WordWolf

But numbers are a direct indicator of that denistry thing you have a fascination with- the "impact". The more members, the more "impact" a group is said to have. Which, of course, means the Watchtower Society ALWAYS had much more "impact" than vpw and his group ever did. So have the Roman Catholics. That's your OWN point you just refuted. Thanks kindly. "Needling: simply attempting to make the other person angry, without trying to address the argument at hand. Sometimes this is a delaying tactic. Needling is also Ad Hominem if you insult your opponent. You may instead insult something the other person believes in ("Argumentum Ad YourMomium"), interrupt, clown to show disrespect, be noisy, fail to pass over the microphone, and numerous other tricks." He was trying to make a much simpler point, not about innovations based on previous inventions, but about a lying claim to have been the originator of an invention that exists solely through the hard work of someone else. (Or even something simpler, like, say, a special type of baseball pitch like a sinker, screwball or slider, or, say, basketball's 'hook shot'.) The documentation WAS what addressed the question directly, but sometimes an analogy can help when someone has difficulty seeing something directly. (Presuming, of course, they're TRYING to see it.)

Hm, the term "heavily involved" is in quotes despite being a term Allan made up and not from Belle's post at all. It's also a misrepresentation of what she said. She said she had a lot of experience with revivals. Much time, and much experience and much memory, does not necessarily equal much INVOLVEMENT. That suggests she was staffing them. Allan also makes the incredibly large leap that, supposedly, Belle was an active member of a Southern Baptist church and went immediately to twi. (That's what it would mean to "jump ship" from that church into twi, which is what he was saying.) With no proof of that, the idea that vpw "impacted" Belle (or her teeth, for that matter) is an unsupported assumption based on a guess of Allan's. Further, even IF all those leaps and assumptions were true (which would surprise me), saying that ONE person converted from something to something else says nothing about the accuracy or content of what they're converting FROM or what they're converting TO. Need proof? Every day, there are Christians who convert to Judaism or Islam, Muslims who convert to Christianity, Jews who convert to Christianity, Christians, Muslims AND Jews who convert to paganism, Christians who become atheist, and people who join groups like David Koresh's Branch Davidians and "Do"'s "Heaven's Gate" group. To say that ONE person joining twi means that there's an "impact" on mainstream Christianity is as accurate as saying that atheism is having "an impact" on mainstream Christianity, and paganism is having "an impact" on mainstream Christianity, and the Branch Davidians had "an impact" on mainstream Christianity. None of those is supported, and none is a guarantee ANY of them is correct or has something of SUBSTANCE to offer. (If they do, it's not because of this weak 'argument'.)

"Ad Hominem attacks." "One of the most common non-rational appeals is an argumentum ad hominem--or, as the Latin phrase suggests, an "argument against the person" (and not against the ideas he or she is presenting). Our decisions should be based on a rational evaluation of the arguments with which we are presented, not on an emotional reaction to the person or persons making that argument. But because we often react more strongly to personalities than to the sometimes abstract and complex arguments they are making, ad hominem appeals are often very effective with someone who is not thinking critically." "Ad hominem fallacies take a number of different forms, though all share the fact that they attempt to re-focus attention, away from the argument made and onto the person making it. And remember--it doesn't really matter whether the terms of the attack are true or false. What matters is whether the argument is acceptable, not the person arguing it. After all, even if Adolf Hitler says so, 2 + 2 still equals 4." Whenever we see these around here, it's usually a reliable indicator that someone was unable to refute some glaring truth, and was desperate to draw attention from it. In this case, it was the great details of how vpw "photocopied" Leonard's class and claimed it was entirely his own, AND lied to Leonard, and vpw "photocopied" Stiles' book and claimed it was entirely his own, While still claiming that God taught him and not man, and it was truths unknown for 2000 years. (Despite them being both KNOWN and available to the PUBLIC at the time.

Welcome back, HCW. Sorry, but I can't agree with you there. Few of us say EVERYTHING was wrong. (There's always a "minority opinion" for every position...) I'd agree what vpw did, and what he taught his inner circle to do, are things I (and most Americans) would classify as immoral, wrong, and illegal. Many would also call that "evil." That's independent of the fact that there were some good things mixed AMONGST them. Most of us would say, for example, "Go to pulpit, and preach Acts 2, good thing. Leave pulpit and drug young female and rape her, bad thing." Neither precisely negates the other as an action, but an inconsistent standard means the "leader" is not walking with God. One cannot serve God part-time and mammon part-time. (Jesus is about as authoritative a figure as one can quote on such a subject.) Many people had most of their interactions with Heefn3r, D00p, and Christians like them. Those were good times, and godly ones, for the most part. (Or at least not ungodly at the worst of times.) Actually, a number of people who dealt face-to-face with vpw reported the same types ofdealings later complained about if lcm did them. I'm thankful to God that what vpw did or did not do was not part of your day-to-day. I'm confident that was a blessing from God to you. You were free to do your utmost for Him, which you did. Not everyone who was on-grounds, however, can make such claims. (Especially the young women.) It seems to me that vpw was "good" to some people- he left you alone mostly and could seem even affectionate at times- and "evil" to some people- especially young, impressionable women. For the most part, those who HAD to deal with him the most tend to have the harshest memories of him. (Like Mrs W admitting he was "a mean man". Like HA AND CG supposedly insulating others from outbursts and rampages on his part.) Granted, while you worked your heart out in one building, what vpw did some of the time in ANOTHER building to a few women wasn't affecting your day. True, he didn't ruin MOST of the lives of the followers, even the women. Also true, you probably had no way of knowing, nor even a hint to SUSPECT anything. Did that make it dismissable, or acceptable? Did that have no effect on the spiritual environment on grounds? Even the "victimless" crimes, where vpw killed himself slowly with alcohol and tobacco, did those have no effect on the spiritual climate?

