosion was based ENTIRELY on vpw taking a legitimate movement in Christianity, subverting it, and turning an already-successful group of people into his recruiting arm. THEY did all the work. THEY convinced the people of the substance. And THEY had no way to know all the plagiarism and corruption behind the scenes- and neither did the people. Compare that to now. There's no group of young Christians ALREADY producing the big results that vpw wanted, there for sowers to subvert. The public can easily find out about all the corruption even if there WAS. And vpw KNEW he was a fraud and tailored his fraud accordingly. The sowers people still insist ALL of it was legitimate and of God- so they can't even get the successful CON going. But they've certainly ignored all the differences between THEN and NOW, and tried to make NOW look like THEN. They even convinced a guy named vpw- the grandson of the original plagiarizing rapist- to be the frontman of the organization. So, legally, this is not any twi. In a practical sense, it is a sad attempt to replicate twi from its early days-which is why it's of interest to a handful of people and will remain a handful of people until it fades into obscurity. It's of interest only to ex-twi. And ex-twi are getting fewer in numbers because there's nobody new joining twi in any numbers, and that means the population of both current twi and ex-twi are all dying off as they get older and are not numerically replaced by successors. This is a good thing. Ex-twi get on with their lives, mostly, and don't turn their families into twi clones. And those who do are in such small numbers that they are only slowing down the process of twi becoming completely irrelevant as opposed to almost-completely irrelevant.

You offered some nebulous "there might be another way to look at this" and "you might be wrong" and capped it off with "you're wrong and an idiot" with zero actual substance to it. It's like the much longer "Passing of the Patriarch" where cg went on for pages and pages as to how twi's bot failed but never getting into one actual thing the bot did or the bot failed to do. So, yes, the extent of my take away from that was the "you're wrong, biscuithead" thing. If there was something of substance OFFERED, something to actually CONSIDER, that would have been a different story. If you had substance, you didn't present it. I said I was an EXPERT in the subject? I've studied it on a number of levels, a number of times. I don't consider that an "expertise" in the subject, but I DO have a broader perspective than the average twi'er, for example. I've read books by non-twi'ers who also discussed delphia as well as the other mentioned words, for example. If you have something to offer, feel free to bring it to the table. (I offered a few links in passing.) How confident are you that I IMPLIED expertise, and you didn't actually INFER the implication? A) "Maybe you're wrong" isn't something of deeper substance. It's good to consider alternate viewpoints, but there needs to be some substance to support a position and not just its existence that makes it worthy of reflection. A poster here is CONVINCED Jesus Christ will appear and teach us out of the Orange Book. I'm NOT spending a lot of time reflecting on that one because there's nothing to say "wait-this brings something to the table, and that something is...." B) Getting me to consider the substance of something usually works when presenting the actual SUBSTANCE. Calling me "stupid" is not a successful motivational tool to get me to see things your way, no matter what. I don't know why it worked for you, but there's a LOT of people who get turned off when an ad hominem attack is dropped into an intelligent discussion. Does anyone else besides him see this big "expert" thing he's claiming I presented in the last few posts? Can someone quote exactly what I said and why it looks like I'm claiming to be an expert? If I'm an expert in something, I don't tapdance about it-I say so outright. So, if a third-party can see this, please chime in and show me what he's on about. Sure would be nice if the "alternate viewpoint" was presented with something of substahce to justify the viewpoint, otherwise it just looks like another unsupported claim. The GSC has seen MORE than its share of those. So, you refuse to provide something, but I'm supposed to? And I'm supposed to take it seriously? Really-if you had something and posted a link, I'd approach it with all the seriousness it warranted. (i.e a site quoting vpw gets less consideration than neutral parties showing their work, and so on.) If you think some verses APPEAR to show phileo and agapao as synonymous in usage, feel free to post them or at least cite them. THEN we have SOMETHING specific we can discuss. Even if we end up disagreeing afterwards, at least we'd have gotten somewhere and looked at something.

