WordWolf

Is it just me, or did he imply he's still involved with Momentus? I was under the impression that it was in his PAST, and he was trying to distance himself from it without saying it was ever anything but a brilliant idea. Now it seems like he's still involved.....

Let me agree, and add to that. I don't think vpw ever dreamed the organization would stop being spellbound by the name "wierwille". I don't think he ever conceived of a day Mrs W COULD ever be thrown out of her home.

BINGO.

So, reports of people's pcs crashing as a direct result of installing it-are they accurate? Does it happen often?

Well, since he died of cancer, and was exposing himself to carcinogenic substances every day (tobacco), and his lung tissue was showing no sign of damage, the carcinogens must have been building up elsewhere in his body, like his eye or something. Explains why the cancer hit his eye.... BTW, I don't object to him calling himself "a teacher". Even when I was IN, I objected to him calling himself "THE Teacher." See the difference? In the first case, he is one teacher. In the second case, he is the ONLY teacher. You might want to skim some of the threads in the archives where we had some fun with these things. GS 101 has a thread with a bunch of terms on it for people-you might want to skim that as well.

I've heard many conflicting reports about this thing. What can our computer gurus tell us about it?

Very interesting story, there, Uncle Hairy. Thanks for sharing it. =================== Moody has no records of vpw at ALL? That's funny-he's said on at least one occassion-on TAPE- that he'd taken every class they offered...I believe he specified they were every correspondence course they offered. Amazing how he could take so many and they would STILL not have records of him. Maybe-as someone suggested-he simply failed them all, or left them ALL incomplete. Either way, it would not technically be a lie, but it would be deceptively phrased, and it would NOT reflect well that he was unwilling or unable to finish classes he started. ========= Which was his MORE bogus title? A) "Doctor", with a degree that might have no more meaning than an honorary degree? B) "THE TEACHER", which is a title he spread around for himself, starting in the pfal class and proceeding from there?

Well, technically, he did submit work to an organization, graduate from it, and receive a Doctorate degree from that organization. So, technically speaking, he did get a Doctorate. HOWEVER, the standards for issuing PhDs is normally a LOT stricter than used by that organization, and it was never accredited. So, whether or not you think that degree is worth the paper it's printed on is a matter of opinion. It's not of equal authority, say, as a PhD from Princeton Theological would have been. That's where he DID earn a legitimate Master's degree.

Oh, since I forgot to get back to it, about this "The Word like it hasn't been known since the first century" stuff.... First of all, that rests ENTIRELY on the (unverifiable) claims by vpw that God Almighty told him this and confirmed it with either a vision or a miracle of snow. vpw, on at least one occasion, was PROVEN to have lied about a miraculous snowstorm-people followed his claim and documented the disparity between his claim and reality. In fact, every claim of vpw's about some miracle have always been second-hand from his own mouth, like the Jubbulpore incident- which was NEVER repeated by him with similarly-crippled devotees to twi. Second, "The Word as it has not been known since the first century" sounds so pious and holy, but it is a MEANINGLESS PHRASE. It should be no secret that twi devotees-and most ex-twi survivors- know diddly-squat about the history of the church from the end of Acts until vpw saw it snow. (Similarly, they're usually in the dark about Christians outside their group even to this day.) A little research should prove what your common-sense should have told you..... Before printing presses, when Christians were being killed and hunted down, the first century church did not HAVE a New Testament in common. The books of the New Testament existed in limited copies in a few churches in a few places. It wasn't until the beginning of the second century that enough copies were made to begin to collect the New Testament together. (Mind you-those who lacked copies, say, of Matthew still believed it was Scripture- they just didn't have their own copies.) This is, of course, different from the various add-on, so-called "gospels" and "lost books" that sprang up 100 years after THAT-which nobody took seriously, ever. (Except a few gullibles, but aren't there always a few of those?) Actually, FF Bruce's "the Scrolls and the Parchments", which occasionally was carried in the way bookstore, would explain this to you much better than I could. So, in short, "The Word", as it was known in the First Century, was largely the Old Testament. Third, the first-century church, as easily seen from Scripture, bore little resemblance to twi. No centralized authority, no dictated teaching curriculums, no standardization, no MANDATORY TITHE, no inner circle with special privileges, no involvements in local politics, no creature comforts or room for a luxurious auditorium, etc. The one thing we have in common is running manifestations in meetings. Compared to everything else, that's hardly enough to say they were similar. They're more different than they are alike.

JAL in regular text... [WordWolf, as usual, in boldface .] [ I consider the testimonials the results of more "preaching to the choir". I do note, however, that you are NOT attempting to strongarm me into your positions. According to you, I'm free to come to my own decisions and join the ranks of the idiots who barely comprehend the printed words in the Bible if it so pleases me. Of course, that's not a direct quote, but look at how you've characterized ALL Christians NOT in your group. ]

How true this is, for me at least! I think JAL is doing a good job of making a case that CES is different from TWI, in practice at least. A lot of the doctrines are obviously the same, true, which won't change, unless the folks advocating change come across with some extra heavy beef that makes more sense than already researched doctrines most of us believe is the truth. Those who don't believe these doctrines are always free to go elsewhere and enjoy other doctrines if they feel the other doctrines are more correct. I don't sense any condemnation or arrogance from JAL in that light, even though he still believes he's right. I don't have a problem with him believing he's right and saying so. He's got that right, just like anyone else. :)--> Actually, I think a fairly strong case is being made that, although there are many differences between twi and ces/stfi, many of the CRITICAL distinctions remain fundamentally the same- either unchanged, or with marginal changes that can easily erase over time and become what they supposedly abhor. I don't have a problem with JAL believing he's right-we ALL believe we're right. My issue is that he believes the gap between ces/stfi and all other Christians is a broad, yawning chasm with him and truth on one side, and most Christians and superstition on the other side. You don't perceive that as arrogance. I do agree that I have not seen CONDEMNATION from JAL. I think his opinion is that, if people want to leave and embrace some doctrine he considers horse-and-buggy thinking, they're free to do so, but he'll just disapprove to himself. I don't think that, in and of itself, is a bad position.

