WordWolf

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...................... Ok, this is just me thinking out loud here, just going from various things said at the GSC..... but an idea hit me..... lcm is a big-time control freak. (Who learned to excel at it from the master, who made his disciple two-fold the child of hell that he himself was.) lcm also has/had large amounts of narcissism. (That is, "yes, it IS all about me") Supposedly, lcm liked threesomes. I take it this was with himself and 2 females, never himself and another male and one female. Otherwise, he conflicts with his own basic-jock mentality. Also, since when would he ever care to reciprocate fulfilling anyone ELSE's proclivities? (I'm taking it as a given that lcm has never been interested in males as sex partners, and that he'd view a 3some with him as one of 2 guys as something strictly to satisfy the woman in this case.) So, we have lcm the control freak, who likes to bring in 2 women-although 2 men is a big no-no. Given that he was all about him everywhere else, I do not think it is a stretch to imagine he was all about him in the bedroom. So, here's what I'm wondering, and I don't know if anyone could possibly confirm or disprove this.... Is it likely that lcm pushed his wife into 3somes, and thence pushed her into intimate encounters with women initially against her will? If so, I would not find it unlikely that this would get out of his control sooner or later, and eventually help fuel his "homo purge" rants. He always DID sound like he had a personal issue about this subject....

Here's an oldie but a goodie. "TWI uses its own Bible-by Lamsa." People said the day-to-day Bible for standard use by wayfers was Lamsa's, NOT the KJV used by EVERYBODY, EVERYWHERE, at EVERY meeting. Of course, there were so many "translations according to usage" that at times we might as well have had NO standard Bible, but that's neither here nor there.

"His primary motive is to make money." Then a seasoned veteran of the movie biz should have known not to bother making this movie. He faced opposition and criticism of the idea of ever making this movie. He faced opposition during the making. Various organizations and critics made wild accusations about it sight unseen, and most critics panned it (except Ebert and Roeper). (My local newspaper's summary person gave it one star-compared to giving Barber Shop 2 two stars, and the latest Adam Sandler movie 2 1/2 stars.) He needed to bankroll the entire thing out-of-pocket, which is NEVER a good sign for a movie. Some groups tried to organize resistance and have the movie never open in theaters. Various show biz types already said Gibson may have killed his career with this, before it opened. So, if it tanked, Gibson stood to lose his entire investment, financially, and lose millions in lost revenues in the movies he would be passed up for in the future. I'm sure money was/is a concern in this, but the PRIMARY concern? The evidence seems to indicate otherwise. Personally, I HOPE he makes a fortune off this movie. I made a point of seeing it in the theater specifically for this reason. The industry has been overcoming its dismay over the movie's financial success, and is now contemplating getting in on this "action". :)--> Yes, twi's obviously jealous that Gibson did a better job than they ever could, even WITH all the traditional elements in the movie. That movie made it more living and real than any number of readings of JCOP ever did. twi always gets chafed when somebody else upstages them-this "Christ is preached" stuff hardly seems a mitigating factor to them.

Moving posts=deleting them. Glad to see you're not letting little things like reading comprehension get in the way of your posts, MS. I was wondering what happened to his other disciple....

Mike, if there really ARE all these devotees flocking to you in secret, you're serving them poorly by posring here. You should be taking them off in some corner somewhere, where they can bask uninterrupted in the joy of your message, where they're not exposed to corrupting influence like "independent thought" and "linear logic" that infest places like the GSC. If they exist, you should spend nearly all your "ministry" time focusing on THEM. If one were to look at all the time you spend here now, one might be suspicious of their very existence, since you seem rather careless of them. ============================================================== BTW, Oldiesman had a good question, concerning the tithe as you teach it NOT being the tithe in CSBP, as well as the basic failure of the tithe as in CSBP to work. Any outside chance you'll at least address the first part? I already know you'll blame Oldies' for the second part...