Give us one more shot, if you can add something a bit more obvious. Any chance it's "Space:Above and Beyond"? I know they called those aliens "chigs" normally, but they WERE bugs.

It was right. A number of fans really like it. (Me, it didn't strike as "Star Trek"...) Picard lives the lifetime of another man in 20 minutes. His "wife" kept telling him to put away his shoes, and I quoted her last words. It was a subtle reminder he was walking in another man's shoes. Patrick Stewart played Picard and Kamin in this episode. Daniel Stewart played Kamin's son (Batai) in this episode, which is pretty appropriate. I liked more the rare moments in other episodes that reflected this one, like when he told this story to someone, or when we saw him playing the Ressikan flute by himself. (A very-happy fan bought that flute at auction for $48,000.) So, it's hiway29's turn!

WordWolf: "vpw's original class was NOT original. It was BG Leonard's class with vpw's name on it. vpw took BG Leonard's class (June 28-July 15, 1953.) October 1953, vpw told BG Leonard he wanted to teach Leonard's class locally on a one-time basis. LEONARD's class, as he told Leonard. Leonard agreed. vpw ran the class, and sent Leonard a photograph of Leonard's class, which sits in Leonard's photo album to this very day. What vpw told the STUDENTS was that this was vpw's class on "RECEIVING THE HOLY SPIRIT TODAY". (Later changed to pfal.) NO mention of Leonard or Leonard's class. Even if it's not obvious to you that there would be no time to completely change Leonard's class, the testimony of those who had sat thru Leonard's class and THEN vpw's class might mean something. vpw counted those who had taken Leonard's class in the June 28-July 15 class as ALREADY GRADS of the "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" class. Therefore, vpw, by several measures, called them the same class with 2 different names. Therefore, vpw did not "put it together." He put his own name on Leonard's class." ========== WhatTheHey: "1. I don't believe you (except perhaps a STUDENT of that first 1953 class) can say with authority exactly what VPW taught on Receiving the Holy Spirit in that class. Even then, I would have plenty of reason to doubt what one of those students said. Why? Because if any of those students of that first class are still around today they would be older than I - likely in their 60's or perhaps their 70's by now. By the time a person gets that age it's doubtful one recalls with any clarity what happened in their teen's or 20's. If you contacted any of those students who first took the first PFAL class in 1953, then you're ahead of me there. But I wouldn't trust a 60 or 70 year olds recollection of what was taught in a bible class when they were a teenager (or perhaps slightly older) they took in 1953. VPW readily admits that B.G. Leonard taught him about healing and other aspects of the Holy Spirit field. He also admits it was George M. Lamsa that introduced him to Aramaic, the language of the original texts and that it was J.E. Stiles a pastor that led him into SIT. There is no "mystery" there on any of those things. 2. The PFAL class didn't become the focus of TWI's outreach until 1956. It was in Van Wert where VPW published the first edition of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today. He also wrote numerous booklets, pamphlets and monographs which during those years laid the groundwork for over 400 magazine and newspaper aticles and eleven major Biblical research works. It wouldn't surprise me if many things changed from what was originally taught in that first class up until the PFAL class being TWI's focus of outreach in 1956." ============= WordWolf replies now: One constant I can always count on is finding errors in logic or factual errors in WTH's posts. One can almost look forward to it. WTH's personal idea of what twi history is like seems unable to accomodate what actually happened and was reported reliably. First of all, the exact dates of the classes that vpw took under BG Leonard can be found in Leonard's records AND twi's records. They were reported back in 1971, and printed in "the Way:Living in Love", which is much earlier than WTH imagines the reports were done. The EXACT dates were reported in Mrs W's book later. The dates were EXACT because the writer used twi's records to get the EXACT dates. ("Born Again to Serve.") That vpw's class was first run a few months after Leonard's class is documented in both books. That vpw told Leonard it was Leonard's class and only one-time, is in Leonard's records. One of our posters heard Leonard explain it, and saw the photo. (Leonard's mistake was ever trusting vpw.) That the class vpw taught was told this was vpw's class-and not Leonard's class, I would think is self-evident-- vpw went out of his way to keep from mentioning Leonard and Stiles when it was natural (and legally-required) to have done so. Leonard's name NEVER appeared in those classes. That's why nobody rather obviously ever sought out Leonard in those early days. Further, Leonard later found out that vpw was running Leonard's class and never crediting Leonard, which defrauded the students AND Leonard. That's why Leonard added elaborate copyright notices to his books- he