Tom

Okay, Sudo. That was certainly worth the watch. Now, who was the main actor? Aaaah, sorry - I couldn't resist. No. really, that was what my wife & I refer to as a keeper. Still have to try to work some with what I have - I've downloaded some programs - & see what I can do. Then, depending on the results, I'll go shopping for Nero. I'll let you know how I'm doing. Thanks for being so helpful & star studded. Tom

A beautiful post, dancer. "the door has been opened by the hand of God's servants they bore the heat of the day beheaded, tortured, imprisoned" Not to belittle the sacrifices of God's servants, beheaded, tortured, imprisoned, nor the real contribution they made toward the opening of the door, but it was the hand of the Lord & the sacrifice of his son that lived in their hearts as they followed in his steps, looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the door opening joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God, and we follow him there - or not. "how is that light can shine out of darkness? we were told darkness is bad and devilish Why is there light in it? How can light be in darkness?" Light shining out of darkness is not a quality of the darkness, but a result of God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, and shine in our hearts, to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ who holds the key of David. He it is who opens, and no man shuts; and shuts, and no man opens. The door is open for this season. This is the Lord's doing; it is marvelous in our eyes. The door to God's heart is open. Is our door open? Jesus is knocking. If we open up the door to our hearts, he'll come in & have supper with us & we with him. The food will be sweet going down & make everything good on the inside.

"You see, I really don't need to add 'substance' to what some of you are promoting as your beliefs." No, you don't. The criticism was that you have no substance concerning YOUR beliefs. "I just let you 'waffle' on..." But you don't. "...and myself and others can draw our own conclusions." It's been a while since I've been here at the cafe, but from what I can see on this thread, it is YOU that everyone has drawn their own conclusions about. "As for 'taken to task' by moderator for postings Todd...try not to be so 'foul-mouthed' with your words." As I said, it's been a while since I've been here at the cafe, but I don't see where Todd has been anything but the perfectly constrained gentleman. Are you drudging faults from other threads that you've kept in a little black book of other's faults, , or, which seems from your other statements (see above in this post), are you just that unable to match your thinking to what's really happening? Perhaps this last question should be posted on the computer questions thread, but isn't there some way to direct those who show up here thinking about the validity of TWI to a history of this guy's posts? C'mon, you anti-PFAL guys put him up to this - fess up.

Todd, dancing, & whoever I guess, I see no problem believing in spiritual transformation now & a physical transformation at the physical return of Christ accompanied, at that time, by a dramatic spiritual transformation made possible by our new spiritual bodies. However, there is something about the return that I learned a couple of days ago that does strike me as having the potential to lead me into an exclusively outward (to the exclusion of any spiritual considerations) view of the return. "Potential" mind you; it's a perception (my perception) thing. Maybe I'm wrong about this (& I don't want to get the thread sidetracked), but I realized the other day that, in order, we get gathered together, then there's seven years of tribulation (& I really don't want to sidetrack the thread onto a when is the trib discussion), then the 1st resurrection, then the Millenial Kingdom during which Christ reigns on earth for 1000 years - all happening before the new heaven & earth. So what? Previously, when I would consider life after the return, I would see it happening in the new heaven & earth, the new paradise on earth, & wherever - but a long time from now. But if Christ is reigning for the 1000 years starting seven years from say maybe NOW, well, that's not all that far away. I know that there are Christians who are seriously - a lot more seriously than I am - engaged in effecting change in our country's politics, policies, whatever - AFFAIRS - toward a more Christian society. They see their actions here as building toward the functions Christ will give them in the Millenial Kingdom. Their perception of rewards is a lot more directly connected to what they are doing now than mine is. All of which has what to do with this thread? On the one hand, I envy them their fervor, their engagement, & the concreteness of their vision. On the other hand, I wonder whether they're not making the same mistake that Israel made at the 1st coming of Jesus in thinking that he was going to build a kingdom on earth that would last forever. On the one foot, Jesus IS going to have a real, physical kingdom going during those (maybe seven years away) 1000 years. On the other foot, OUR kingdom is still the Kingdom of God residing within at the present time. Or is it? What about the Christian origins of our country (I mean aside from all the non-Christian stuff). What IS the place of the Body of Christ & members in particular in our politics & society, & what significance does our participation play when rewards are given - or do we just pull people out of the evil times & protect them in the HOUSEHOLD? Okay, I know that in this last paragraph I've been out of hands & feet, & any other appendage is just not up for grabs (how's that for lack of committment?), but these questions ARE close to home.

