WordWolf

Actually, the story that goes around is that the original performance was M**phy and H3yw**d Ch@p3311 doing a single routine. They matched for height and so on. After lcm watched "Staying Alive"-or to be specific, the "Satan's Alley" sequence, he announced they were expanding it to a full-length production. (It coincidentally resembled "Satan's Alley" in many ways.) Early in the production, lcm declared that it was SUGGESTED to him that he play the lead. I believe that someone may have uttered those words. HOWEVER, I believe he hinted around until someone uttered those words, then seized on them as a mandate to grab the limelight, his lack of talent notwithstanding. The production would have been less painful to watch-although no more sound doctrinally- if he'd limited himself to the coach-narrator role that explained things between dance numbers. I'm in paradise. She has the right to her privacy. After all, she has NOT elected to participate in the online ex-twi community- or to do so under her own name. I respect her decision.

When writing a person's name here, please do not type out their FULL name. Substitute some characters, so that if they want a little privacy, they won't spend the rest of their life getting search engines pointing to this. The exception, of course, if the person has chosen to post their full name HERE. For example, if I took pfal with Clark Kent, I might write something like "Back when I took pfal, I sat next to C1@rk K**t. I wonder how he's doing." We also except people who are on twi's Board of Directors. Sometimes we forget, sometimes we don't, but sometimes we go back and edit a name out like that. If I thought you were old and senile, I might expect to tell you this a lot. I don't anticipate that, and would prefer not to be proven wrong.

No. Obviously, the name "Christ" was replaced with a pronoun. (This is the version that made it into the song by Acts 29.) Why take "Christ" and swap it OUT, to replace it with "him", leaving a question of who the "him" IS? I see no reason to have done so when explaining this verse. Supposedly, things are added to and stretched out- but they felt the need to trim it down by swapping the name "Christ" (or TITLE "Christ" if you're going to object that I called it a "name") and switching it for "him." Why? Was there something OBJECTIONABLE about the word "Christ"?

No, Don Henley OF the Eagles, in his solo career, off his "End of the Innocence" album.

It's based on the idea that New Yorkers, who do everything fast and rush about, have minutes that are remarkably fast, too. *reads the link* Doesn't surprise me that Texans may have started this phrase. They've made a number of jokes at NY's expense over the years, with the "Pace Picante sauce" commercials being some of the most famous ones of late. Not that I mind most of them....but the older Pace commercials claimed that someone had a picante sauce made in NYC (which scandalized the cowboys present since Pace is made in San Antonio), and I have NEVER found one made in NYC, no matter who I asked nor where I looked. They generally had a punchline after that, usually one with a punishment for the person who dared to slip them the non-Texas picante sauce, which I thought was at least amusing, but I suppose they changed it because there IS no such sauce to compare it to. That was my guess, anyway.

You mentioned that 7/4/06, 11:16am. same thread, same page.I replied 7/4/06, 11:40pm, same thread, same page. Apparently, I left out the reference to "VP and Me", but THOUGHT I posted it. My mistake. Sorry. I posted it NOW, though. Has lcm's admission changed anything? If you need some side-by-side comparisons of books vpw plagiarized alongside the results wherevpw plagiarized them, just ask. I thought they were easy to find. I keep forgetting they're easy to avoid and pretend they don't exist, too. I'll have to do something about that at some point.... Well, you said-TWICE- that it might not be vpw's plagiarism at all, but that of the staff. "Which, when you think of it, brings up a point which many might not have considered -- If the editorial staff actually wrote the VP's books (and slapped his name on the cover as you say) then it's not VP who is guilty of plagiarism but rather the editorial staff." "VP might have been an accomplice in that activity, by endorsing the product as being his work, but only the ones who actually did the writing have done the act." So, you were quite clear and made contradictory statements, once you posted this: "I had been aware of VP's plagiarism early on in my involvement with TWI." "In conclusion -- I've never denied the accusation of VP's plagiarism. It would be foolish of me to say he wasn't guilty when I've known the charge to be true." So, that's 2 for "vpw didn't plagiarize-the staff did", and 2 for "vpw plagiarized." In the same post, I might add. (This thread, one page back.) Clear and contradictory. Please break the tie. We haven't even gotten into that yet. We're still on whether or not vpw plagiarized. Apparently, someone suggested the staff did, not vpw.

Feh. Must have been pushed a LOT ahead.....

Hm. There's been some "breaking news", so this may have been pushed back for 10 minutes or so....

Sure hope it's 9:48 EASTERN TIME....that wasn't mentioned.... Her sister's in NYC, so that seems likely. And FoxNewsChannel.

9:48am is almost upon us, those of us near a tv set....

