Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

WordWolf

Members
  • Posts

    23,045
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    268

Everything posted by WordWolf

  1. "We are but poor, lost circus performers. Is there a village nearby?" "I wonder if he's using the same wind we are using." "Did I make it clear that your JOB is at stake?" "He has very good arms." "You are wonderful!" "Thank you. I've worked hard to become so."
  2. Millions of years old, possibly billions. I really don't care the specifics once we get past one million. Like Genesis, I don't think the exact number matters much in the discussion. I'm aware there's "young earth Creationists" out there, but I think they reflect a misunderstanding of both science AND Scripture, and poor scholarship towards both. We know from science that the Earth APPEARS very old, millions or billions of years old. That means the Earth either IS millions of years old (or older), or that the Earth is younger but was created to APPEAR millions of years old (or older.) Either answer, technically, fits the evidence. Personally, I reject the second position because I don't think that evidence exists purely to exist, and that we're designed to at least ATTEMPT to be logical, and were given a logical universe and a logical planet to work with. (I begin with those presumptions. Some people begin with those, some begin with others. These are mine.) Those who think the scientific evidence reflects a young Earth, IMHO, lack an understanding of the scientific evidence, ignore the limitations of some things, and completely disregard the most reliable methods of determination. I think that's a shame.
  3. I think God's going to exceed our understanding. I think God's not going to sweat all the hours we put into this "Trinitarians are idolators!" "Kill the non-Trinitatian heathen" business, except as wasted time where Christian went for the throat of Christian. We were warned long ago that biting and devouring each other runs the risk of us being the consumed ones. Hasn't stopped Christians from killing each other over this and other subjects senselessly. What a misuse of free will, to kill other Christians while their mutual enemy laughs at both!
  4. Physically, none of us is perfect. It's personal belief that each Christian (and I see I Corinthians 12 and 14 agreeing with this) has certain strengths and areas where they lack strength. Begin teaching a room of Christians on any subject, and I think several will say "What?", several will say "Hm," several will say "AHA!" and several will say "Well, of course!" Some, as soon as you begin an introduction, will begin "connecting the dots". That's personal inclination, interests, and personality. Account for that, and-even if all Christians HAVE been give an identical Spirit with 9 or more POTENTIAL enablements- you'll see an incredible variety on what they do and how they do it. Heck, just take the subject of Divine Revelation/word of knowledge, and how they'll approach the subject will vary widely...
  5. As you figured out, you missed a lot. Some of it you missed because you weren't in the room when the recorders were turned off- a LOT of things were said by vpw and staff and were never committed to paper. (Among the things you missed were risking life-and-limb in the LEAD program by hitchhiking and then going up sides of mountains with undereducated guides. Most people survived without injury, but that doesn't account for hitchhikers raped, or those suffering permanent injury during the wilderness section.) Some of it you missed, however, because they were never even spoken. vpw's "material" was all plagiarized from other Christians. (Occasionally he mentioned a source, usually he did not.) I have no problem with a Christian being an "eclecticist", and borrowing from the styles of others. In fact, I RECOMMEND it. (Everyone has their strengths and can teach you something.) However, vpw hid his sources and claimed it was the results of his skills and receiving revelation from God Almighty entirely. In case you're wondering about the names, most of what we've been able to find were: EW Bullinger: the administrations/dispensations, the systematic study of Scripture, number in Scripture, Witness of the Stars, all the usages of "Holy Spirit" in the New Testament, all the content in the book "How to Enjoy the Bible" (4 sessions of pfal's 12 right there.) Bullinger was unique in that his name was not hidden for much of his work- but it was NEVER mentioned in conjunction with many other works. 2 of his books were basically put together without attribution and called "vpw's" book "Are the Dead Alive Now?" BG Leonard: the Holy Spirit field in general, and the format of a class. vpw took Leonard's CTC class on Gifts of the Spirit. Later the same year, he asked Leonard permission to teach Leonard's class once locally. Leonard permitted it. vpw sent him a photo of the students for Leonard's scrapbook then stopped communicating with him. Meanwhile, vpw told "his" students that this was "his" class on "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today." It was a photocopy of Leonard's class in every way, and was modified over time into the pfal class most people took. Leonard is the one who taught on "the other 6 manifestations". vpw's lack of understanding on them while continuing to teach on them is why twi's understanding on the subjects were pretty shallow. JE Stiles: the book "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" was Stiles' book on "the Gift of the Holy Spirit", with additions from Bullinger and Leonard. Stiles was the man