TLC: "Is there any polite or proper way to say that if you actually believe that, evidently you may not know chit from shinola when it comes to that particular issue?" If there IS a polite way to say it, you sure didn't try very hard to find it. Even the "vpw was God's prophet/apostle/everything" people usually aren't this overtly rude to me, and they have a vested interest in keeping me quiet. Interesting how you completely skipped that there's been lots of discussions about the differences between those and other related-but-different Greek words to say "you're wrong and you're stupid" for saying they're related-but-different words.

Ok, we have a Bond film. We have Blofeld. That limits the field considerably. George is a nice guy, so I'm thinking it's not the Lazenby film. Blofeld had no significant lines in "For Your Eyes Only" and was never really confirmed to be in the movie, IIRC. (So, he certainly never said his name.) What's left? If we hope that the non-Eon film was skipped (Connery in "Never Say Never Again"), we are left with-what's left? George eliminated "Goldfinger." We heard of no Russians, so maybe not "From Russia With Love." I think that leaves us with maybe 3 flicks. Is this "You Only Live Twice"?

"Just put me in a wheelchair get me to the show. Hurry hurry hurry before I go loco. I can't control my fingers I can't control my toes. Oh no no no no no." "Just put me in a wheelchair, get me on a plane. Hurry hurry hurry before I go insane. I can't control my fingers I can't control my brain. Oh no no no no no."

"Just like I can see a dog and call it a mutt, while you see a mutt and call it a dog. Is the mutt a dog? Sure. But, is the dog a mutt? And would (or does) it make any difference whether it is or isn't? " The thing is, there are animal authorities, experts and resources that can explain any fine distinctions (such as when a dog or is not a mutt), but if we consider The Bible as authoritative, then the source for what the Bible means is-the Bible itself. (Or the religious organization you consider to be authoritative and the last word on a subject.) In the case of "kingdom of heaven" vs "kingdom of God", the 2 things to consider more than any other are: 1) what is the literal meaning of the word/each word in the phrase, and 2) what is the demonstrated meaning of the word/phrase as used in the Bible? Example: "ekklesia". Breakdown of the parts of the word results in "those called out". However, the demonstrated meaning in the Bible most closely resembles the word "assembly". Sometimes the construction of the word doesn't give you what it means. Example: "katabole". Breakdown of the parts of the word results in "casting down." However, the demonstrated meaning in the Bible most closely resembles the word "foundation" (a foundation is cast down so it can support the building that is constructed next.) To take 2 phrases that are used interchangeably and insist they mean 2 things that are NOT interchangeable is irresponsible, and imposing your opinion on the text. That's not an honest way to do research, or to find answers. To imagine there MIGHT be another meaning- when the Bible does not offer one- is a fun exercise, but devoid of authority. An active imagination is a nice thing, but not when doing textual study.

Boy, I'll sure be glad when we make it off this page. This posting by multiple steps is tedious, especially if I want to reply with a quote. "BTW, perhaps you're not familiar with D. Bader's work on the (lack of) difference between phileo and agape." Ultimately, what any "expert" claims (and many DISAGREE regardless of subject, for any number of reasons) is not important compared to what the Bible actually SAYS. In the case of phileo and agape, they're as dissimilar as phileo and coitas. Further, I've noticed supposed "experts" base their understanding on what a word in Koine Greek is taken to mean 2000 years later, and ignore the usage in the book itself, when we know meanings change radically over a few HUNDRED years (language drift and specialization.) However, if you want a side-discussion about people who talk about the different words for "love" and their corresponding Greek words, there's been lots of discussion about that by experts. We discussed that in Communications class when I was in college, and other people discussed it in Psychology. If you're actually interested, here's a pair of links to start with: https://www.truthaboutdeception.com/relationship-issues/love-styles.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_wheel_theory_of_love

Correct! CMS is the Riddler in "Gotham." John Astin was the 2nd of 2 Riddlers in the old Batman TV show. (We all remember Frank Gorshin, who actually looked like him. Even as a kid, it bothered me when they made another actor-who did not resemble the first- take a role of a villain with no explanation whatsoever. 3 Mr Freezes, 3 Catwomen, 2 Riddlers. All annoying. Robert Englund is an odd choice for voice actor- apt for the cartoon "the Batman", where the Riddler was odd, along with everyone else.