I think the one thing twi was any good at managing was anger. in twi, anger growth received unprecedented heights not seen outside twi in any Christian group. Many of these other angry preachers have to take a second place to the hateful, destructive, punishing speeches in twi, especially in private. Lately, however, I think that the outside world has surpassed twi again, and now twi can't even claim the best screamers and hatemongers. Entirely NEW hatemongers and screamers have risen outside their hallowed halls, surpassing twi's current crops of bile.

I think there's several words that might be applicable here: -Arrogance. The "we are better than anyone else and don't dare look at any other group unless it's to make fun of them because there will be side-effects of looking away from our truth" thing. -Hardness of heart. The "look how terrible those other Christians are having it because their leader messed up! Sure sucks to be them! I'm glad we're in here instead" thing. -Hypocrisy. The "we can freely criticize, condemn and openly mock any leader of any group that makes any mistake we are aware of, but dare to question any of our leaders, even those admitted to wrongdoing in a court of law, and we will punish you with social sanctions, verbally berate you and kick you out if you don't stop" thing. I'm sure there's more-those sprang to mind at the moment.

You didn't look very hard for the accounts before jumping to a conclusion. I mentioned one poster and one source in passing. Apparently, you didn't check EITHER. vp & me, lcm himself claimed that vpw objected to something in the manuscript of JCOP, and found out that a man who had left THE TEAM working on it was supposedly the source of the attitude. "He had been working extensively on it." Whether or not there was such an attitude, whether or not such attitude was the result of this man, it's evident vpw and lcm knew that the book was a GROUP EFFORT, not "an author and a staff of proofreaders." Knowing this, and comparing the early stuff-the SIALs- with JCOP and JCOPS, are you the only person who sees that the style of writing COMPLETELY DIFFERENT? When one person writes, they demonstrate a writing style. When a pair of writers write, they demonstrate a style. When the writers change, even secretly, those who WANT TO KNOW can read the books and see the style has changed. The writing style of the Orange Book was different from the writing style of the White Book, and both were entirely different from the style- and it was a consistent style- of JCOP and JCOPS. Completely different. Any objective observer would AT LEAST be suspicious that the same authors were not writing each of them (except the last 2 together.) Then they'd look further. You're not even ready to compare the styles, nor see if there's evidence others wrote them. Then you're willing to call someone who exposes the truth a GOSSIPER when they're exposing truth that's hidden. That's malicious. Accidental misrepresentation is understandable, and forgiveable. It's still misrepresentation, and intent doesn'tchange that. I DO wonder, given how eager you are to sweep the subject of plagiarism under the rug and absolve vpw of his commissions of same, just how "accidental" it is that your HONEST attempt to understand took a hard left turn. It may be you can't look at it WITHOUT the hard left turn. The Orange Book and White Book were plagiarized by vpw working by himself. I have no proof he had staff working with him when he plagiarized ADAN. It also adds nothing to the books he stole ADAN from, unlike JCOP and JCOPS, which add to their sources and properly document- like any REAL research book should. JCOP and JCOPS DOCUMENT THEIR SOURCES. The Orange Book, the White Book, and ADAN do not. In other words, JCOP and JCOPS were not "by victor paul wierwille", who slapped his name on the work of others. That's DISHONEST, and that's a SHAME, and that's DECEPTIVE, and treats all the REAL writing and editing staff SHAMELESSLY- which is immoral, and wrong to do, both for the staff, and for the reading audience. I am not aware that it is a CRIME, depending on if the staff consented to have their work taken from them and have vpw's name added to it. They may have all been so loyal that they were incapable of seeing the wrongness of vpw's action, and consented. That may have qualified the books to have been "ghost-written" in a legal sense- OR IT MAY NOT. I've never looked into that aspect. As for the truly plagiarized books, those were vpw, his xerox machine, and his tape and scissors. vpw was guilty of plagiarism. He took the works of others OUTSIDE OF TWI, and stole their work without citation, in unlimited amounts. That's plagiarism, and that's what he did. That's a FELONY, as well as deceptive, dishonest, and a shame. He could have gone to jail for that one and served hard time. So, were you aware that he stole the White Book, and the pfal class? Were you aware that virtually everything he claimed credit for, was taken directly from someone else, including much of Bullinger's work that he never mentioned? And when Bullinger DID come up, he claimed that Bullinger came to his conclusions SEPARATELY from vpw- that vpw studied, then saw Bullinger found the same answers, and not that he found the answers IN BULLINGER? He claimed his introduction to Bullinger was "he writes like you teach", and claimed Bullinger's books as corroboration for what he taught- which can only be true if it was not THE SOURCE of what he taught. If you knew he committed FELONIES, and DIDN'T MIND AT ALL that he committed FELONIES, DECEIVED everyone, and STOLE THE ROYALTIES due the holders of copyrights, and didn't care or don't care now- then say so outright- "Yes, I'm well aware that he misrepresented himself to everyone, claimed he wrote books written by others, taught classes taught by others, claimed they were all HIS WORK and not directly taken from the work of others, stole the royalties, stole the credit, and avoided doing his own work, even to putting his name on books written by a team of writers, and I still don't care." If you say that, then I can think that's morally wrong, but we certainly won't be disagreeing that vpw stole the work, stole the credit, made out that himself was some great one, and built up an image of himself that was the product of the quality work of others. vpw plagiarized. Do you say "I freely admit he plagiarized and I don't care?" That would be original. Everyone keeps trying to either say he didn't plagiarize or otherwise absolve the wrong or crime from his plagiarism, or says it was wrong when he did plagiarize. Falling-away from twi is really an issue if twi is not worth leaving in the first place. If it was built entirely on lies, and the backs of the rank-and-file who were cheated by the lies, most of us say it's a non-issue and it was WORTH LEAVING, and that twi FELL AWAY when it was founded on DECEPTION AND LIES. Are you admitting he himself personally plagiarized the White Book, the Orange Book, the pfal classes,and ADAN, at the very least? If so, please say so clearly. I'll be very surprised to see it. You'll certainly be the first. You looked like you were trying to DISprove it earlier, when you claimed that the writers of JCOP or JCOPS were guilty INSTEAD- therefore that vpw is INNOCENT. I can requote you if you want, and spell it out if you don't see it. However, if that is what you really mean to say "vpw plagiarized A LOT, and I don't care," please spell it out. (I for one have no intention of haranguing you on that if you do, although I reserve the right to discuss legality and rightness when it comes up.) As many of us have said- and the vpw apologists keep pretending we DIDN'T say, plagiarism has no bearing on the CONTENT of the plagiarized material, on the accuracy of what's presented. "Truth from the pen of a plagiarist is still truth." -Raf. An entirely separate issue is whether or not any of what he taught was truth. This particular thread/discussion is on plagiarism, not on doctrinal accuracy. There's been many threads on many things vpw, lcm and twi taught, and whether or not they measure up and are actually true, regardless of the source. There will be many more. This is not those threads. But we can point you to some of those threads if you want.