Having read the choices, I agree that another forum under Doctrinal, specializing in twi DOCTRINE, would be the best option. Then, those seeking other information in "About the Way" can find it in "About the Way". Those seeking to discus doctrine in light of shared experience with, or based on, twi materials, would then find THEIR subjects easily. As it is, the two are currently jumbled.

Tom, feel free to give me my report card in private. Whenever it's convenient.

Mike, The subject of God's foreknowledge, free-will and determinism have been the subject of many rather intelligent discussions, some of which were online, some of which I've been a party to, and most of which were NOT ones were ex-twi'ers were involved. If you REALLY have trouble with this issue, it would serve you well to drop all the insults and ego you reserve when dealing with non-twi Christians, and get in there amongst them. This is the silcon age- you can do that without leaving your armchair. God's detailed foreknowledge? Yes, old news. Our freewill? Yes, old news. I'd share, but I think you'd benefit more from getting the answers from some of those uneducated idiots out there you spurn. BTW, some of us found proof of this before we met some of the other Christians. (Myself included.) If you really are hungry to find the answers, they are out there as we speak. I'm curious how you know for a fact that Oldiesman is NOT aware of this-I certainly don't know, since he never told me. So, I do not know he can't prove them with verses. Me, I can name at least 2 posters here who CAN. It's "tenets", not "tenants". They don't live here. Honestly, Mike, some of us have said it before, and you didn't see a reason to THEN. Spend some time with other Christians. Sure, you'll find some error. You'll also find some surprising answers. In this case, you said this one's bugged you for 35 years. Wouldn't you honestly like to close the case on it? I sure would if it was me. I'd like to clear my list of unanswered questions if I could (and sometimes I DO get to cross one off.) If you DO agree that revelation can come at unlikely places and times, might you consider putting yourself where you're more likely to run across it? Or, you could let pride forbid you from looking, even. Your choice.

Goey, are you going to explain how "burden of proof" works to our erstwhile scientist, or shall I?

Mike, if I actually had a "raging desire" to shut you up, I'd give you my BEST effort, and not my second-best, as I specified once. At least you're giving me a lesser insult of saying I read a little closer, which is not what you used to say. (This contrasts me with the other people you claim don't read you correctly.) Will you ever learn that all these circumlocuitous refusals to speak plainly make it look as if you don't have a good answer to anything, ever? Most of the time, my answers are either brief, or detailed, but clear and precise (not jargon, but plain answers.) Actually, when I honestly asked something, and you asked why I want to know, and I said, honestly, so I could consider it, you STILL dodged. So, this non-linear approach really seems ingrained. You know, eventually, even your staunchest supporters (if and when you get them) will eventually get tired of NEVER getting a straight answer. Tom, your patience is admirable. I certainly don't have it.

We've discussed this before at the GSC. Having weighed the evidence, I think the bulk of it supports this being a deliberate addition, added "with the best of intentions". Contact me if you want me to explain my conclusions. I really don't want to get into another running debate about it.....

I've heard a variety of possible answers. Some people have talked about the earth's magnetic field. Some have talked about gravitic effects. Some have cited the global increase in temperature a few degrees during a full moon. Some have mentioned the increased light. Some have invoked "the placebo effect"-you EXPECT to feel more energy, so you FEEL more energy. Most of the answers I've read have been attacked as unscientific for one reason or another. Me, I have to dismiss the increased light as a reason. In NYC, the ambient light is almost identical under the new moon as it is under the full moon. Further, the effects seem the same under cloudy skies. The placebo effect is probably true to a degree, and was the position I originally held. I eventually discarded it in the face of experiencing too much of it that I couldn't wave away. What got my attention is that people I know could tell if the full moon was in the sky by observing my behaviour-even if the moon was blocked by clouds and I was under the misimpression that we were under the quarter moon. So, I'm currently convinced this is a physical phenomenon more than a psychological one. Do I have a pat answer as to WHY? Not yet. The temperature one is still a viable possibility. However, I observe that it happens, so I know THAT it happens even if I don't know WHY. I'd prefer to know WHY, but I don't know, so that's that.