encountered ONE felonious Christian who stole his work and taught it in an inferior fashion, and used it as both his marketed product AND his indoctrination tool. In short, everybody's documentation all agrees- vpw never mentioned Leonard's name to that class. Mrs W went out of her way to not lie in her account, yet not say anything bad about vpw. She's the ONLY one in twi history who ever gave Leonard anything approaching proper credit- and she never mentioned word one about Leonard getting even a passing reference in "vpw's class." Finally, vpw HIMSELF considered all the people who took Leonard's class to AUTOMATICALLY be grads of the vpw class. Therefore, vpw HIMSELF acknowledged, albeit indirectly- that the material was identical. That it had little choice BUT to be identical is obvious from the timeframe. vpw barely had time to crash-course on Leonard's class and keep rereading Leonard's books, before his own class ran. (Three months to START preparing material for a class is a joke. It takes weeks to prepare the material for even a single session. He had NO TIME to originate ANYTHING.) Therefore, those closest to him never had to take his class "for the first time", since they went to Leonard's class. (That's 3 carloads of people, BTW.) Those people you're accusing of making that up are those who were closest to him, and you're claiming Mrs W lied AND that twi's records were consulted and lies deliberately placed in her book. Or, maybe all of that was true, and Mrs W didn't lie, and their records didn't lie, and her book didn't lie. Of course, that means what WTH WANTS to believe isn't true. For WTH, that's sufficient reason to refuse to consider that possibility. (Old news.) ============= What else appeared in WTH's version of history? Oh, yes... "VPW readily admits that B.G. Leonard taught him about healing and other aspects of the Holy Spirit field. He also admits it was George M. Lamsa that introduced him to Aramaic, the language of the original texts and that it was J.E. Stiles a pastor that led him into SIT. There is no "mystery" there on any of those things." ============ What did vpw himself say about BG Leonard? " But he worked from personal experiences. I worked what he taught from the accuracy of the Scriptures." As to "readily admits", you have to dig deep into TW:LiL to even FIND Leonard's name. You NEVER hear it mentioned in the taped classes, NEVER in the books. As to Aramaic being "the language of the original texts", you really need to get some education. There's a possible case for some of the Gospels being first in Aramaic. As for the Epistles, there's NO evidence for them originating in a language other than Greek. As to Stiles, vpw went out of his way to delete his name and even references to him. His name is buried in "TW:LiL". vpw intentionally took the entire contents of Stiles' book and reprinted it under his own name. In the first 2 editions, he mentions that an anonymous Christian taught him (Stiles) this material, but never mentions Stiles by name. From the 3rd edition on, even this much is removed. That is what some people would call a "mystery"- a shadowed figure teaches him, and all records of him vanish. As to Leonard having taught the original foundational class, his name appears nowhere IN the class, not even in a single footnote in the Orange Book. =============== What else did WTH imagine? "The PFAL class didn't become the focus of TWI's outreach until 1956. It was in Van Wert where VPW published the first edition of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today. He also wrote numerous booklets, pamphlets and monographs which during those years laid the groundwork for over 400 magazine and newspaper aticles and eleven major Biblical research works. It wouldn't surprise me if many things changed from what was originally taught in that first class up until the PFAL class being TWI's focus of outreach in 1956." Actually, pfal was the focus from 1953 on. As vpw gets more practice with it, he makes it more important. He had a class-Leonard's, and a textbook- Stiles', and now he marketed his 'product'. As for what else he "wrote", lots of it's been shown to have been lifted from other Christians like Kenyon, and some of THAT was incorporated into the collaterals. Most of what he worked on then was incorporated into the collaterals, which meant they were sold to the grads. pfal became a marketed product, and so did its "accessories". This thing of him studying diligently and independently producing a stack of monographs makes for a pretty fiction, but fails to match the history. The only reason he didn't teach pfal back-to-back in 1954, 1955, was that he had no DEMAND to do so. Why would he run a class with ONE STUDENT? He wanted to teach to a FULL ROOM. It wasn't until he hijacked the hippies that he started having full rooms after the first class. I know, WTH doesn't want to see it that way, even if the pfal histories THEMSELVES agree with this. It's not my job, neither is it within my power, to get him to see things as they ARE or WERE rather than how he wishes to see them. Perhaps he will voluntarily look at the evidence and make some changes. I can lay it out, and the "arguments", and the rest is up to him. (And God.)