Like I said, there should be 2000 or less adults across the USA currently in twi. Some adults leave each year, with far fewer joining every year. Children raised in twi often leave as soon as they can. Those that DON'T are so mentally crippled that they are barely significant even IN twi. (In those families they didn't succeed into intimidating against having KIDS.) The young are smart enough to look up twi online when they hear of it- IF they hear of it. They see enough reason to run away. The old are slow to join strange religious movements. twi is losing membership numbers every year, experiencing "negative population growth". That means they can't keep their numbers the SAME-they lose more people than they gain. twi membership average ages go up and up...composed of fewer and fewer people who hang on because they're old and slow to LEAVE strange religious movements as well. New members? No. Old members? Sometimes they leave, sometimes they die off, sometimes they don't. Without replacing the numbers-and they haven't done THAT since the 1980s- they get smaller and smaller every year, and it is inevitable that they will shrink into nonexistence, and die out like the Shaker communities. (Although the Shaker communities were nice people.) Every year both groups get smaller and smaller, and eventually will die out entirely.

The main reason for a twi-er to criticize versions like "The Message" is that they are PARAPHRASES, thus they contain the opinion of the professional working on it, which can change the meaning of a verse. Guess what? The so-called "literals according to usage" are all PARAPHRASES, thus they contain the opinion of the person working on it- and usually they lacked the education the professionals outside of twi had. Were they as careful? If so, answer this.... Philippians 4:13, KJV. "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." Philippians 4:13, twi. "I am ready for anything and equal to anything through him who infuses inner strength into me." My question? WHY DOES CHRIST DROP OUT OF THE VERSE WHEN THE SO-CALLED "LITERAL" IS GIVEN? That's one criticism of of the so-called literals: When twi made their version of verses, Christ drops out of them. In short, you have it. Things in there were dropped, things not in there were added. Don't know what vpw did when people dared to question him, right? They were punished by verbal humiliation in public. If they didn't repent, they were thrown out, unless vpw was in a bad mood. If so, they were just thrown out. That's what lcm was taught, and that's why he did it as well. So long as you CHOOSE to exercise that which God gave you.

Wait, that sounded familiar. I may have seen this. "Law & Order?"

Here's how I see it. A figure of speech is not literally (and generally, obviously) not-true-to-fact. Mel literally had parents- a mother and father. I expect the Jews had no problem understanding that. However, priesthoods in Israel were by family line- one tribe-Levi- produced the direct servants of God. (IIRC, one was delegated to cover 12 because the 12 refused to cover the planet.) So, AFAIK, priests were specific Levites who were so delegated, generally from generation to generation. Remember, back then, professions were generally handed down, father to son, father to son, ad infinitum. In contrast, Mel didn't come from a long line-before and after him- of Levites, priests, rabbis, or otherwise servants in the temple or whatever. Mel just shows up, and then doesn't show up. Mel was mortal, and was born, had parents, lived, got older, served God, got old, and died-if one is speaking LITERALLY. If one is speaking FIGURATIVELY, he appears and vanishes. [WordWolf in boldface.]

