WordWolf

TWI taught that SIT bypasses the mind. The others don't-according to them. The so-called Great Principle stated: "God, who is Spirit, teaches His creation in you, which is now your spirit, and your spirit teaches your mind. Then it becomes manifested in the senses realm as you act." Can't delete that file even if I tried..... Naturally, this contradicts the Foundational Class when vpw says that God is Spirit, and can only communicate with what He is. As Raf pointed out once, if Spirit can only communicate with spirit, then "our spirit" COULD NOT communicate with our mind to teach it.

That's David Bowie's "SPACE ODDITY." I had to make sure it wasn't Peter Schilling's answer to it- "Major Tom (Earth Below Us)" before posting. (I thought carefully, I didn't look it up.)

"A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti."

It is Sherlock Holmes. The show "Elementary" is entertaining, and helps to pass the time while I wait for "SHERLOCK" to resume. The BBC show, like many of their shows, runs in miniseries arcs. So, there's been less than a dozen episodes, each a separate movie. It's a modern-day show with a modern-day Sherlock who is a consulting detective, and a Dr John Watson who is a military veteran. (Should sound familiar.) Really, it's a fantastic show if you like mysteries or Sherlock Holmes.

The Drakes company will be happy to pick up the slack. They'll sell pastries you can call Twinkies which look and taste the same.

Burt Reynolds, Roger Moore, Farrah Fawcett, Dom de Luise, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr, Jamie Farr, Peter Fonda, Bianca Jagger, Rick Aviles, Valerie Perrine....

There's one character who, supposedly, has had the most different movie adaptations about him of different types- Dracula. There's one character who comes in second on that, having had many different versions about him in the cinema. THAT character currently has inspired TWO different television shows CURRENTLY airing about him- one by the BBC and one on standard US television networks. Name either show.

Cardinal Richelieu has his men take subway passengers hostage, and it's up to a few of the king's swordsmen (and 1 hot-blooded Gascon) to stop him!

"St Elmo's Fire". I think he artist was John Paar. Song always takes me back to high school.

I don't think moat people would remember YELLOW SUBMARINE from that line,but I sure would.

On the one hand, twi PROFESSED Sola Scriptura but was not. vpw always talked a good game, but The Word of vpw always trumped The Word of God when they conflicted. No matter his PUBLIC protestations against that, it's what he demanded in private among his trained leadership-and that's what got out in practice. Among the lowly peons, however, many got the Sola Scriptura idea and ran with that. So, after leaving twi, some held to that as fundamental, as foundational. (Others became atheists, agnostics, wiccans, etc.) I don't know "MOST" ex-twi would be Sola Scriptura. I think many would be. I am, but there's still some who are Sola VPW- where what vpw said, that's The Will of God. Even if Scripture says otherwise. That's why we get people decades later whose entire vocabulary seems to be mostly twi buzzwords and vpw slang.

He said that name is applied. He didn't say whether he thought it was sensible to apply it or not. The phrasing might be taken to suggest it isn't- or it might not. He'll have to answer as to what he meant either way. If either of you care. It's getting us off-topic, I think.

Shanghai Noon Jackie Chan Cannonball Run

The Honeymooners, of course. BTW, if you can ever bring yourself to watch the Star Wars Holiday Special ever again, (I'd bet my life you saw it when it aired in 1977), you may recognize a Honeymooners moment. Art Carney played Saun Dann, a human merchant on the Wookiee homeworld. As a Stormtrooper has him display things for inspection, Art Carney does an increasingly elaborate preparation without doing anything until the Stormtrooper gets frustrated and yells at him like Ralph Kramden used to do with Norton.

"the Breakfast Club Paradise"?

Frank Oz Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones Samuel L. Jackson

It's not a doctrinal difference of opinion. Since it's not a fair representation of what Raf said, none of us, including Raf, would agree with it. Also, trying to imitate his style while misunderstanding his posts is not good by any meaning of the word "good." The thing is, when people went/go through the INT class, it's NOT in a void. They had months of "fellowships" with months of samples of what the "messages from God" are supposed to sound like and look like. So, they know what to expect, and have social conditioning that everyone else expects exactly that, too. THEN comes the "you can do it" pep talks for a few sessions, THEN comes the "how to" in the sessions/excellor sessions/ small groups. Also, don't forget that any sampling of people will cover "normal distribution." Some will lag behind (and may need private sessions on top of months of prep and sessions of pep talk) and some will surge forward (and may do the stuff with only the exposure from 12 sessions of pfal or from seeing a few meetings and following the instructions in the books.) So, there will always be a few examples of people who need very little exposure. We never really discussed the "slow cases." What qualifies as a "short period" is different for people who know they're faking it and people who would be convinced they were doing it supernaturally. A class of actors could do it in one long session-provided enough examples of material were provided. Faking a language, pious manner, those are easy. Most of it will be details of the meeting, then samples of the "messages from God." So, it COULD all have been faked. I'm convinced at least some of it was NOT faked. I'm not sure how much, but SOME. (Much less than half. Maybe 5%, maybe 1%, maybe less.)