I thought it was a good time to discuss narcissism again and how it reminds so many of us of the higher-ups of twi. I thought this layman's comments were very interesting. (Italics mine.) ================== http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/howto.html "It's impossible to overemphasize the importance of narcissists' lack of empathy. It colors everything about them. I have observed very closely some narcissists I've loved, and their inability to pay attention when someone else is talking is so striking that it has often seemed to me that they have neurological problems that affect their cognitive functioning. These are educated people with high IQs, who've had ordinary middle-class backgrounds and schooling, and their thinking is not only illogical but weird: with narcissists, you have to know them pretty well to understand their behavior. For instance, they always fill in their gaps (which make up just about the entirety of their visible life) with bits of behavior, ideas, tastes, opinions, etc., borrowed from someone else whom they regard as an authority. Their authoritative sources, as far as I know, are always people they've actually known, not something from a book, for instance, and narcissists' opinions may actually come from someone you know, too, but who is not to you obviously an authority on the matter at hand, so narcissists can seem totally arbitrary, virtually random in their motivations and reasoning. They are evidently transfixed by a static fantasy image of themselves, like Narcissus gazing at his reflection, and this produces an odd kind of stillness and passivity. Because their inner life is so restricted and essentially dead, it doesn't contain images of how to live a full life -- these things are not important to them, they expect others to look after day-to-day chores, they resent wasting their specialness on common things, they don't put their heart into their work (though they'll tell you how many hours they put into it), they borrow their opinions and preferences and tastes from whomever strikes them as authoritative at the moment." "There are different theories of how narcissists are made. Some psychologists trace NPD to early infantile neglect or abuse, and some blame over-indulgence and indiscriminate praise by parents who don't set limits on what's acceptable from their children. Others say that NPD shows up in adolescence. Some say narcissists tend to peak around middle age and then mellow out. Others say that narcissists stay pretty much the same except they tend to depression as they get older and their grandiose fantasies are not supported, plus they're not as good-looking as they used to be. The narcissists I've known have apparently always been "that way" and they get worse as they get older, with dramatic regression of their personas after the deaths of their parents and other personal authority figures who have previously exerted some control over the narcissists' bad behavior. And, yes, chronic depression gets to be obvious at least by their forties but may have always been present. Depressed narcissists blame the world, of course, and not themselves for their personal disappointments. Essentially, narcissists are unable or unwilling to trust either the world or other people to meet their needs. Perhaps they were born to parents unable to connect emotionally and, thus, as infants learned not to let another person be essential to them in any way. Perhaps NPD starts later, when intrusive or abusive parents make it dangerous for the child to accept other people's opinions and valuations. Maybe it comes from a childhood environment of being treated like royalty or little gods. Whatever the case, narcissists have made the terrible choice not to love. In their imaginations, they are complete unto themselves, perfect and not in need of anything anyone else can give them. (NB: Narcissists do not count their real lives -- i.e., what they do every day and the people they do it with -- as worth anything.) Their lives are impoverished and sterile; the price they pay for their golden fantasies is high: they'll never share a dream for two." "Adult narcissists can be as demanding of your time and energy as little babies but without the gratification of their growing or learning anything from what they suck from you. Babies love you back, but adult narcissists are like vampires: they will take all you can give while giving nothing back, then curse you for running dry and discard you as a waste of their precious time." " It is also essential that you keep emotional distance from narcissists. They're pretty good at maintaining a conventional persona in superficial associations with people who mean absolutely nothing to them, and they'll flatter the hell out of you if you have something they can use or if, for some reason, they perceive you as an authority figure. That is, as long as they think you don't count or they're afraid of you, they'll treat you well enough that you may mistake it for love. But, as soon as you try to get close to them, they'll say that you are too demanding -- and, if you ever say "I love you," they'll presume that you belong to them as a possession or an appendage, and treat you very very badly right away. The abrupt change from decent treatment to outright abuse is very shocking and bewildering, and it's so contrary to normal experience that I was plenty old before I realized that it was actually my expression of affection that triggered the narcissists' nasty reactions. Once they know you are emotionally attached to them, they expect to be able to use you like an appliance and shove you around like a piece of furniture. If you object, then they'll say that obviously you don't really love them or else you'd let them do whatever they want with you. If you should be so uppity as to express a mind and heart of your own, then they will cut you off -- just like that, sometimes trashing you and all your friends on the way out the door." "If people you work with are narcissists, you will be wise to keep an eye on them, if just for your own protection, because they don't think very well, no matter what their IQs, they feel that the rules (of anything) don't apply to them, and they will always cut corners and cheat wherever they think they can get away with it, not to mention alienating co-workers, clients, and customers by their arrogance, lies, malice, and off-the-wall griping. Narcissists are threatened and enraged by trivial disagreements, mistakes, and misunderstandings, plus they have evil mouths and will say ANYTHING, so if you continue to live or work with narcissists, expect to have to clean up after them, expect to lose friends over them, expect big trouble sooner or later." "Narcissists lack a mature conscience and seem to be restrained only by fear of being punished or of damaging their reputations -- though, again, this