"SOMETIMES?"

Two for about a week. Can we get some MORE quotes or go on to the next movie? At the current rate, unless someone cheats or someone arrives who recognizes either quote, we can spend the rest of the month accumulating 1/2 a dozen quotes.

Hey, Mark. Gonna hang out and play with the rest of us for a while? It's been too long.

I don't see why being a Trinitarian Christian or a non-Trinitarian Christian should make this any less clear. This has never been opaque as long as I've read this.

WordWolf replies in boldface. I'd like to take this opportunity to address an error concerning our liberty in Christ, and how badly-mangled the Bible's teaching on this was when we were learning. vpw said-right in pfal- that if you love God and you love your neighbor, "YOU CAN DO AS YOU FOOL WELL PLEASE." I submit that the point of this was to de-emphasize loving God and loving your neighbor, since that's the only way you can do what vpw REALLY wanted to teach, "YOU CAN DO AS YOU FOOL WELL PLEASE." Let's see what Jesus said on the subject, shall we? KJV. Luke 10:25-27. "25And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself." Here we see the first part of what we said-"love God, and love your neighbor as yourself." Now let's see the SECOND part-when Jesus gives an example of what that means. Luke 10:28-37. "28And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. 29But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? 30And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. 33But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, 34And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. 36Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? 37And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise." Jesus gave an example of loving your neighbor-funny how he specified it was about NEIGHBOR, and not LOVE. The priest and the Levite in Jesus' example, I suspect, offered a prayer for the man who was beaten and robbed. They offered the standard twi level of compassion. "Give them The Word, pray for them, but if they have a physical need, tell them to suck it up and make sure they attend pfal on time." Then the priest and Levite proceeded to "do as they full well pleased." The Samaritan-a fellow of questionable religious knowledge (unlike the priest and Levite)- was the example Jesus used- a man who didn't consider the personal cost to himself (although he obviously could afford what he did without impoverishing himself) but instead took compassionate ACTION to him. He spent his own TIME and his own MONEY, and had no expectation of receiving any favours in return. Jesus at no point advocated "doing as you fool well please", unlike vpw. ======= Ok, let's suppose we can blow off Jesus' words, like we learned in twi, and only focus on the Epistles. "They're addressed to us! We can follow THEM and blow off the 'previous administration'!" In Romans 14, we see specifics "that have your name on them", as vpw said. Romans 14:13-21. "13Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. 14I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. 16Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 17For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. 19Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 21It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." We have liberty in Christ, but if we think "do as you fool well please" is what it means, we don't UNDERSTAND the liberty we have in Christ. If our freedom allows us to put a stumblingblock in front of a brother in Christ, we are not to use that freedom. A free Christian is FREER TO DO GOOD, but NOT FREER TO DO EVIL, or to do that which God says not to do. A Christian CAN do these things, but a Christian IS NOT to do these things. Out of love, he voluntarily limits his freedom. Is this bondage? Is this legalism? Is this being "a wimpy Christian who lives by the law?" NO. This is doing what God said to do. Even our liberty to eat foods offered to idols has limitations. I Corinthians 8:1-13. 1Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. 2And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. 3But if any man love God, the same is known of him. 4As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 7Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. 9But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend." So, out of love for God and brethren, we are to use our freedom to FREELY CHOOSE to limit our actions, to help our brethren. So, can we at least make fun of "wimpy Christians", and turn aside? If we have to limit ourselves, can we just leave them alone after that? After all, someone once claimed "Weakness always brings down strength." Sadly for the "macho" Christian, NO. Romans 15:1-3. "1We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. 3For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me." One may contrast that with the explanation of what to do when our brethren are offended back in pfal. vpw himself spoke to the effect of DISREGARDING those offended. After all, he said, if one person didn't like my tie, another might not like my vest, and at that rate, "pretty soon we'd get down to bare facts." It sounds soooo CLEVER, but if I had to choose between SOUNDING CLEVER and SPEAKING GOD'S WORD, I shall continue to be clumsy and awkward, and speak the words of God.

That would have been an issue if the word "homologeo" appeared in that passage. I was speaking of the difference between the CONCEPTS.

Please clarify how Melchisidec figures into "the doctrine of the Trinity." I really don't THINK you're claiming the King of Salem was Jesus himself, or any part of God in any traditional Trinity sense. Please correct my understanding if you ARE claiming that. A cursory glance can make it look like that's exactly what you're suggesting.

It's been about a week. Can we either get MORE quotes or move this along?