What The Hey

A few quotes I've come across from others - which while we're on the subject I felt were appropriate enough to use as comments.

Even though we don't often share the same opinion on a number of things, those are also my sentiments as well. In R.o.t.S. Ewan McGregor (Obi-Wan) is purposely made up to look more like the actor Alec Guiness who played Obi-Wan in A New Hope (episode 4) but Lucas neglected to make Hayden Christensen (Anakin Skywalker in R.o.t.S.) to resemble the actor Sebastian Shaw. I also wondered about that. The only explanation I believe is one never sees Anakin Skywalker in episodes 4, 5, and 6 - we just see the evil Darth Vader - the man in the suit (yet Anakin is already a deformed human being underneath that suit) but his redemption back to the "light side" magically restores his youthful appearance. The story of Anakin Skywalker goes (even as Darth Vader) is that he is still "The Chosen One" to restore peace to the galaxy, etc. - not Obi-Wan or any other Jedi. Likewise, Anakin (the Jedi) had a higher percentage of those "mitichlorians" in his blood than any other Jedi. It would lend credence to his ability to maintain and retain his youthful appearance and not age (or age as quickly) as say, Obi-Wan. That may be Lucas' take and the reason behind swaping the image of Sebasitan Shaw with that of Hayden Christensen at the end of episode 6. The bigger problem I believe was replacing the human actor who originally played "Jabba the Hut" in episode 4 with that digitally created Slug. A better story plot for Jabba the Hut would have been to have something bad happened to "Jabba" that turned him from a human being into a Slug. With those high-tech inventions in Star Wars that would be plausible. It would also follow the original story plot in Star Wars. Being a smuggler himself, Jabba could have owed money to someone (or something). Jabba could have been depending on Han to "pay up" but Han's failure to "pay up" could be the cause of someone (or something) turning on Jabba and Jabba's "creditor" using Star Wars technology to change Jabba from a human being into a Slug as a form of revenge for not being able to pay his own debt. It would give further credence for Jabba the Hut seeking revenge on Han Solo in future Star Wars episodes. Even after Lucas removes the human actor in episode 4 and puts in the digital Slug, Han makes this final remark to Jabba, "Your a wonderful human being, Jabba". Why would Han Solo call Jabba a human being if he were already a Slug? The team at ILM went through a lot of painstaking digital editing to remove the human actor (Han Solo even walks around Jabba the Hut so the film editors at ILM also have to digitally shift Han upwards as he walks around behind to make it appear as if he steps on his tail) yet they overlook and neglect to edit or change Han Solo's comment to Jabba at the end of the dialog - i.e. "You're a wonderful human being --- "? Unfortunately episode 1 of Star Wars shows Jabba the Hut as being a Slug already rather than a human at the pod race with young Anakin Skywalker. Lucas really messed up here and he missed a great opportunity to develop a more credible story plot for Jabba the Hut. He probably spent more $ doing it this way too - IMO.

Remember this guy - the drummer?

Acts 21:20 seems to be the best comment - at least to me.

I'd go with the hangover vs. the menudo any day.

You mean you've never heard of the Bunny Ranch? (as in: www.bunnyranch.com)?

Pretty hard to beat performances like this. Greg Lake's virtuoso guitar work is impeccable (the time is around 30:53) in this video:

Dean Ellenwood was a musician in Joyful Noise I believe, in the early TWI years. This was the only other video of him on YouTube which deals with the renewed mind. UB - (that muppet that sounds like Ernie or Burt from Sesame Street that has that Kermie the frog color in his video) wasn't ever a part of early TWI. UB must be a new convert and part of Dean's current Twig I guess. The only sad thing is everything in this video has been copied. Even the music for the song in the video about the renewed mind is not an original song. It's to the tune of - It's Got To Be God. The words have changed, but the tune is to the song, "It's Got To Be God." I think Dean probably wrote the original song (I'm not absolutely sure) so he has the right to change the words to it.

I don't see where Christ dropped out of that verse, but I do see that the pro-noun "him" (i.e. equal to anything through him) which is referring to Christ is being used rather than the noun "Christ" in that verse. That's the answer to the question, but I don't know if that answers (satisfies) your question or not.

I didn't say I though those words were cuss words myself. I was simply making a case that people against Christianity often consider them as swear words. Now whether or not people in our time and our modern culture still consider those word offensive might be a matter of personal taste, but people from the east and during the time of Christ could have easily considered those words just as offensive and equivalent to us calling some one a B***H*** or A**H*** or any other expletive today. (Good point Raf). And LCM didn't think he was entertaining us?

Well VPW did say at one time that if only 50 people believed the Word of God he taught, he would be thankful to God. Remember that? Now TWI might be rapidly approaching that number today, but I don't think that number guarantees anyone that 50 people will still believe the Word of God that VPW taught to them.

