WordWolf

My question is more like: And if these classes don't run, is God completely SOL? If he isn't, why talk like the ALMIGHTY GOD is completely dependant on YOU? In other words, vpw saw this minister, had NO intention of becoming a minister, looked him in the eye, and said "I want to be a minister just like you." That was at age 8 or 9. When I was 8, if I looked in the eye of a minister, I wouldn't even have THOUGHT of lying to him. If I looked in the of a teacher, I wouldn't have lied to him or her. The same applies to age 9. "You know how kids talk." Um, they LIE? Not me when I was growing up. I'd be SHOCKED if I was the ONLY one who told the truth to authority figures, especially one representing God Almighty. I didn't even have to be TOLD the difference, either. So, his early recollections include him lying to suck up to authority figures. Interesting.

Congratulations! You posted an actress with ONE known movie on her resume! (I checked. She was in 2 more movies NOBODY saw.) You have successfully stalled the thread! Now then, we have a few choices here. You can post a new post proceeding from Raf's last post with an actor or actress who's been in a few movies ending it, or one of us can pretend you never posted and post that new post, or we can give you a dirty look and start a new chain. I figure it's fair to give you first shot at how we proceed.

Hm. Is that "Sugar, Sugar" by the Archies?

pg-155. Um, that didn't answer his question.... Anyone who can untangle this sentence of vpw from pg-170, please do so.. So he remembers it forever until he's done with it, then he forgets it. page 171-172, vpw shares an early childhood memory. Folks?

*nudges Tom* Your turn, Tom.

Exceptin' Alice[/], of course. :D-->

The Christadelphians are another group of Christians. I mainly know their name because, apparently, they base a lot of their beliefs on their understanding of the Bible, and they're not Trinitarians. Here's a quick link on them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christadelphians They have their own websites, as do their critics. ==== irisheyes, you know, you can go and deal with things as you need to, then come back. We'll be here.

And here's my uninterrupted "trans-a-lation" all together.

Ok. Given that this story is not "vetted", I'm going to take this and, in the attempt to be fair, reduce its claims by 50%. I'm expecting that some claims are exaggerated. So, here's my "trans-a-lation"... Trans-a-lation: When in high school, vpw was a bully, a physical showoff, and a braggart. He did all sorts of things for attention. He was quick to start a fight or mouth off at others. He had a quick wit. Trans-a-lation: One of his common ways of showing off was to tear up and down the streets of New Knoxville on his motorcycle, trying to get attention. Trans-a-lation: When he entered the seminary, everyone thought it was a joke, since he was completely lacking in the proper character-it was common knowledge. He never overcame the impression he had built over years in that area. Trans-a-lation: From the time he took over his first pastorate, he wasted little time in being a control freak and bully AGAIN. I consider this an irrelevant comment, but you may disagree. I include it in the interest of completeness, like the book quotes. Trans-a-lation: He did his best to maintain a high degree of control over his pastorate. Trans-a-lation: vpw had a mad-on for what he considered Catholic traditions and pagan introduced-practices that he never let people just enjoy a normal holiday like all the other Christians. Trans-a-lation: Through the early 1950's, his conduct and behaviour improved a lot. It was uncharacteristic of the person he showed himself to be earlier. Trans-a-lation: He was a difficult husband to his wife. I'm amazed she put up with him, with the way he behaved. Trans-a-lation: This improvement in his behaviour didn't improve his vocabulary in all the important ways. He still chose to introduce sexual concepts in SNS teachings, which even his fans admit wasn't a good thing. Trans-a-lation: Uncle Harry helped moderate vpw's extreme style and policies. Uncle Harry let people celebrate Christmas even though vpw was specifically against it.

I'm interrupting this thread with a crosspost from the Archives because it is relevant to the discussion inasmuch as there's an attempt to piece together vpw's personal history, especially as it relates to twi. All of this is from one post, with a few irrelevant digressions snipped out. And I fixed some punctuation. You can dig up the originals if you distrust me on that. (You'll have plenty of keywords for your search.)

What prompted this degree of candor, Mike? You used to go out of your way to avoid saying this outright, and accuse us of misrepresenting you when we said this was your position? I'm curious.