Dang it; now I have beer on my computer screen.

On the Waterfront? Thanks Sudo. I'll play with your advice for a while. I have DVD decrypter & DVD Shrink, but I don't have Nero. Do I need Nero? Let me see what I can do. Thanks again. Tom

What I'd like to be able to do is change commercial blockbuster type DVD vob files into a format that Windows Movie Maker will recognize, so that I can edit them into small (5 second to 5 minute) segments and combine them with other types of files into another "movie." I can do or figure out how to do everything else that I want, but it is the DVD vob files that I'm stuck on. I know imac has all this put together nicely, & I know that the next Windows operating system will be able to do this, but meanwhile... I'm an English teacher, & I'd like to use those 5 second to 5 minute segments to illustrate elements of literature like setting, characterization, etc, using video clips, without loading up a separate DVD everytime I want to show something. I'd like to put my whole package together in one place this summer. Kids relate to movies, & it is so much easier to get the concepts across that way (& later utilize the concepts in reading) rather than read several pages of dense literature everytime I want to get a separate concept across. I'm sure there must be some good programs (preferably free) out there that I can use in conjunction with Windows Movie Maker to get the job done without too much brain damage in the process. Or maybe there's a program that I can purchase for a few bucks that will take the place of Windows Movie Maker entirely & do the job that imac does so well now. Anyone? Thanks, Tom

Sir G, Always the engaging thinker. Is it possible that the second coming of Christ is something that happens from within? Why not both? The promise was life in all its forms. Will Christ come from outer space? OutSIDE space I figure. We tend to think of the Universe as everything that is, but it is expanding which means it is limited. It has an outer edge beyond which... Check it out: Scientists figure that all things that we "see," being what is, the Universe would slow down its expansion, stop expanding, & collapse in on itself. But it is not; it is expanding - I think at an ever increasing speed, which speed indicates to scientists that besides all the matter &/or energy that we traditionally associate with our idea of the Universe, there has to be antimatter & antienergy being pumped into the Universe to keep it expanding the way it is. As a matter of fact, last I heard, they figure that for the Universe to keep expanding the way it is, it must be made up of approximately 30% the matter & energy we know about & 70% this anti-stuff. Somebody/thing is pumping an awful lot of something from somewhere to keep this thing going. Perhaps that's where Christ is & will come from. Will Christ come from Earth's upper atmosphere? (i.e. "the clouds") One of the last things he'll pass on a long (to us) journey. Or will Christ come through that narrow narrow gate to heaven that is within our very hearts and minds and soul? (i.e. "the very air we breathe") His coming will change a lot of things in big ways. For one thing, we won't be breathing air anymore. We're talking transformation beyond which we can imagine. Which would you prefer? The alternatives are too limiting. Both & more. Which makes more sense in terms of the spiritual life of Jesus? I think the spiritual body will incorporate both - spirit & body, right. There will be no separation spiritually, and our body - well, even though we will have our own bodies, we will operate as one body. Is it possible that most of the figurative language of the Bible refers to transformative INWARD realities of life? Possible. Is it possible that all those heavy heavy enigmatic figures could actually be more useful and practical as metaphors for how to temper our own body, soul and spirit? Those heavy heavy enigmatic figures - as opposed to those light light transparent almost to the point of not being figurative figures? Lost me there, bro. What does the Bible say about relying on outer things? It says all our outer thingies will pass away. if Christ is already supposed to be within, why does he have to come from somewhere else to gather us together? So we can all mob, straight chillaxin in the big cribset and jammin on the one. holla back and forth and say wassup to all the brahs and breezies up in here in da tru dat place. all feelin each other, you feelin me? Oh, yeah, plus we'll have stuff to do. Things will be taken to market. There will be FOOD! it's all good, word up, t