I find it remarkable there were never any lawsuits (not a single one I am aware of) that were ever brought against VPW during his lifetime (or against TWI) for the things you allege and assert are plagarism, yet there was plenty of opportunity during his life for one to do so. If the rights of the authors of those works were infringed upon, I am aware any one of them could still seek legal redress as the copyrights of their works would still be in force, but none of those authors are seeking any legal redress. I am aware of lawsuits brought against VPW and TWI for many other things, but there is not a single one for plagarism. Why is that? Maybe it has something to do with that © 19xx by The Way, Inc. All rights reseverd - (that particular comment I put in bold) that is in all their publications? I for one have not been able to find a whole lot of legal information or insight as to exactly what that All rights reserved copyright clause would/could imply and cover. Copyright law can be a very complex issue even for the experts with degrees in copyright law. I highly doubt Mr. WordWolf or anyone else here has a degree in law - specifically copyright law or anyone else here qualifies in that regard. I believe many copyright lawyers prefer it to remain that way for various reasons that are quite obvious, i.e. big $$$ .

Not true. Jesus called the Pharisees and the Sadducees hypocrites and whited sepulchres (Matt. 23:27). Many people against Christianity make this argument because "Jesus using those words" still constitute Jesus himself as someone using cussing and swearing. You stated Jesus Christ never used such language, so how would you go about answering their argument?

From what I've seen, a lot of the debate on whether or not cussing or swearing is a sin all depends upon what is in someones heart when they do it. For example, you miss the nail you are hammering and end up pounding your finger instead and immediately say: G** D*** it! Is that a sin? Some people think so based on the fact that God's name or Jesus' name was invoked and the name of the Lord should never be used in that manner. Other people say no, because it wasn't pre-meditated and it was merely a slip of the tongue and you didn't intend and never meant that God or Jesus should damn anything at all. On the other hand, when someone is cussing at someone (rather than at an inatimate object - like a board or a nail in the above example) it is commonly thought that the person doing the cussing has pre-meditated ill-will toward the individual they are swearing at and cussing out. Now I am inclined to think that could be the case, especially in situations where an existing relationship between two individuals has deterioated - like between two spouses. This becomes even more apparent when verbal abuse leads to domestic violence. Then there are people who believe that they are being verbally abused just because they feel they are being attacked simply for holding a different opinion and no violence is involved at all. Some claim that swearing (verbal abuse) is a kind of violence in and of itself, that creates a deep and emotional pain and mental anguish that can be immobilizing. Some synonyms: ABUSE, VITUPERATION, INVECTIVE, OBLOQUY, BILLINGSGATE mean vehemently expressed condemnation or disapproval. ABUSE, the most general term, usually implies the anger of the speaker and stresses the harshness of the language abuse. VITUPERATION implies fluent and sustained abuse vituperation. INVECTIVE implies a comparable vehemence but suggests greater verbal and rhetorical skill and may apply to a public denunciation invective. OBLOQUY suggests defamation and consequent shame and disgrace, obloquy and derision. BILLINGSGATE implies practiced fluency and variety of profane or obscene abuse, e.g. "billingsgate at the cabdriver." (From: T. Ghostwolf Davidson) There is discussion on how swearing and cussing plays upon the psyche of Children. Children abusing one another with name-calling during playtime is said to be one thing, but it is a completely different thing altogether whenever it is done by their parents or elders. Some parents and elders have set ideas about how a child should behave, and if the child does not behave that way, the parents don't explain properly but make fun of their child verbally in front of others. If such fun is made in the presence of others then the child's psyche is hurt. The hurt may look very innocent but that makes a child feel insecure about themselves. The children lose faith in their own abilities. How is that behavior any different from preachers who don't explain things properly, who talk down and cuss at people because that "child-of-God" is not behaving according to their own set ideas? They end up playing the role of an incompetent parent - a frustrated parent unable to control their child - rather than that of a competent teacher or preacher of the gospel. (Some of them even give lessons on how to go about parenting children.) Because the child cannot hit back, it is taken for granted by many adults that children can be verbally abused without hurting them. Likewise these preachers got the same idea - that one can be verbally abused without being hurt.