Trying to copy the STYLE of my or Raf's posts doesn't mean your posts will carry the same meaning. They certainly won't have the same sincerity, and readers will know that. And once again, you've misrepresented and oversimplified what Raf said. If that's all you got from him, no wonder you disagree. Raf would disagree with that one, too. I've gotten a lot from the discussion. I know Raf did too- he now has a much broader grasp of the subject, and understands more. I didn't approach it AT ALL until the thread. I expect others can say the same- and we're still waiting for Mark S to come back with something cool. (I am, at least.) And saying you're done but taking potshots at the rest of us isn't being done. We approached this logically and systematically, I learned, and I expect that other Christians have been gaining a lot by lurking- which I did for most of the discussion. We also asked nicely to tone the discussion down before moderation came in- we're not strangers to compassion or manners. But, hey, if you have to make us out as villains to get through the day, so be it. I certainly can't stop you.

The thing with that, chockfull, is that, sooner or later, you'll come across NEW things that won't fit so well. Some verse you never read in Habakkuk or something, some new manuscript, some new information, scientific or not. That's when you have to decide whether to chuck the whole thing out (which I wouldn't but some people have), to hide from the new thing (there's some Christians out there with deep faith but shallow education) or to INCORPORATE IT and ADJUST your theology (that's what I do when new information comes in.) I don't count myself to have gotten there and grabbed it all any more than Paul did. However, I do keep trying to learn more. I find it leads to a DEEPER faith if I have a DEEPER understanding. Then, when I eventually make a "leap of faith", it's over a much shorter distance.

He was tired of repeating himself, especially since you read his previous points and circled them ad nauseum before that. It was as pointless as the man born blind explaining, and re-re-re-explaining, how Jesus opened his eyes. After a certain amount of repetition, it gets ridiculous to keep trying.

What people are "attacking" (debating or discussing) is a rather specific thing- whether or not modern SIT and Biblical SIT are the same thing, and, in Doctrinal, whether they could be or if it is possible currently to HAVE Biblical SIT. Really, is your faith entirely centered around that? Lots of healthy Christians with deep faith disagree with you. As for numbers in the poll, they don't distinguish between twi'ers who are still in who vote, ex-twi'ers who think vpw was the Right Hand of God, people who refuse to consider at all, and those who are open to changing their mind if there's a reason. The original phrasing was likely to influence people AGAINST the idea anything changed because it was abrasive, AND the whole subject, as you can see, is controversial to the ex-twi communities. With all that, the votes say 50% of people logged in and voting have changed their minds. I suppose it's possible someone's just reacting to hatred of vpw, but none of the POSTERS have cited that as a reason. They THOUGHT and CONCLUDED they were wrong before.

Ok, too many quote-marks to preserve, so I'll add the post#s to make them easy to find. They're all from pages 7-9 from this thread. ['chockfull' 11 November 2012 - 12:50 AM]post 135. The main problem with lack of "progress" lies in the fact that after an 88 page thread on the topic, the bulk of the evidence we REALLY have is "modern SIT seems to not resemble Biblical SIT". (snip) [/] ['chockfull''11 November 2012 - 01:48 AM']post 137. Samarin shows in his study that glossa samples have the same construct as languages with respect to the cadence and linguistic breakdown into sentences, phrases, sub-phrases, and words. Samarin also finds that glossa samples meet 10 of the 16 criteria on Hoskell's language characteristic chart. That is not "no resemblance". [/] How about that.... I was rather specific about Biblical SIT vs modern SIT. chockfull joined me on the subject, even quoting me. Then suddenly, what I said was suddenly about something else! (Which he was also wrong about and was corrected, but that's something else.) I was specifically ONLY bringing up Biblical SIT vs modern SIT. ['chockfull''12 November 2012 - 07:12 PM']post 154. (snip) Glossa "bears no resemblance to language". LIE. (snip) [/] Notice there's no direct link back to a post where someone is being quoted as having SAID that. That's because chockfull did a little sleight-of-hand, changing one post's words into something the poster never said. I wrote about Biblical SIT and modern SIT and said they seem not to resemble each other- which transformed into an entirely different subject-which chockfull then attacked. Easy to attack things other people ever said... ['chockfull'13 November 2012 - 01:10 PM']post 160. (snip) Good. I'll take this as your official retraction of the statement about SIT bearing no resemblance to language then. As I see you admitting matching Hockett criteria. I'll also consider this as your admission that the statement that SIT bears no resemblance to language is misinformation. I still don't understand how you justify blanket statements like "modern SIT bears no resemblance to language" when you readily admit there are points of resemblance. I guess you don't care about (to put this as diplomatically as I can without violating rules) being truthful and accurate in these blanket statements being made. [/] Here chockfull's repeating his invented claim of something I said. He's determined to put words in my mouth and refute them. Amazing. Furthermore, now he includes Raf in inventing posts they never made. Raf catches him on his invention. ['chockfull''13 November 2012 - 04:15 PM']post 162. (snip) So a few pages ago, we have "SIT bears no resemblance to human language". You either said it or supported WordWolf saying it - I'm not playing your word games. Now we have "I have always conceded that SIT resembles human language". [/] chockfull's trying it again... ...and is called on it. ['chockfull''13 November 2012 - 05:05 PM' ']post 165. No. I'm tired of you making this about the consistency or not of your own words. All that does is put your words in type one more time, which advances your rhetoric. Your words are not what's worth discussing. Scripture is. Scientific facts are. [/] chockfull's challenged to prove his claim of posts that say what he CLAIMS they said, but don't say. chockfull refuses to present any evidence-big surprise. But he also refuses to apologize for his MISTAKE. Since there was no such claim, it was hard for Raf to "support" it, no matter what chockfull said.