umm umm mudda I imagine so. But isn't that always the case? The fastest gun always finds someone faster. I guess saying you've heard better is your nice way of saying that it wasn't said well. Perhaps you're right. I'm obviously outnumbered here everyone else to one. I still think that perhaps the author doesn't care if you think that it is said well. No, that's not right; the author does care if you think it is said well, but not in the traditional sense. The author purposefully makes the words flow better where the sense to be communicated is of the dance flowing and purposefully chops the flow of words where the theme turns on the incompleteness of our perception of the flow of the dance. There seems to be too much of a match up between the flow of those two contrasting themes and the language. I don't know; maybe it's my imagination. Much that is poetic is not designed to be liked. Okay - warning: the rest of this moves even more towards rambling. I went to a concert to see The Band (the band called The Band) play once with an excellent musician friend. I kept noticing the mistakes that they were making. Upon my pointing out a few of those mistakes to my friend, he said that I was missing the music. Everyone makes mistakes when they play, but there was music worth hearing happening. So, I listened & enjoyed the music as much as I could. Last week I rented "The Last Waltz," a DVD about The Band. It basically traces about 3 decades of their music. As I watch & listen to it, I can't help but think that , after all these years, I basically really don't think that they are as good as many others I've heard (faster guns if you will). Were it not for that fact that they are playing with many other excellent musicians - such as Muddy Waters, Eric Clapton, and many others of "equal calibre," I don't think that I would be enjoying the DVD near as much as I am. Now here's the thing. My excellent musician friend, Eric Clapton et al think The Band is worth listening to and spending time playing with. Again, it's everyone else against me - only the other way around - & I can't hope to qualify to tune their instruments. Don't get me wrong, I like listening to The Band, I just dont feel them as much as others do, and I don't feel them as I do others. So, what does all this rambling mean? Ramblin' meaning is just so random, dog. Meaning can be mean. don't get all up in someone's grill, cause their ride seems whack be straight chillaxin in your cribset i'm just tryin to represent. aite? gotta mob. peace out, t

Roy, Discussing whether statements are literal or figurative is not the same as discussing whether they are fleshly and/or spiritual. Literal doesn't = fleshly, and figurative doesn't = spiritual. We can talk about fleshly things in figurative terms. And we can talk about spiritual things in literal terms. So, you've sort of changed the subject.

I think the basic rule here is that if the passage can be taken literally it should be. If it can't possibly be literal, then it is figurative. Unfortunately, carrying that out practically usually translates into what Oakspeare said - what can be literal is what fits with people's doctrine. But that's still the answer. The most comprehensive interpretation that fits with all the details is what we're looking for. But that's just the mind's rational process of interpretation concerning all things the mind is exposed to. For what it's worth.

Oh, I don't know - I liked the farting camel simile. Disjointed tone there, yes, yet aptly expressive of what it feels like to allow yourself to sell your true self for counterfeit coins. I think the poem is perhaps designedly disjointed throughout to effectively convey the contrasting flow of the dance with the ruin of deceitful habits - so that the reader receives a visceral and tactile sense of the wisdom and the need to "cast ALL your votes for dancing. I think the spirituality of the Friend metaphor may be East Indian - Hindu - in nature. Perhaps that grates against our sensibilities. I also think the verse about wishing ones head was missing is purposefully made to be jarring to the reader who is expecting the feel of the flow of the dance to prevail in the poem, but that just gives the verse all the more impact. Our heads STILL get in the way of the wisdom of the dance, and the author wants to convey that all the votes haven't been cast yet, so there is instability.

I have to? No, I don't have to! I'm thinking YOU have to. But be delivered from having to by thinking about the Lord. When I meet the Lord, I'm going to be thinking about the Lord. If ever I thought or will think about the Lord, when I meet him, that's when I certainly will be thinking about the Lord. Doctrinally threading thoughts, Tom

Sounds like they used to get revelation. I guess maybe SOMETHING other than God became their priimary source of attention.