who led vpw into speaking in tongues the first time. EW Kenyon: the Word-Faith subject- which other Christians have plagiarized from Kenyon as well. It's why you're personally blamed by some Christians when bad things happen to you. (They're comforters as miserable as those Job faced.) A handful of other Christians were used- vpw copied THIS man's style, and THAT man's radio show, and so on. He even went outside Christian circles. He had a phone hotline to "the Liberty Lobby" we never heard about. vpw would listen to their ultraconservative, fictionalized fears of the current state of the Union, and then speak of their claims, freely making "predictions" of doom and making sure other people all claimed vpw was getting those from God by revelation, not man by technology. (vpw often lied by omission more than lying by direct statement, then led people to believe he'd said ONE thing when he said another-but MEANT them to think he said another. An example: he said he was on the basketball team in high school, played basketball all through college, and was involved with the NBL team the Sheboygan Redskins. He phrased that very carefully. What it means in plain English: He was on the basketball team in high school, but was on no other team at any other time. He PLAYED basketball in college, but not on any TEAM. He had some connection with the Sheboygan Redskins, but that is an incredibly vague term that can mean he tried to drum up attendance at their games, advertised for them, or any of dozens of other teams. What did he get people to believe? They thought he said he played on the basketball teams in high school and college, and played on the Sheboygan Redskins. The only source one can find that claims he ever DID play for them- and someone managed to get the entire team roster of the entire history of the Sheboygan Redskins and posted it (he's not there), is a paper someone wrote. Their source? twi's book where vpw claimed he was "connected with" the Sheboygan Redskins. In other words, all sources say vpw never played for them- except in the intentional misunderstanding of people who read vpw make his vague claim. All as he wanted. And his claim outlasted his lifetime. If not for the internet, it might still be unexposed. If you're interested in this-and I recommend at least one read-through- we had a thread called "The Way: Living in Wonderland" were we discussed vpw's and twi's claims in their book "The Way: Living in Love", and the related history. In the last pages, I assembled the documentable twi history and wrote out a short biography of vpw himself- as documented all through the thread, with sources listed.
  6. We had a thread a while back that began with a very short post. It said that "man's basic spiritual problem" is SIN. I can't argue with that, myself.
  7. WordWolf

    Hi

    Welcome. You'll find that many people (myself included) have SOME good memories of twi. Most of us who do temper that with the knowledge that the good times we had were paid for by sufferings of others, so we acknowledge them but put them in perspective. You'll notice that there's a gamut of beliefs among posters. There's Christians who agree with almost everything vpw taught, much of it, or are currently Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, atheist, agnostic, wiccan/pagan, and nearly everything else you can name. (I haven't seen anyone post as a declared Muslim yet, but I may have just missed it.) All points of view are acceptable- so long as manners are maintained and civil discussion is not precluded. (I can believe anything I want, but if I disrupt all the discussions I disagree with, that's not acceptable- my rights continue to the end of my fist, but end before the tip of your nose. :) ) Feel free to read, respond, start discussions, and so on. Please try to keep posts to their relevant forums. Feel free to Search and to ask for threads with more information on any subject that interests you. Feel free to join the games in the Reading Room. And feel free to disagree with me or ignore me- I'm just another poster on the board..... :)
  8. Here's the story I can find. I have no idea if vpw is one of many people who passed it along, or if he changed it and told a different story, or told none of them- I didn't hear him say it live or on tape. But this may be part-or all-of the answer you wanted. Please note that different people add some endings to it. ========================================= There once was a little boy who had a bad temper. His father gave him a bag of nails and told him that every time he lost his temper, he must hammer a nail into the back of the fence. The first day the boy had driven 37 nails into the fence. Over the next few weeks, as he learned to control his anger, the number of nails hammered daily gradually dwindled down. He discovered it was easier to hold his temper than to drive those nails into the fence. Finally the day came when the boy didn't lose his temper at all. He told his father about it; and the father suggested that the boy now pull out one nail for each day that he was able to hold his temper. The days passed and the young boy was finally able to tell his father that all the nails were gone. The father took his son by the hand and led him to the fence. He said, "You have done well, my son, but look at the holes in the fence. The fence will never be the same. When you say things in anger, they leave a scar just like this one. You can put a knife in a man and draw it out. It won't matter how many times you say I'm sorry, the wound is still there." --------- A verbal wound is as bad as a physical one.