JAL's response quoted in parts. [WordWolf's comments in boldfaceas usual.] John, in some ways, you've come a long way, in others, you've barely moved.....

Here's my non-titled take on the issues addressed. 1) The Word of God is the Will of God. Nuances vary widely, but this is NOT an esoteric idea-many, many Christians believe this. JAL should get around a bit more before pronouncing that they don't. 2) Law of Believing. Seems like JAL said that believing is a matter of God giving us something to believe, we decide to believe it/trust God, and God backs up His promise. I'm perfectly fine with that take. 3) How the Bible Interprets Itself. JAL made the question tougher than it needed to be. Actually, the techniques for understanding the Bible are at least partly useful for understanding ANY book, and I've used them as such. I expect others of you did as well. I also remember Heart Magazines where people (I'm not naming names) mentioned using the basic keys taught in their own professions, where they adapted them for use with PEOPLE. If these keys work, they work better with a better book, and better yet with a perfect book. Further, they are not, strictly speaking, secret, nor do they require special training to understand. Bullinger had no problem outlining them in "How to Enjoy the Bible". 4) and 5) I'm skipping, since there are doctrinal points of view, and I don't see enough relevance to provoke sides in a debate. 6) Born Again. Again, widely understood by a wide variety of Christians. I apparently am exposed to a more representative cross-sampling of Christians than JAL is. His opinion is limited by his parochial approach, which is a shame, since it's so easily correctable if he actually wants to. (Heck-if he asked me, I'd offer to guide him in accomplishing this if he wanted an assist.) 7) Renewing the mind. This is largely a matter of trusting the Bible, and believing it. As such, again, it's wider-spread than JAL thinks, although it may be labelled differently. 8) Speaking in tongues. Technically, the "manifestation" versus "gifts" thing is generally mistaught in my opinion. Correct on paper. In a practical sense, however, large numbers of Christians treat SIT as if it is a manifestation rather than a gift, even if they have not corrected their terminology. On the power-end, it works out the same. (Check BG Leonard's students, JE Stiles' students, etc.) Some charismatics do work it right, many do not work it in a disciplined, orderly fashion. 9) Having reviewed some of what CES has produced on this subject, I think they've taken a step BACKWARD and have neither stayed as accurate, nor improved by introducing their doctrine. The Leonard-style techniques I was taught seem more secure to document from Scripture. I'm curious where they first heard this idea, or when and where it germinated. All ideas have origins. Where did the "personal prophecy" one come from? I'm suspecting its origin is a lot like a different doctrine I heard once. It was easy to refute in exhaustive detail as well as on the surface- so we did. A question we were troubled by was: how could such a doctrine go so far without being challenged? They answer, it seemed, was there were obstacles present- obstacles that impeded honest, open communication and the "iron sharpening iron" aspects so necessary to those who study and teach. Either the teachers were considered inviolate, or the teachers declared they were inviolate. Either way, it's a formula for disasters, small or large. ============ I don't have any beef or personal animus against JAL or his doctrines. It DOES seem to me that he and they are too insular, and thus they are limited in scope and depth. That's a shame, since they could be so much more if things weren't so locked in place. It is a very short step from "meet the new boss" to "same as the old boss."

Posted by Billy D 8/11/04, 9:05pm. [WordWolf's comments in boldface as usual.]

"...and I watch them roll out again..."

.....before you answer, take a moment to reflect on all the broken promises that were discussed when they kicked Mrs W out of her home rather than honour their committments? As far as they were concerned, she was disposable.... do you think you'll fare any better?

I'm stepping aside and letting the heavyweights tackle this one.

Just felt that was worth repeating, dude.

I missed my chance to be the first one to say it....... John Lynn, if you're reading this at any point, I'd like to add something at this point. On this thread, Mike and you have so far matched each other on substance, and he's currently leading in the "be a better man" department. If you were aware of my previous communications with him, this would concern you. (I call them like I see them.) In fact, I think he's got a reasonable shot at outperforming you on this thread.

Funny... I also pictured sending over the "late supper" from that movie. Jim would never put a banana in the tailpipe like in the movie, though. That would be unprincipled, and wrong. Plus, he probably knows it doesn't work like in the movies.

Tonto, welcome to the cafe. I thought you were referring to the old joke. "Well, Tonto, it looks like we're surrounded by Indians." "What do you mean WE, kemo sabe?" I thought it might refer to the lawsuits twi has to deal with, maybe. ========= A joke I once heard from another GSC regular once (Raf) said that the Lone Ranger finally found out that Tonto had actually been calling him "que no sabe" all those years. ("Doesn't know what".) In case you're wondering, Kemo sabe means "white shirt" in two languages and "soggy shrub" in one. I figure it referred to the guy's white shirt.

We've discussed that Job thing and fear thing here before. Might want to do a search on "Job" and "fear" or "Elihu" for the posts, or something.

Very true. I'll switch from "Classic themes" as soon as I have no choice in the matter. The supposed XP version just seems goofy to me.

*looks over link* Hm. I wonder if the Pat R. on that site is the same one who used to live in Texas...

So, what is the URL that is displayed in that line when you open the homepage address as specified above in a previous post? We ARE trying to figure out how to help you. I understand you're frustrated, but getting evasive will get you no closer to a solution. I still say download FireFox while trying to work this out. ================ There's other things you can do, but I don't want to just start shouting ideas randomly.