How odd that I find myself referring again to principles taught by Wierwille to refute the proposition that his character did not affect the truthfulness of the Word of Truth that he taught! That he indeed morphed it, so that, although it was still the Word of Truth, it was no longer the True Word. Not every place, he spoke, but in the places where he let the unsavory aspects of his character through. And he HAD to let the unsavory aspects of his character through in places because out of the abundance of he heart the mouth speaks. Indeed, in either case, whether it be from purity or impurity of heart, out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. It has to. Raf, you say that you "have not looked it up lately, but didn't Jesus say something along the lines of..." I suggest you do look it up. It certainly warrants looking up. Why? Because it appears to contradict many clear verses on the same subject. Basic logic, taught by Wierwille, that we shouldn't accept one verse as truth that appears to contradict many clear verses on the same subject. Verses, many of which have been shared here - that much to my alarm I see people whose ability with the Word, like yourself, I respect, ignoring. Verses like out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The legs of the lame are not equal: so is a parable in the mouth of fools. Yes, I know that even a fool, if he keeps his mouth shut will be esteemed a wise man. But every fool will open his mouth & tell the world that he is a fool. It is a law of life. In that case, he may be speaking the Word of Truth, but it will no longer be the True Word. As a thorn goeth up into the hand of a drunkard, so is a parable in the mouth of fools. The parable is no longer the True Word giving life; although, it is still the Word of Truth. I don't think that everwhere Wierwille spoke an evil heart "changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator." Sometimes, I believe Wierwille was doing a fine job of worshipping and serving the Creator "who is blessed for ever." Amen? Either way, his character showed through - as all those verses, & paraphrases of verses, above show. So, what do we do, Raf, with your verse about "do[ing] as they say, not as they do?" Wierwille taught us (isn't this fun?) that if we find a verse that appears to contradict other clear verses, the error has to be either in our understanding or in translation. So, we look at what's been written. Do we understand what's been written? It seems pretty plain: Matthew 23:1 ¶Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. So, we check translation: Notice that "that" is in italics (I'm scaring myself here). If we scratch it out as possibly wrongly supplied, we've got this word "observe" used twice in a row - I wonder if it is in the Greek twice, & if King James is truly giving the sense of it in this verse. I don't have a Greek interlinear - anybody? Anyway, what I'm thinking is that if we leave "that" out as having been incorrectly supplied, we're pretty darn close to not having Jesus command to do all the Pharisees say, but having him say everything the Pharisees bid you to observe and do, don't do. Any people adept at Greek out there that can check that out for us, please do. I don't know, but check this out, Raf. These verses introduce a whole chapter condemning not only what the Pharisees do, but also what they say, & even think in their hearts. The next verse says Matthew 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. I don't believe that this refers to them actually physically binding heavy burdens on people, but putting heavy burdens, grevous to be borne on them by the things that they say to them. Jesus wouldn't want this for the people. This is not the result of the True Word in people's lives. Same chapter: Matthew 23:13 ¶But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. The Pharisees shut up the kingdom of heaven against men by the things that they TOLD them. Certainly, Jesus, the Saviour of men, wouldn't want to shut up the kingdom of heaven to men by telling them to listen to the hypocritical Pharisees. Speaking of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, Jesus told his followers to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees which was hypocrisy, speaking to them of the DOCTRINE of the Pharisees. Certrainly, Jesus wouldn't tell people to beware of the doctine of the Pharisees which was hypocrisy in one place and tell people to do what they told them in another. Matthew 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Do what someone is telling you who is going to make you twice the child of hell that they are if you do? I don't think so. Heck, later, the Pharisees BID the people to demand the release of Barabas and the destruction of Jesus. Somehow, I don't think Jesus would have his followers do that. Raf, no offense, but we're not supposed to put that kind of trust in man because of who they are or who they are not, but we're supposed to line up what people say with the Word because people blow it - that was one of the reasons Wierwille liked the inspiration manifestations so much, because every man screws up the Word here and there except Jesus who had no sin. That's just the way it is.