You made the claim 6 million Jews (and not some other figure) were killed in the Holocaust, but when you are put upon for proof to back up that figure this is the best you can do? I say you (it's not just you either) are still parroting the tonnage of stereotyped myth, propaganda and the "left overs" from Roosevelt and Truman's political campaigns. The historical past vs. the political present is apparently a difficult subject for you and others to contend with, seeing how this old thread is still "kicking" and that old 6 million killed debate is still clearly "alive and well". Some of you come off sounding just like another by-product of the powerful Jewish-Zionist lobby here in the good ol' USA. Here is some honest research debunking the 6 million figure (these books are not TWI's "research" on the subject either) but I highly doubt proof is what some of you are looking for on this topic anyway. Apparently these books are equivalent to a "rat's butt" in you opinion as to "whatever it is" you would consider and accept as proof. Did Six Million Really Die? and God forbid there are scholarly works that contain scientific and technical evidence like air photo evidence that debunk that 6 million figure as well. Dissecting the Holocaust

I think one of the reasons we (I'm speaking "we" as an American society in general - not merely the professing Christian community) have become de-sensitized to cussing and swearing is because it is often viewed as a form of legitimate entertainment (i.e. comedy). It is not only done by secular entertainers (i.e. Robin Williams, Eddie Murphy, etc.) but by charasmatic religious individuals (i.e. Dr. Gene Scott, LCM, etc.) to garner support for their movement. There's just something inately funny it seems about one being able to swear like a drunken sailor. I am thinking there must be some correllation here between the two. Perhaps it shows off one's cleaverness and primarily one does it mainly to gain acceptance and popularity with others. There could be other reasons for it. Do some Christians justify cussing and swearing merely on the premise it is a harmless form of entertainment - underscoring ones wit, or is swearing biblically justifyable as well? The apostle Paul said he counted his previous religious training as: "dung". Now to religious people Paul's comment could come off as swearing and cussing regarding the Old Testament law, and that Paul was also bad-mouthing his religious mentors of the Old Testament law. There was an interesting discussion (thread) going on this same topic a couple years ago on The Maveric Band Forum located here: The Maveric Band Forum - Debate on Swearing. Some people made some very interesting comments on that forum regarding swearing and whether it was biblically justifiable or not. I'm just trying to get more input and insight here from the GreaseSpot Community on the same topic, since many people I know were exposed to VPW's and LCM's swearing and cussing when they went into their rants and tirades - especially on highly controversial religious topics. I'm thinking the comments on that forum will provide other's with further insight on this topic - maybe even help those who were the subjects of VPW's and LCM's foul mouth and had their character slandered in front of "their friends" at the time.

I just had a simple question for those of you who were chewed out by LCM when you challenged him and only ended up getting in his craw. Did LCM ever become as livid with you as Dr. Gene Scott gets with this guy from Australia who challenged him - or was he worse? Please try to be objective after watching this. I'm sorry if this video arouses any bad memories (I did say try to be objective about this) but I am beginning to think this behavior wasn't isolated to LCM. I am starting to think this behavior is typical of any preacher or teacher who gets a little insight (not just biblical insight from the bible but in any field) and then end up thinking they are God on a stick because of it. They sure don't want your advice on anything, but they sure want the whole f***in' world to realize they are the expert.

I never made the claim VPW was a "Johnny-Come-Lately" and I have no need to support that claim. It was a phrase the critics used (as I already explained) to infer VPW was just another anti-trinitarian who jumped on the anti-trinity bandwagond and decided to make his own case by writing JCING. That is what the critcs wanted everyone to believe to garner support for their case. So I am asking the critics to support that claim [they should be able to support their claims better than I] - but then they can't, and that is why they resorted to name-calling VPW.

Are you saying that the critics didn't call VPW a "Johnny-Come-Lately"? Who started the name-calling anyway? That's why it doesn't matter one iota to me what you think is mature.

The reference to VPW as somone who was a: "Johnny-Come-Lately to the party" could have been in one of the cult books written by Jack Sparks (wrote: The Mindbenders) or Walter Martin or any Trinitarian apologist's writing cult books and "Chrisitian" tracts from the same time period - circa late 1970's. The meaning of the phrase: "Johnny-Come-Lately" is referring to someone who recently started a job or a project and suddenly became successful, or it is used to refer to someone who lately became a recent adherent to a cause or a trend. It was a phrase the critics pulled from JCING by VPW (BTW, they never cited where they got that phrase - which by your definition would make them guilty of plagarism) to infer that VPW was just another anti-trinitarian who jumped on the anti-trinity bandwagond and recently decided to make his case by writing JCING. Sorry, but I haven't kept any of those early cult books to prove to you or anybody else exactly who wrote that in their Introduction. I never thought at the time I would have to keep those "early cult books" around just to prove that point to some **** replying to a post on the Internet in 2007 some 30+ years later. But the way I recall reading it is because I thought it was remarkable they couldn't even come up with or origninate a derogatory remark about VPW themselves - they had to "steal it" and plargarize it from his book! But if you still think I made up this claim that the critic's referred to VPW as someone who was a: "Johnny-Come-Lately" then that's your problem, but their claim certainly does not have to be supported by me.