can be obscure to casual observation if you don't know what they think their reputations are, and what they believe others think of them may be way out of touch with reality [see remarks on John Cheever elsewhere on this page]. Their moral intelligence is about at the level of a bright five- or six-year-old; the only rules they recognize are things that have been specifically required, permitted, prohibited, or disapproved of by authority figures they know personally. Anyhow, narcissists can't be counted on not to do something just because it's wrong, illegal, or will hurt someone, as long as they think that they can get away with it or that you can't stop them or punish them (i.e., they don't care what you think unless they're afraid of you). " "Narcissists are generally contemptuous of others. This seems to spring, at base, from their general lack of empathy, and it comes out as (at best) a dismissive attitude towards other people's feelings, wishes, needs, concerns, standards, property, work, etc. It is also connected to their overall negative outlook on life. " "Narcissists are (a) extremely sensitive to personal criticism and (b) extremely critical of other people. They think that they must be seen as perfect or superior or infallible, next to god-like (if not actually divine, then sitting on the right hand of God) -- or else they are worthless. There's no middle ground of ordinary normal humanity for narcissists. They can't tolerate the least disagreement. In fact, if you say, "Please don't do that again -- it hurts," narcissists will turn around and do it again harder to prove that they were right the first time; their reasoning seems to be something like "I am a good person and can do no wrong; therefore, I didn't hurt you and you are lying about it now..." -- sorry, folks, I get lost after that. Anyhow, narcissists are habitually cruel in little ways, as well as big ones, because they're paying attention to their fantasy and not to you, but the bruises on you are REAL, not in your imagination. Thus, no matter how gently you suggest that they might do better to change their ways or get some help, they will react in one of two equally horrible ways: they will attack or they will withdraw. Be wary of wandering into this dragon's cave -- narcissists will say ANYTHING, they will trash anyone in their own self-justification, and then they will expect the immediate restoration of the status quo. They will attack you (sometimes physically) and spew a load of bile, insult, abuse, contempt, threats, etc., and then -- well, it's kind of like they had indigestion and the vicious tirade worked like a burp: "There. Now I feel better. Where were we?" They feel better, so they expect you to feel better, too. They will say you are nothing, worthless, and turn around immediately and say that they love you. When you object to this kind of treatment, they will say, "You just have to accept me the way I am. (God made me this way, so God loves me even if you are too stupid to understand how special I am.)" Accepting them as they are (and staying away from them entirely) is excellent advice. The other "punishment" narcissists mete out is banishing you from their glorious presence -- this can turn into a farce, since by this point you are probably praying to be rescued, "Dear God! How do I get out of this?" The narcissist expects that you will be devastated by the withdrawal of her/his divine attention, so that after a while -- a few weeks or months (i.e., the next time the narcissist needs to use you for something) -- the narcissist will expect you to have learned your lesson and be eager to return to the fold. If you have learned your lesson, you won't answer that call. They can't see that they have a problem; it's always somebody else who has the problem and needs to change. Therapies work at all only when the individual wants to change and, though narcissists hate their real selves, they don't want to change -- they want the world to change. And they criticize, gripe, and complain about almost everything and almost everyone almost all the time. There are usually a favored few whom narcissists regard as absolutely above reproach, even for egregious misconduct or actual crime, and about whom they won't brook the slightest criticism. These are people the narcissists are terrified of, though they'll tell you that what they feel is love and respect; apparently they don't know the difference between fear and love. Narcissists just get worse and worse as they grow older; their parents and other authority figures that they've feared die off, and there's less and less outside influence to keep them in check. " "As Freud said of narcissists, these people act like they're in love with themselves. And they are in love with an ideal image of themselves -- or they want you to be in love with their pretend self, it's hard to tell just what's going on. Like anyone in love, their attention and energy are drawn to the beloved and away from everyday practicalities. Narcissists' fantasies are static -- they've fallen in love with an image in a mirror or, more accurately, in a pool of water, so that movement causes the image to dissolve into ripples; to see the adored reflection they must remain perfectly still. Narcissists' fantasies are tableaux or scenes, stage sets; narcissists are hung up on a particular picture that they think reflects their true selves (as opposed to the real self -- warts and all). Narcissists don't see themselves doing anything except being adored, and they don't see anyone else doing anything except adoring them. Moreover, they don't see these images as potentials that they may some day be able to live out, if they get lucky or everything goes right: they see these pictures as the real way they want to be seen." "Narcissists I've known also have odd religious ideas, in particular believing that they are God's special favorites somehow; God loves them, so they are exempted from ordinary rules and obligations: God loves them and wants them to be the way they are, so they can do anything they feel like -- though, note, the narcissist's God has much harsher rules for everyone else, including you." "Narcissists feel entitled to whatever they can take. They expect privileges and indulgences, and they also feel entitled to exploit other people without any trace of reciprocation." "Some narcissists spend extravagantly in order to impress people, keep up grandiose pretentions, or buy favorable treatment, and some narcissists overspend, bankrupt themselves, and lose everything. My personal experience is that narcissists are stingy, mean, frugal, niggardly to the point of eccentricity. This is a person who won't spend $1.50 on a greeting card but will instead send you an advertising flyer that came with the newspaper." ================== Does any of this sound familiar to any of you?