I wanted to be specific. AFAIK, the only posters posting on this thread with Theater experience are me and Waysider. So, I'd like to point out Raf is correct here. Improvisational actors are trained in a wide variety of skills that would affect their ability to do this. However, conmen can do it as well. And anyone can learn to do it. It takes longer when someone has to believe they're doing something spiritual rather than something mundane, but it's easy if you have the right setup. You need the right patter to prime them (like when vpw says things for THREE FULL SESSIONS like "Don't you want to speak the wonderful works of God?"). You need lots of people to provide social context and social pressure. You need people over at least 3 nights (more is much more effective) to demonstrate what it looks like "during manifestations." Months of it is more effective than nights of it. When Session 12 rolls along, the pigeon/student is primed to go, and if they don't SIT on cue along with the entire room, then someone comes over to them directly to get them going, and takes them aside if that doesn't work. With more time and practice with the first step, the next steps become easy. The Intermediate spends a LOT of time on prepping people to believe that the next thing is of God. One guy I know had been waiting to do for years, and was complaining that several sessions went by without getting into it- they just kept getting into "You can do it." "I know I can do it, show me how!" Each Intermediate had groups where we did it and set up the new students perfectly to expect to do the same and what it looks like. Instead of an acting instructor, we had a class instructor, hours and hours of prep to prime our expectations, then hours in individual groups where people learned more by observation and practice. One of the most important things, which is easy for some people to forget, is all the previous exposure to the stuff in meetings, and again there. So, the person knows what the result is supposed to sound like. I could design a class exercise for acting students to look the same. The only difference is that the acting students would know they are faking it. (Ok, the 2nd of 2 differences would be I'd do it in a fraction of the time because the acting students would know they are faking it, and I could skip straight to the ingredients of the specific performance- how to move, how to stay, how to make the SIT sounds, what components to place in the "interpretation" and what components to leave out, etc. The result would either look like an Excellors Session, or a full meeting, depending on what I designed the thing to look like.

Either he's been serious the entire time, or he's been messing with us the entire time. If he's serious, his last claim just falls down when it comes to me- because he's have to say I originally did the real thing, have then said I faked it, followed the discussion, and after lots of thought, THEN changed my belief about SIT entirely. I'd be quite happy to SIT like God said. First I have to find a real example in life. I have plenty of experience with fakes. I liked this post too much not to quote it.

I'd like to point out that I find your approach BACKWARDS. That's because I started from one yes or no question- "Is Biblical SIT the same as modern SIT?" That's something observable and testable. So, like a scientist, I observe, and make my conclusions AFTER my observations. What if I don't understand WHY something is true? An honest scientist (like any honest observer) will most likely check again. After some re-checking, they sometimes end up at the same point, more definitively. It's clear something is true, it is unclear WHY it is true. LATER, after more observations, more discussion, more tests, understanding follows. But first comes observing what is, THEN comes understanding. You're saying that "If I can't see a reason for there to be a change, there can't possibly be a change." I'm saying "I see evidence there are 2 different things. I do not know WHY they are 2 different things." I'm not afraid of "I don't know." I'm concerned about deciding what I think I know is the sum total of what there IS to know, and stopping before I learn something important that changes everything. I'm also definitely NOT a "cessationist." If there's Biblical SIT now, I want to know where, and I want IN. I know where it ISN'T. As for the rest-divine revelation, etc, nobody can convince me it doesn't happen. P.S. You seem to have missed discussions of the verses you claim were skipped.