Now, class, in this session on pooower for abundant living, I want you to take your biybles, and I want you to turn to Proverbs chapter 26, verses 7-9 [barf bags are not included in the price of the class, your on your own - at least Galen might find this interesting]. In these classes, we are not afraid to tackle the really tough questions. The one great requirement of every Biblical student is to rightly divide the Word of Truth. The Bible, the Word of God in its originally-revealed form, is the Word of Truth. But when it is wrongly divided, the true Word does not exist. We have the Word of Truth only to the extent that the Word of God is rightly divided. THe question is not whether we are dividing the Truth. The question is are we rightly dividing it. Proverbs 26:7 The legs of the lame are not equal: so is a parable in the mouth of fools. 8 As he that bindeth a stone in a sling, so is he that giveth honour to a fool. 9 As a thorn goeth up into the hand of a drunkard, so is a parable in the mouth of fools. Proverbs 26:9 says "As a thorn goeth up into the hand of a drunkard, so is a parable in the mouth of fools." Please note with an alacrity of mind that the fool is still speaking a parable of the Word of Truth, but it is no longer the True Word because he has not rightly divided it because he is a fool. The Word of God is the true Word only when it is rightly divided. When it is wrongly divided, we have error at the particular place where it is wrongly divided. This Word of God is the greatest thing in the whole world and rightly divided it gives us the true Word; it gives efficacy, power, exuberance and the more abundant life which Jesus Christ made available. Wrongly divided, it is like a thorn going up into the hand of a drunkard. In this class on power for abundant living I teach you both HOW with a capital H, a capital O, and a capital W, to have power because sometimes I got it right, AND, with a capital A, a capital N, and a capital D, how to be a drunkard, spiritually and in every other way because sometimes I'm a real fool. When you eat this Word in this class that is rightly divided, you will have power. When you eat this other bull dinky in this class, you will become drunk and have a thorn go up into your hand, and you won't even know it until you wake up with a nasty hangover and a thorn in your hand - if you ever wake up. In both cases, you will have the Word of Truth - big f'n woopdidoo - but only when I'm (and you're) not a fool will you have the true Word - and power. It's not whether you have the Word of Truth that matters (if it is no longer the truth because it has been morphed into error), it's whether you have the true Word. And don't forget verse 8 As he that bindeth a stone in a sling, so is he that giveth honour to a fool. Tom

Why? Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. But why do you say that? I never said that there is nothing valuable in PFAL. I think there is a lot of great things in there. What amazes me is that there are those who defend the class supposedly because of the Word that's in it, but disregard the Word that is in it. It's deceitful. Not much of a recommendation. It seems to be more about the promoting of a man and a justification for sin than a sincere desire for the purity of the Word.

Well thought out & said Socks.

It's supposed to be for your learning, WD - too bad you didn't learn the lesson. Things that are not written to us may be taken as written to us insofar as they do not contradict that which is written to us. Dang, WD, too bad you didn't learn that from your time in the way.

Sweetheart, I think it was the same word :) Darkening or obscuring the sight of something

"Well Thomas like I said I read and hear stuff all the time" "Stuff," is that like once Wierwille didn't help an old lady across the street? "Stuff," what a nice word, like "fluff." No, it doesn't sound to me like you "hear." "Micro-analyze?" "each persons life?" Whew! How fluently your mind does spin the flimsy fabric of obfuscation! What happend to the other "F" word and the young girls and the name Wierwille? "How do we really know what moral decay is in someone's life hidden" And the "F" word fruit? Can't you tell anything about anyone? And all this bible study has done what for you? "And we have not even discussed who makes the morals? and how they have changed over time and cultures." Sounds like the Wierwille doctrine that justified his immorality to me. Then, you support his behavior? I don't think I'd want anyone I know receiving "truth" from you. Matthew 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. Silly Jesus, what did he know? Nothing according to you - probably didn't know about how culture changes morality.

WOW, thanks for the links & for bringing it up again - I would have missed it. And thanks for the compliment. I'm on spring break, but I'll be scarce here again soon - I'll try not to be absent completely. , I know, I know - sorry.

Now that makes a lot of sense to me. The only thing I take issue with here is your rejection that "someone's morals somehow morphs the truth contained in a class into untruth." That's something that I agree with VP on - and apparently you don't. VP taught in PFAL that if a man practices error long enough, he makes a doctrine out of it. By the time someone's practices becomes someone's morals - motivation based on ideas of right and wrong - he HAS made a doctrine out of it. The idea that someone can teach a comprehensive foundation of the Word without his ideas concerning right and wrong entering into it seems absurd to me. Matthew 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. Luke 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

I haven't been around here for a while, Belle - where is that? Oh, & don't hold back so much - tell us what you really think. Just kidding; actually, it is very gratifying to see how much you've grown since the last time I was here. What a big and honest heart & mind! Did I say hi. It's good to "see" you again, Belle. And to all. Tom

Is really about Wierwille worship? Please say no. Again, simply, why not just teach the truth & leave the error out?