Actually, what I asked was if HE gets a free pass DESPITE evil acts because he's done so much good, in your opinion. I believe you've meant to say an unquestionable "no" this time, so I'll take it as such. You've introduced a new Allan-specific expression. What is a "tiddlywinks Christian" supposed to mean? I'd guess it's some kind of insult, based primarily on a blanket accusation of some Christians who hold a position the speaker disagrees with, but rather than guess, I'd prefer you explain it in plain English.

Well, this part was correct. This seemingly petty quote will make a little sense once you know the episode. I didn't just pick an obscure line. Somewhere, there's an obsessed fan who could have id'ed it just from this first quote.

Gee, all the revivals I've ever heard about always had local people to connect to RIGHT THERE onsite AND doing followups. Guess NZ revivals aren't as well-organized. Or was that a guess on your part? Does he get excused for committing evil acts BECAUSE he taught some good stuff,and, in your opinion, did some good stuff? Some say 'yes', some say 'no'. What saith Allan? An article in any magazine (except possibly a cover-story in "Christianity Today") is NO guarantee that mainstream Christianity has even HEARD of you, even as a footnote. And the article may make you sound even worse. Case in point.... ====================== ====================== ====================== Time magazine article here Sep 6th 1971 ================ Fellow Traveling with Jesus Posted Monday, Sep. 6, 1971 The Jesus Revolution (TIME, June 23) includes preachers of hellfire and promoters of love, fundamentalist Christians, mainstream Protestants, and even some Roman Catholics. Most, however, at least share a common belief in the basic tenets of Christianity: the triune nature of God, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Gospels as the cornerstone of faith. But some so-called Jesus freaks really subscribe to exotic creeds all their own that to orthodox Christians are close to what used to be called heresy. And not only to traditional churchmen: even many inside the movement look suspiciously on these fellow travelers with Jesus as distorters of the true Gospel. Two such eccentric groups are The Way and The Process: ------------- The Way Externally, The Way looks like any other branch of the Jesus movement: its adherents are mostly bright-eyed, smiling teenagers, ecstatically exchanging "Bless yous," telling of drug cures, perpetually thumbing their Bibles. There is also the ubiquitous music drumming across Gospel messages, sometimes to the beat of hard rock. In mid-August, more than a thousand young followers descended on The Way Biblical Research Center in New Knoxville, Ohio (pop. 850), for a weekend of spiritual study almost continuously backgrounded by rock. Musical groups of Way believers with names like The Dove, Cookin' Mama, and one from Long Island called Pressed Down, Shaken Together & Running Over, belted out the sounds. But it is The Way's message, not its music, that is offbeat. That message is preached by the movement's founder, Victor Paul Wierwille, 54, a trim, tanned, fast-talking six-footer who likes to wear Western-cut suits with a scarf around his neck and tool around the countryside on a big Harley-Davidson. A former minister of the United Church of Christ who has studied both at the University of Chicago Divinity School and Princeton Theological Seminary, Wierwille is now a crackerbarrel theological promoter who grandiosely claims to have done the only "pure and correct" interpretation of the Bible since the First Century. He has been working on his theology for about 25 years, ever since he shucked his academic background by burning more than 1,000 religious books "to clean myself out" before starting his own research. Wierwille argues that the Bible as a whole is not relevant to all people of all times. Every word of Scripture is equally inspired by God, he says, but different books were addressed to different audiences. The Old Testament and the Four Gospels are for the Jews and Gentiles; the rest of the New Testament is for the "Church of God" of "born-again believers." But Wierwille and his Wayfarers concentrate mainly on the nine Epistles of St. Paul to the early churches, especially the letter to the Ephesians, which, he insists, distills nearly everything important in the Word of God. Wierwille dismisses the doctrine of the Trinity as a throwback to paganism, because it proposes, he says, "three Gods." To him, Jesus is "the Son of God," but not God the Son. "You show me one place in the Bible where it says he is God," Wierwille thunders. "I don't want your rapping, your doubletalk, your tripletalk; all I want is Scripture." And the Holy Spirit, says Wierwille, is just a synonym for God. Wierwille's theology is propounded in pamphlets, a magazine, and books, but mainly in a filmed and taped "foundation course," into which he has unloaded 36 hours of rambling, folksy lectures on the Bible. The title of the course—which costs $65 per head: "Power for Abundant Living." Carrying Norman Vincent Peale's pious optimism a good bit further, Wierwille promises that right "believing" will keep away sickness, ensure prosperity, and even protect soldier converts from Viet Cong bullets. Poverty is seen as a result of imperfect faith: the Good Life is a proper reward for believers. Most of Wierwille's converts come from just that Good Life: comfortable middle-or upper-class families in predominantly white suburbs. Sometimes parents have followed their youngsters into the fold. Although Wierwille founded his research center in 1953, the movement around it has started to grow only in the past few years. He keeps no records and gives only the vaguest estimate of the number of his followers—"5,000, maybe 10,000," in "most" states and "nine, twelve, 15 countries." There is a vigorous chapter in Wichita, Kans., and strong groups in Rye, N.Y., and in Mill Valley, Calif.—which are called The Way East and The Way West. All conduct meetings where they listen to Wierwille's recorded words and offer extemporaneous prayers. Attendance is also good at the sermons that Wierwille delivers in person at New Knoxville. His brother Harry, 64, the treasurer of the center, claims that Sunday services take in as much as $10,000 a night. The money, say the Wierwilles, is being used for a $3,000,000 building program to expand The Way still further. ============= Does this sound like a man "impacting" mainstream Christianity? It might-if the word "impacting" means "a tooth that never reaches its proper position", and he's a tooth. Then he never reached his proper postion in mainstream Christianity. What he SOUNDS like here is a crank that has somewhere under 10,000 followers. Jim Jones had similar numbers. Actually, Jim Jones has had more of an impact. People have HEARD of Jim Jones.