  9. http://www.coldwellbankersouthshore.net/servlet/AgentListing?action=detail&ComColdwellbankerDataAgent_id=594832&page=agent& My, what a skill at euphemism and rephrasing we see here! "I've lived in the New Bremen, OH area for 29 years" Right- lived on-grounds at a cult, and made sure most people were kept off-grounds for much of those 29 years. "My background includes experience in the bulding trades and project management." Oh, I was impressed with this most of all! "Experience in the 'bulding' trades" must refer to making sure "Way Builders" kept buildings maintained. "Project management" is referring to the bossing-around on-grounds of everyone below him on the ladder. It's like Jeffrey Dahmer writing that he has experience making "exotic cuisine" (very few people, I admit, know how to prepare human flesh for digestion) or John Wayne Gacy saying he's been a pillar of his local community, a member of the Jaycees and even entertained children as a clown. (True-but leaves out his vile acts and murders of minors when he says that...)
  10. Good friend, we maintain the website for the people who become exposed to them. An old man, going a lone highway, Came at the evening, cold and gray, To a chasm, vast and deep and wide, Through which was flowing a sullen tide. The old man crossed in the twilight dim; The sullen stream had no fears for him; But he turned when safe on the other side And built a bridge to span the tide. "Old man," said a fellow pilgrim near, "You are wasting strength with building here; Your journey will end with the ending day; You never again must pass this way; You have crossed the chasm, deep and wide - Why build you at the eventide?" The builder lifted his old gray head: "Good friend, in the path I have come," he said, "The followeth after me today A youth whose feet must pass this way. This chasm that has been naught to me To that fair-haired youth may a pitfall be. He, too, must cross in the twilight dim; Good friend, I am building a bridge for him." Will Allen Dromgoole (1860 - 1934)
  11. Ah, what language DID you read it in that says that "the tree of knowledge of good and evil {is) right next to the tree of life"? The tree "had some very interesting things growing in it", but, being in the midst of a great big GARDEN like it was, so did lots of other trees nearby. They were bound to see that tree, they were bound to see the other trees. If you saw a really beautifully packaged box of RAT POISON, and someone kept trying to tell you to try some, that all your life you've been told it's deadly to you but that it's really the healthiest thing you could possibly eat, it would taste fantastic, it would burn away belly fat, and regenerate hair, how long would you be able to resist trying some, and who would you blame if you decided to open the box and eat some? In case you're wondering, NO, those are not RHETORICAL questions. They relate DIRECTLY to the discussion by analogy. Which means I'm expecting an answer. If you want my answer as soon as you give yours, I'm fine with that. The entire situation, whether literal or allegorical, was one where free will was THE BEGINNING of the situation. If Man had NO choice and couldn't sin, Man would be denied the free will CHOICE to sin. Sounds like you think the only sensible thing for a smart God to do would be to make sinning impossible or nearly so, and block out Man's capacity to CHOOSE, think and act for himself, and live with the consequences of his decisions and actions. I'm rather thankful for free will, myself. Granted, at the moment, there's a lot of problems that would be bypassed if free will wasn't an option, but we're here, and so is free will, and I prefer that to the most comfortable, idyllic PRISON God could construct.