According to the books, Bilbo looked "unchanged" rather than "well-preserved" when he reached his eleventy-first birthday (the time of the party in FotR's opening scenes.) I missed the Barrow-Downs sequence in the first book, because it's the scene with the barrow-wight that explains the swords Merry, Pippin and Sam get-which are NOT normal knives, which is relevant in RotK. The Isengard resolution scene, as shown in the theaters, was MOST unsatisfactory. It would have been a GREAT scene, especially showing the waning of Saruman and the difference in Gandalf the White. Leaving out the Scouring of the Shire should be a punishable offense. Jackson didn't LIKE the scene. As Tolkien himself put it, the scenes some complained about were the scenes others found necessary. I feel this is true of that scene, even if it was chopped down to 5 minutes. Heck, they could have chopped 10 minutes just from the aggregate scenes of people staring at each other in the third movie. :)--> I also think he overdid the oliphants in the 3rd movie, which is what led to the "Empire Strikes Back" sequence that resulted. (Did anyone else here think they were written as dino-sized? I thought they were elephant-sized.) Tom Bombadil, in the book of FotR, appears in the scene with Old Man Willow, the scene in his house, and the scene with the barrow-wight. After he sees them to safety on his border, he no longer appears in the books. He's mentioned at the Council of Elrond, when Gandalf explains why they can't just ask HIM to hold the ring. He also is mentioned in the wrap-up as the 3rd book winds down. You see, back in the first book, in the Inn of the Prancing Pony (where the hobbits met Strider), a bad guy stampedes all the horses out of the stable. That's why they bought "Bill" as a pack-pony for their luggage. As it turns out, the ponies had sought out Fatty Lumpkin, Bombadil's pony, when they got to running. Tom eventually brought them back to the inn, and Barliman Butterbur was compensated for the outrageous price he put out for Bill as a replacement. We just hear that it happened, though. Personally, I think the story was poorer for leaving out Glorfindel and Radagast the Brown in FotR, but I understand trying to streamline the story. Jackson was trying to have the main characters do EVERYTHING. I understand that but disagree, since, during a war, that's an unrealistic expectation. Thousands upon thousands did their parts, even when "off camera" and this helped drive that home. I hear the scene at the Houses of Healing is restored in RotK. I wish Jackson hadn't felt the need to make Denethor look like such a putz, though. In the books, he seemed very bitter, but he was still competent for the most part-which is why the watch lights of Gondor had been LIT when Gandalf and Pippin arrived. (In the movie, they weren't.) Other allies, such as the Prince of Dol Imrahil, DID come to the aid of Gondor, just not as much as was hoped for, or needed. Many famed warriors fell in a day when the Nazgul's Captain led their forces against Gondor. (Yes, I know it's make-believe. A lot of imaginary big names fell.)

Garth, You left out some of Mike's best stuff. We all know that vpw plagiarized huge sections of books from EW Kenyon, BG Leonard, JE Stiles, EW Bullinger, and included them in "his" books while failing to properly credit them like he was taught in college/ grad school. Mike's current position (after "they all were thankful to be plagiarized" and "it's not plagiarism if he makes a few aside comments about the material") is that God instructed him to plagiarize, and specifically what to plagiarize and what to change. That God failed to tell him things like "the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are synonymous" in the process doesn't seem to faze Mike. Jesus himself has endorsed pfal-and Mike's little project with it. In fact, at the "Gathering Together" and points thereafter, Jesus himself will be teaching, and using the orange book as a textbook. vpw was JUST a preacher, he was "born with an overabundance of brains and brawn", some sort of physical and mental paragon the likes of which the world rarely sees. "Where he walked, the earth shook." Sins and harming the flock are NOT sufficient reasons to doubt the credibility of a man speaking for God-character does NOT count. Regardless of all the errors in pfal, they can't really exist, because pfal is perfect. So, all the obvious and less-obvious errors in the books somehow don't exist. Mike has viewed pfal as divine for over 30 years, but he keeps saying he honestly evaluated it a few years ago. There's plenty of others-that's off the top of my head. ============================================================ In case you missed it on page one of this thread, here's my summary of this "last teaching." "Normal Christians don't have any answers. Only we do. Our answers are in the PFAL class. So, really work that class more and more. It's the greatest learning tool out there available for a Christian to use." So, it was a commercial for PFAL. He also mentioned that Christian leaders are supposed to serve, not be served. Considering who it was who said it, I think this was a funny statement, and a textbook example of "do as I say, not as I do."