Thanks kindly. It's been a few years since I last read this. I miss the accompanying pic-of vpw on a tourbike- but this is just fine. ================ Fellow Traveling with Jesus Posted Monday, Sep. 6, 1971 The Jesus Revolution (TIME, June 23) includes preachers of hellfire and promoters of love, fundamentalist Christians, mainstream Protestants, and even some Roman Catholics. Most, however, at least share a common belief in the basic tenets of Christianity: the triune nature of God, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Gospels as the cornerstone of faith. But some so-called Jesus freaks really subscribe to exotic creeds all their own that to orthodox Christians are close to what used to be called heresy. And not only to traditional churchmen: even many inside the movement look suspiciously on these fellow travelers with Jesus as distorters of the true Gospel. Two such eccentric groups are The Way and The Process: The Way Externally, The Way looks like any other branch of the Jesus movement: its adherents are mostly bright-eyed, smiling teenagers, ecstatically exchanging "Bless yous," telling of drug cures, perpetually thumbing their Bibles. There is also the ubiquitous music drumming across Gospel messages, sometimes to the beat of hard rock. In mid-August, more than a thousand young followers descended on The Way Biblical Research Center in New Knoxville, Ohio (pop. 850), for a weekend of spiritual study almost continuously backgrounded by rock. Musical groups of Way believers with names like The Dove, Cookin' Mama, and one from Long Island called Pressed Down, Shaken Together & Running Over, belted out the sounds. But it is The Way's message, not its music, that is offbeat. That message is preached by the movement's founder, Victor Paul Wierwille, 54, a trim, tanned, fast-talking six-footer who likes to wear Western-cut suits with a scarf around his neck and tool around the countryside on a big Harley-Davidson. A former minister of the United Church of Christ who has studied both at the University of Chicago Divinity School and Princeton Theological Seminary, Wierwille is now a crackerbarrel theological promoter who grandiosely claims to have done the only "pure and correct" interpretation of the Bible since the First Century. He has been working on his theology for about 25 years, ever since he shucked his academic background by burning more than 1,000 religious books "to clean myself out" before starting his own research. Wierwille argues that the Bible as a whole is not relevant to all people of all times. Every word of Scripture is equally inspired by God, he says, but different books were addressed to different audiences. The Old Testament and the Four Gospels are for the Jews and Gentiles; the rest of the New Testament is for the "Church of God" of "born-again believers." But Wierwille and his Wayfarers concentrate mainly on the nine Epistles of St. Paul to the early churches, especially the letter to the Ephesians, which, he insists, distills nearly everything important in the Word of God. Wierwille dismisses the doctrine of the Trinity as a throwback to paganism, because it proposes, he says, "three Gods." To him, Jesus is "the Son of God," but not God the Son. "You show me one place in the Bible where it says he is God," Wierwille thunders. "I don't want your rapping, your doubletalk, your tripletalk; all I want is Scripture." And the Holy Spirit, says Wierwille, is just a synonym for God. Wierwille's theology is propounded in pamphlets, a magazine, and books, but mainly in a filmed and taped "foundation course," into which he has unloaded 36 hours of rambling, folksy lectures on the Bible. The title of the course—which costs $65 per head: "Power for Abundant Living." Carrying Norman Vincent Peale's pious optimism a good bit further, Wierwille promises that right "believing" will keep away sickness, ensure prosperity, and even protect soldier converts from Viet Cong bullets. Poverty is seen as a result of imperfect faith: the Good Life is a proper reward for believers. Most of Wierwille's converts come from just that Good Life: comfortable middle-or upper-class families in predominantly white suburbs. Sometimes parents have followed their youngsters into the fold. Although Wierwille founded his research center in 1953, the movement around it has started to grow only in the past few years. He keeps no records and gives only the vaguest estimate of the number of his followers—"5,000, maybe 10,000," in "most" states and "nine, twelve, 15 countries." There is a vigorous chapter in Wichita, Kans., and strong groups in Rye, N.Y., and in Mill Valley, Calif.—which are called The Way East and The Way West. All conduct meetings where they listen to Wierwille's recorded words and offer extemporaneous prayers. Attendance is also good at the sermons that Wierwille delivers in person at New Knoxville. His brother Harry, 64, the treasurer of the center, claims that Sunday services take in as much as $10,000 a night. The money, say the Wierwilles, is being used for a $3,000,000 building program to expand The Way still further. =============

Correct. Too big a quote, thus too easy? Your turn, Sharon!

There's several problems with that. One, you received blessings at the COST of some of your family in Christ receiving curses. Some of the women, especially, who crossed vpw's path were not "blessed" by the experience. Two, the integrity of a man's word is at the heart of ANY relationship he is in, whether it be personal, business, casual, and so on. When dealing with someone who claims to represent God, he should exemplify, as best as he is able, godly practices-and at the very least not commit the evils Christians are told to flee. If he is found to intentionally lie, intentionally take the money for God's work and squander it on his vices, to treat all the women in the ministry as belonging to him, then he CLEARLY demonstrates that he is unfit to represent God Almighty. So, to say "It's ok for a man speaking for God to lie, rape and embezzle" is to deny the contents OF the Word of God, which warn against such things. Of course, no one ever says it's ALWAYS ok- it's always "Well, MY MOG gets a SPECIAL EXEMPTION- if anyone ELSE does it, it's a horrible crime...." The growth in Leonard's ministry was severely hampered once he began dealing with the wound vpw dealt him by stealing and plagiarizing his work. If not, HUNDREDS of thousands might have received the SUPERIOR training in his group. vp at the height of his ministry affected tens of thousands of Christians. That's not even a blip on the radar of "mainstream Christianity." And that was 1979-1982. (It's significant to the people affected, for good or ill, but that's independent of numbers, and true for 10 or 10 billion.) After that was vpw dying. BEFORE that was vpw committing various crimes and covering his tracks brilliantly, as if he was well aware what he was doing was wrong, and that he could go to jail if reports were filed. (lcm was caught, as if he wasn't aware what he was doing was wrong and didn't really cover his tracks.) The REAL strength of the group was always locally, among Christians who cared, starting with the House of Acts and running thru many non-titled Christians who bled out their lives for God and their fellow Christians. THEIR lives and actions were "of God." vpw could talk a good talk, and could SAY he was spending his life for them, but he lived a cushy existence, with short work-days, luxuries, and few, if any, actual EXPECTATIONS to fill. Once the classes were on tape, he could literally just delegate every piece of work to someone else, and stand around looking important. It's interesting to note the use of a sexual analogy when someone's trying to belittle the crimes of a known rapist. It strikes me as mildly ironic. Was is done subconsciously-a Freudian slip? Was it meant as a grim joke?