Now that just has little or nothing to do with the doctrine of the Trinity. It doesn't relate SPECIFICALLY to that one doctrine, and I never said it DID. The question I was answering was "Who's to assume that 'the leadership' that ultimately determined 'who Christ was' in their doctrinal conception was correct-while all others who did not march in step with their scope of opinion-'heresies'? Constantine pushed for a single unified doctrine in order to have a political base. Under Constantine, minority opinions-including Jews-faced the first step of many that led to death or marginalization. If twi taught THAT, I didn't hear it. I was reading "Constantine's Sword" earlier this year. If twi happened to get a detail correct here or there, then they did.

Here, I take note of 2 things. 1) A coach 'riding' an athlete, and destroying his confidence isn't just bad coaching and distraction, it's a 'confirmation of the law of believing.' 2) Again with the "Dr.". All the answers "he" had from the Word-which, of course, are all the answers BG Leonard and the others had from The Word. Moving on... Charlene shares about her initial teachings and doctrinal exposure to twi-at a Way Home. pg-144. Two more things here. 1) FIRST off, they were taught about comfortable living-by misuse of John 10:10, which does not refer to financial wealth. If it DID, Jesus wouldn't have said it was hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 2) SECOND off, they jumped STRAIGHT into "4 crucified" and the Trinity. For STARTING people. Nothing you'd think was needed to START with like "God loves you" "God heals you", and so on-we jump straight into the "look how smart we are" stuff. page-150, The Teacher prepares to speak. Or, you know, he built anticipation by making the audience wait. Standard speaker's tool number one. Even William Shatner's talked about it. vpw tells a story about 2 men who supposedly lived in Van Wert, who did some remarkable things yet nobody seemed to have ever heard of them, even after the fact. vpw even forgot their names. Anyway, he says these guys just sat in an office together in silence for an hour and MADE something happen by just thinking about it. Here's some highlights. pg-150. pg-151 Ok, so these guys nobody ever heard of just sat in a room concentrating on a business, and out of the blue, a guy calls them up to sell his. They didn't go around and say "If someone's interested in selling, please give them this phone# or anything"- he just dialed the numbers by extra-special perception or something. They were "the two meanest guys you could ever want to meet"-but they spent a FORTUNE setting up a foundation for broken homes and a YMCA-or ALL YMCAs-the story isn't clear and a YWCA-or ALL YWCAs-the story isn't clear AND a hospital. Pretty selfless for really mean guys. Also, they did ALL these things, and nobody could STAND them because they were incredibly jealous of these 2 guys who shared their money with everyone. Apparently, the part that they GOT the money before spending it really chafed. Those Van Wert CHURCH people must be the most SHALLOW people in the country. Also, were they disliked because they were mean, or because they were rich? The reason hops back and forth. pg-152, the moral of this fable is given. Then he gives some general plans for classes and growth and stuff, then, pg-153. Comments, people?

Hm. You've probably described the AVERAGE peon more accurately, George. I suppose there are a few dedicated fanatic drones, however. Can't be TOO many because there are too few people overall.

I agree twi doesn't do that much, period. HOWEVER, that which is actually done that represents a CHANGE is often a result of discussions here, which expose matters they'd prefer remain hidden, which then are exposed and people start to ask questions which have to be answered. From 2000 to now (everything after the Y2K panic at hq), try naming all the changes, then subtract the ones mentioned FIRST at the GSC (like healthcare, a living wage, a trustee living more like a regular twi member) and see what you find. From the last 5 years, I think that ONLY leaves the decision to kick out Mrs W and the commercial they bought.

Christian Slater Star Trek: the Undiscovered Country Christopher Plummer (Figured I'd give the old-timers a break and link thru him rather than thru Kim Cattrall)

Who's to assume that "the leadership" that ultimately determined "who was Christ was" in their doctrinal conception was correct - while all others which did not march in step with their scope of opinion - "heresies"? Danny Obviously, the leadership determines that.For that, you can thank Constantine, the father of orthodoxy. He decided to use Christians as a political lever, and to do that he needed to found orthodoxy.