  12. Seems like YOUR UNDERSTANDING of the story in Genesis is a stretch to begin with, and conflicts with your- and my- laws of the physical universe. Plenty of Christians believe Genesis AND that dinosaurs were on the Earth millions of years ago. Who said the Bible was required to cover subjects not germane to the discussions at hand? It was never meant to be a scientific textbook. As understood, what it DOES say hasn't conflicted with scientific understanding as people have learned down the centuries, despite people forcing incorrect meanings into text. If you're interested, there's actually a lot of smart science all over the Bible. It's not listed as "chapters 5 Scientific theory, chapter 6, Scientific application" because the Bible was never intended to be a scientific textbook. The books of the book (the codex, really) span thousands of years. Just because they're not written in the CURRENT style is no reason, in and of itself, to throw up one's hands and say "it's illogical, it's anti-science, it's anti-reason." Of course, if one has ALREADY MADE UP THEIR MIND to dismiss the Bible, it doesn't matter WHAT the contents say, the only thing one will see is pretexts to ignore it, and a reasoned discussion is already precluded.
  13. The "we never saw Voyager" crowd requests another show.....
  14. "We are but poor, lost circus performers. Is there a village nearby?" "I wonder if he's using the same wind we are using." "Did I make it clear that your JOB is at stake?"
  15. "I wonder if he's using the same wind we are."
  16. I'm pretty sure there was a movie that shared its name with the car (and the video game, and the album) "Gran Torino." (IIRC, Garbage did the album.)
  17. I have no idea. I think nobody else has an idea. Can you post the answer or something?
  18. When I was in, I occasionally had someone try to comment on my casual reading. It completely failed to move me for several reasons. A) In the first twig I attended, the regulars read, more or less, the same stuff I was reading. (Not the same exact books, but the same genres and so on- meaning comic books, science fiction, fantasy.) B) Only a fool would claim I hadn't been reading twi books. In short, if someone had REALLY pushed me on what I was reading, I would have challenged them on how well they knew the twi books I was reading SOME of the time. C) Most people didn't know I was reading whatever I wanted, and didn't know I was reading stuff by other Christians on the side. My position was one of eclecticism- I felt I could exceed the understanding of the best of twi eventually if I took all of twi's learning, and then added the best works of other Christians I could find. (I believed the common propaganda that twi stuff, ounce for ounce, was the best, but I also thought that other Christians had specialized skills I could learn from- especially in areas twi was weak. In short, I didn't hear it much, and when I did, I blew criticism of my reading materials off as criticisms without merit.
  19. What instruments do you both play?
  20. [it's sad that "Dr" WearWord's education so neglected to teach him the value of a good dictionary. Myself, I was taught that a good, "COLLEGIATE" dictionary would serve me well for the rest of my life. (I was taught that in Junior High School.) Both the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language were recommended as excellent resources that any (EVERY) person should own (one or the other, as suited their purpose.) I got both. When I quoted one, I flipped to an entry and read from it. Anyone with a more COMPLETE education should be familiar with at least their names, and the uses of a collegiate dictionary. They give the correct spelling of a word, its pronunciation, its uses, and its origins (and does other things as well, but these are the primary function of collegiate dictionaries.) As it turns out, the internet age has given us the ability to read their entries for ourselves, if one doesn't have a copy at home and doesn't want to visit a library to check one. The Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary's website: http://www.merriam-webster.com/ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zero "Etymology: French or Italian; French zéro, from Italian zero, from Medieval Latin zephirum, from Arabic ṣifr" The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language's website: http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4.html http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/zero "[italian, from alteration of Medieval Latin zephirum, from Arabic ṣifr, nothing, cipher; see cipher.] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. " Just for fun, here's what the Online Etymology Dictionary said for the same entry (a resource specializing in word origins.) "zero 1604, from It. zero, from M.L. zephirum, from Arabic sifr "cipher," translation of Skt. sunya-m "empty place, desert, naught" (see cipher)" (Ibid.) It also gives its own link to the history of the derivation. http://www.etymonline.com/zero.php On the one hand, we have resources that are respected by competent educators and genuine students of the English language. (That's resourceS in the plural.) On the other hand, we have one resource noted for inventing the associations between things when it suited him, who contradicts them. What is more trustworthy? Where is the weight of the evidence? Can it be any more obvious?]