Yes. First of all, his classes were NOT for the new person as a rite of passage. If you went in to them, it was expected you were already speaking in tongues. Second of all, yes, they were a class, not the gateway to an organization. Graduates went back to their own groups-which was what was expected. (pfal was expected to be the first step in a lifetime of twi involvement twice a week plus events.) Third of all, Leonard was among the students, instructing not only intellectually, but in power and by example. So, the live Leonard coverage on, say, healing was a LOT more "hands on" than, say the live vpw coverage on healing. (That was more just discussions.) This is not that hard if you're really good with the particular subject. (Before taking the Advanced class, I was already figuring out what would be covered concerning the "information" manifestations, and those can actually be hands-on if the instructor is that conversant in the subject.) So, Leonard's class was as much lecture as "practice-session" for ALL NINE instead of just three of them, rather than talking about all nine and practicing THREE. A determined refusal to face the question, dismissing the questioner with a well-timed ad hominem attack, and concerted efforts to change the subject. That's judging from experience here. If it all was close, then that would be noteworthy. The foundation for all 3 levels was the foundational class. The foundation for the foundational class was Session 1. Session 1 was focused on the "LAW" of believing. This session was a failure, since there is no such thing as a "LAW" of believing, neither as stated in the class, nor the syllabus, nor the books. Since vpw was not getting his information directly from God as he claimed, it is no surprise that his entire class was based on error. (Later sessions built on it, and some of the material later introduced was pretty good, but some of it was not.)

Actually, if this number is correct, CFF nationally has passed twi globally. (Or twi passed CFF, depending on which direction you're counting from.) I wonder when Ke# Su**uth moved from Texas to Florida. BTW, heartman, please don't post entire names without knocking out at least one letter. Otherwise, search engines jump straight to any discussions we have about them, and they haven't given their approval for their full names here. (General exemption is given for twi's board of directors/trustees, and usually nobody else unless they post here.) Thanks.

New song. "So when you call up that shrink in Beverly Hills, You know the one, Dr Everything-Will-Be-All-Right... Instead of asking how much of your time is left, Ask him how much of your mind, baby. 'cause in this life, things are much harder than in The Afterworld. In this life, you're on your own."

Ok, in lieu of a confirmation from pawnbroker, I checked. I was right, it was "Space Seed." So, here's one I'm not fond of, but supposedly a lot of fans liked it... "Remember, put away your shoes." This one had an interesting cameo appearance by someone, in a role in this episode. (AFAIK, it was their only appearance in any ST in any format.)

The correct title is "Karn Evil 9, First Impression, Part II." It's off Emerson, Lake and Palmer's famous "Brain Salad Surgery" album. (Which was their second choice for the title.) I not only posted this song some time ago, but I posted this exact quote! It was stumping a number of posters for a while.

Just for reference, the other 2 Howard threads are "the greatest Christian layman in the world" and "Where is Howard A".

Just for easy reference, the other 2 Howard threads are "Howard the Duck" and "Where is Howard A"

Just for quick reference, the other 2 Howard threads are called "Howard the Duck" and "the greatest Christian layman in the world."

I responded to that possible meaning. I consider that more of a cut-and-paste job, and not the seamless integration some people keep suggesting. My followup response was only because WTH insisted on making an issue of it. ======== As for the dead, I keep pointing out that was from Bullinger. "Are the Dead Alive Now?" was from "the Rich Man and Lazarus: an Intermediate State?" complete with question in the title. Plus Bullinger's work on "Saul and the Witch at Endor." Some quotes that have been posted from Leonard's work have suggested the basic idea undergirding JCNG was taken from Leonard's books as well. So far, the only thing I've yet to see a source for is the term "manifestation" replacing "gift". Even parts of his supposed biography seem to have been taken from others!

CG was arrested? CG was caught doing stuff to women? Whan was this? And yes, I agree that vpw was responsible for the evil of the others, whom he trained TO perform evil acts and excuse them with pious sayings.

So, he's admitting he doesn't even have the verses on his side. That's an amazing level of candor! This is funny, coming from who it's coming from. Of all the people to criticize my understanding, it's usually the ones whose OWN understandings are shallow, easily befuddled, and locked into preconceived notions that are the quickest to accuse me of the same. As for aphorisms like using phrases like "Truth is truth" to argue against doing acts of mercy for others, I direct some of you to I Corinthians 2:4 (KJV) "And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words." This is a FASCinating verse in the Greek because of 2 words there. "Beguile". In the Greek, "paralogizomai". Not "logizomai", which is logical and follows the paths of reason, but "PARA-logizomai", like how parallel lines don't meet, and "paralogizomai" doesn't intersect with LOGIC. "Enticing words". In the Greek, "pithanologias". "Logias" are words, and we've all heard our share of "pithy sayings". They're the SLOGANS that are often confused for SOLUTIONS, ANSWERS and THINKING. So, Paul warned against people who would introduce clever slogans and nifty phrases, and try to talk people out of right action and right doctrine. Of course, some slogans are more clever than others, and some sales pitches are more effective than others.