Oftentimes what "regular" folk believe and what the theologians believe are two different things. Your typical "man on the street" Christian couldn't tell you why he believes what he believes, or explain any inconsistancies; Jesus = God or not. In some cases, he may not even know that much. Back in my twi days, I had a Roman Catholic agreeing with the twi position and surprised that there was a position like the one mentioned earlier-with Jesus co-equal with his Father. Part of the reason is the phrasing. I asked him things in plain English, and answered in plain English. He answered from his understanding. If I employed "buzz words", his answers would have been rote, and not from understanding.

If everything you said is true, I think there's a much simpler explanation for John's concern. You touched on it yourself. Incompatible "styles". Jesus himself said that critics would chatter endlessly regardless of the substance of matters. He said that John came neither eating nor drinking, and they criticized that. He said he (Jesus) came eating and drinking, and they criticized THAT. To my thinking, John seemed to lean more towards aseticism and abstinence from all sorts of things. He had a strict diet and strict conduct. Jesus, on the other hand, related to the people-he ate with publicans and sinners, tax collectors and lawyers. Who was right? They BOTH were, for different reasons. However, a pragmatist would favour Jesus' approach, and a moralist would favour John's approach.

Various iterations of the idiom of permission have been around for decades. I'm unclear where this was originally picked up from, but I suspect it was Bullinger. I am aware that others like the Christadelphians, are aware of this figure.

Actually, I was under the impression that the Kipp farm (her PERSONAL inheritance) had already been sold off. Am I wrong?

If past behaviour is an indicator of what they would have done, they would never have mentioned she was evicted from her home, nor that her health was failing, nor that she passed away until and unless they were getting ready to bury her at the Garden of Dead Trustees. Even then, the information would have been only partly truthful. Business as usual. I expect they blame us for the needto have announced anything at all. They've much preferred the "mushroom" strategy of leadership until now: keep the peons in the dark and apply fertilizer periodically.

Sometimes I throw that stuff in just to see who's paying attention. :D--> It's approximately how I see it, however.

Sunesis erroneously thinks NO trinitarian thinks Christ IS God. This is wrong. SOME of them believe that. I've listened to them say it OUTRIGHT. I've no doubt SOME trinitatians believe that, but I know of some that do NOT. Just as there were multiple opinions in the early centuries, there's differences of opinion even among trinitarians. SOME of them do, some of them mean it LITERALLY and SPECIFICALLY. As far as I'm concerned, whether a Christian believes in the pre-Trib, mid-Trib or post-Trib position, he is still a Christian. If a Christian believes in charismata, "gifts" or "manifestations" present now, or is a cessationist, he is still a Christian. If a Christian believes salvation can be lost, or in OSAS, he is still a Christian. If a Christian is a trinitarian or not, he is still a Christian. I've heard numbers of Christians of different positions declare categorically that all Christians whose doctrines (these or others) are different from theirs are not TRULY Christians. I've heard it, and I shall hear it again. I consider it overly simplistic and incorrect. Therefore, all those who dismiss other Christians are themselves not Christian. (That was a joke. As I see it, they're ALL Christians.) Please note I'm not saying there aren't things that exclude one from being a Christian-just that the things most people call "deal-breakers" are nothing of the kind. P.S. Sunesis- I meant no insult by disagreeing with you-I just disagree.

WHICH reading makes more sense in a clear, straight-forward way? According to you, the verses around it, plus that verses, would read something like this.... Matthew 11:7-12, 15 (street version) Sounds like YOUR version has a 180-degree twist in the middle. "John's more than a prophet, he's the fulfilment of a prophecy, he's the biggest S.O.B. in history, he's the Elijah who was foretold." Everything EXCEPT your 'verse' fits together neatly. "John's more than a prophet, he's the fulfilment of a prophecy. He's the Elijah who was foretold." That's the OPPOSITE of what your "verse" said. Now, if you want to believe that this type of 180-degree reverse from sentence to sentence happens all the time-like TWICE in the verses if you are correct- than that is your privilege. However, I don't go around with that low a set of expectations when reading books written for 5-year-olds, and I certainly don't have it for the Gospels.