  21. [What's wrong with a deduction is that some people don't know how to use mathematical proofs correctly. One such example is above, where zero ended up "= God." Another example, equally "valid" and equally incorrect, would be: "God is love. Love is blind. Ray Charles is blind. Therefore, by commutativity, where things equal to the same thing are equal to each other, Ray Charles is God." And dodging the issue with non-answers doesn't change that. "Are humans smarter than God?" "Did God forget how to count?"] [They were based on your erroneous assumption- based entirely on an error of Hislop's plus your own assumptions- that "zero" in English is in any way connected to the Hebrew word "zera" or "seed" simply because the words are spelled almost the same. Heck, in Aramaic, the words for "camel" and "rope" are virtually identical in spelling and are unrelated in concept, as are Samaritan and devil, which is worth a separate discussion, I suppose. In English, the words "chump" and "champ" are unrelated, as are "descent" and "decent" and "desert" and "dessert." "Pain" in English is an ache, "pain" in French means bread. So, all you've got is your own suppositions and some mental sleight-of-hand to make "zero" appear where it had nothing to do with what's there, either in word or concept, and fobbing off criticism with "it's hidden so only the elite can find it." It's a lot like saying "lack of evidence is proof that the conspiracy is working." There's no evidence to support your claims? "Take that up with God." No, I take that up with the person making the bald assertions. God was minding his own business when someone decided to slap His name on a pet theory to give it the illusion of credibility.] [The Bible directly mentions the name of God. The name given BY God as a name would be transliterated YHWH. Its exact pronunciation is up for discussion. It is a consistent error of the English language Bibles that YHWH is consistently rendered "LORD" (and rarely "GOD") rather than as YHWH. However, don't blame the author-the Hebrew that the English Bibles are supposed to be taken from contain "YHWH" in all the correct spots. It appears thousands of times in the Torah/Old Testament. If you pick up a Concordance and flip to "LORD", you'll see a comprehensive listing of how often and when. Your English Bible at least makes it noticeable by rendering it "LORD" rather than "Lord". God said they'd know him as YHWH- WHEN ASKED. God never said His name was "Zero" (or even "ZERO".) For the curious, YHWH BEGINS appearing in Genesis 4, and Eve is the first one recorded as using it. ("I have gotten a man from the LORD.")] [There's STILL no connection between the Hebrew "zera" and the English "zero." Hislop consistently made the error of making assertions of the connections between things without documenting them. (He claimed "Tammuz" was supposedly the "son" of "Nimrod" and "Semirammis". However, there's no connection between "Tammuz" and either of them other than Hislop saying "they're connected.") Someone who swallows his assertions without checking them might be prone to making their own bald assertions and just SUPPOSING they are correct.]
  22. I suspect it's more a desire to "recapture the good old days" and capitalize on the feelings back when everyone in twi was young, foolish and enthusiastic. With modern information sources (the internet), the people are less foolish, the people in twi are more than 20 years older, and they're certainly less enthusiastic. So, these out-of-date fashions strike me as about as relevant as (seen once on "Friends") a woman trying to catch a man's eye by putting on her old cheerleader costume from back in high school, since it never failed for her back then.
×
×
  • Create New...