Groucho: It makes no sense if your criteria are Biblical or professional. It makes a lot of sense if you're only choosing a successor on the basis of blind loyalty to yourself.

Actually, vpw was better at concealing stuff than lcm. It's been shown on other threads that vpw was into centralizing things to consolidate them under his authority. That's why Heefner and Doop got the bum's rush right while they were so successful. Their existences were a threat to his ego, as they were seen (correctly) as leaders on both coasts, mainly because they led so well. On the one hand, vpw liked things informal, since it went along with the promiscuous, "free-love" mileu, and the "distrust normal churches" thing. On the other hand, at the same time, anything that didn't meet with his approval was savaged pretty viciously.

We can work with your grammar, Greg. Please break up the physical sentences a bit. Put in some periods, and skip lines here and there when changing thought. Makes it a LOT easier to read, which means more people will read what you have to say, which, I figure, is the reason you post, right? Feel free to use the exact same words, just with some spaces.

Oh, let's see....this is a much longer list...... vpw was fond of levelling every sort of complaint at regular churches. To hear him, they were loaded with tradition-pushing bunglers. (Some people, at twi, and out, still speak of "churchianity".) He used terms like "theological cemetary, uh, seminary" *wink wink* to imply no real Christian can be found in one except by accident. Pretty much the entire contents of Ralph Woodrow's book "Babylon Mystery Religion" (a rewrite of Hislop's "The 2 Babylons") were accepted and propagated. Of course, Woodrow has repudiated his previous book and issued a full retraction ("the Babylon Connection"). Some people, naturally, still believe the previous book was true, even though Woodrow's explained WHY it was wrong as well. Let's see-the cross is an evil symbol for a number of reasons, any person who leaves twi was either spiritually dark or evil, and bad things will happen to them....

Ok, it has to be non-harmful, but can it at least be painful?

I've read this accusation before, even when I was in. Even saw someone quote the page from vpw's book, then deliberately miscontrue it to claim he was saying the Holy Spirit did to Mary exactly what a bull does to a cow. Needless to say, criticisms like THAT only made twi look RIGHT in claiming other Christians didn't know stuff, but could only make up stuff. I thought "Gee, if that's the strongest argument you can make, I'll stay where I am. I'm actually LEARNING something here."

Apples and oranges, Greg. Mandii specified 1981's "top leadership." Save some time and just call her a liar if you're going to. It would at least be up-front and honest, even if wrong. Seems some people who were NOT on grounds at one of the Root locates refuse to believe bad doctrines, bad practice, or anything bad ever came down from the top. Any problems were always isolated incidents that in no way reflected the top leadership's positions, even tho they set policy and were legally and spiritually responsible for the policy and practices on said grounds.

I neither believe nor disbelieve what I read, without corroboration. However, JustAsking asked for corroboration and got it pretty fast. That's NOT what you were doing. You were attempting to refute rather than seek information. (I've read the entire thread.) That other thread's around here somewhere. I think it's still in "About the Way". It was one of the few I started.

Oldiesman, Back on the "Superman? Green Lantern?" thread, we discussed this. Why didn't you question the people THEN about it? It was started specifically to address the timeframe when vpw was alive, and for statements from or about him. A few of those fit what you were asking. But, if we're all liars and it didn't happen if you weren't there, there's no point in looking for the thread.

So, then, "discipline" equals "beat them down"? How do these reprobate sheep walk around the pasture after the shepherd has demonstrated to them who's boss by laying the smack down on them?

Bumping this back to the top to accompany the Child Abuse thread.