The answer is in the Introduction of JCING - page 7, as well as the conclusion, (technically the Conclusion would start on page 125, but it is not numbered in the book JCING). From the Introduction page 7 and 8. This book [JCING] is a summation of my personal quest to test the doctrine of the trinity to see whether it is a man-made or a God-breathed doctrine. ... The book ends with a brief conclusion and six appendixes for a more careful study of certain aspects regarding God, Jesus Christ and the holy spirit. Conclusion: The Bible, which is God's revealed Word and will, does not once mention the word "trinity" although Biblically there are three: (1) God, who is Holy Spirit, the Father of ouf Lord Jesus Christ, (2) Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and the Son of man, and (3) the holy spirit, God's gift, which God made available on the day of Pentecost. Because God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ holds an exclusive, unparalleled position, it is imperitive that our worship of Him be directed to that position. God is before everything: [isaiah 43:10 is cited] God is the most holy [1 Samuel 2:2] God has no equal [Deuteronomy 32:39] God alone holds the power of salvation [isaiah 43:11] God does not want His people to know or worship any other gods. [Hosea 13:4, Exodus 20:3] The unique and exalted position of God as one God is taught throughout the Word. Thus we must worship God as the one and only God. What does God's revelation of Himself in His Word say? [There is the answer to where VPW got his idea/concept of God - the revelation of God Himself from His Word. It should be yours as well, whether you happen to agree with the conclusions of VPW or not.] This only is true and right doctrine. I guess one can take the Introduction and the Conclusion of JCING for whatever they feel it is worth.

Nope. I did not make this up. Apparently you skipped over the Introduction in JCING. (Taken from page 2-3): So while studying God's Word for the past several decades, I have always kept the trinity in mind, hoping I would find the key to understanding it, hoping that this wasn't one of God's secrets. But, through the years, the more and more I carefully researched God's Word for knowledge, the less and less I found to substantiate a trinity. Even though I had always accepted the idea of a three-in-one God, I continually found evidence in the Word of God which undermined a Christian trinity. There is VPW's own personal tesitmony regarding his original stance on the doctrine of the trinity. But if you are saying I need to back up the statement of the critic's who claim VPW was always anti-trinitarian, then apparently you have never read the Introduction in any of their books either. They often state and make the claim that VPW was always anti-trinitarian in the Introduction of their books (while aligning his position along with that of Arius) and then go on to refer to VPW as the one who is the: "Johnny-come-lately" to the party (debate) - i.e. saying Arius was the first one who came up with the anti-triniatarian idea of God, and VPW just came along later. The only question I would ask the critics is why do they feel the need to distort this fact regarding VPW's own personal "indoctrination" of the trinity from his childhood? The only answer to that is because it helps reinforce their weak doctrinal position - so that question really doesn't need to be asked. The critics who align VPW's anti-trinitarian stance along with that of Arius I think should be properly noted. Here is information about Arius the critics would probably rather not have those are seriously questioning trinitarian doctrine get a hold of. (This is taken from Wikipedia - the online Encylopedia.) Although the character of Arius has been severely assailed by his opponents, Arius appears to have been a man of personal ascetic character, pure morals, and decided convictions. Warren H. Carroll (paraphrasing Epiphanius of Salamis, an opponent of Arius) describes him as “tall and lean, of distinguished appearance and polished address. Women doted on him, charmed by his beautiful manners, touched by his appearance of asceticism. Men were impressed by his aura of intellectual superiority.” The anti-trinitarian critics are always painting Constantine as the hero of the Christian Church while painting Arius as it's opponent. Much like Arius, there are people who hold much the same opinion of VPW today, and it is that fact that really bugs and gets into some people's craw. But whether there are people who recognize it or not, (whether they value it or they debunk it) much like Arius, and regardless of your opinion of the book VPW wrote, he left behind a legacy on the doctrine of the trinity to be equally noted as well.

The truth of the matter is, many of those more educated ones your are referring to started out with the books written by VPW, so those educated ones really have no one else's face to laugh in except their own. I have nothing bad to say about any of my mentors. Even the really bad ones taught me something valuable.

This is the point where I and that particular reviewer part company and where we totally disagree. That reviewer is completely oblivious of the standpoint from which the original book JCING by VPW was written from, but I already explained that standpoint in my previous post. The point where I highly disagree with this reviewer is where they say the only usefulness of JCING by VPW is in reassuring someone who already agrees that JCING. They are another critic assuming that VPW was always an anti-trinitarian who was out just looking for supporters. On the contrary - the book by VPW is highly useful to those who have never considered the doctrine of the Trinity and the various implications that it presents - and to those who are likewise searchers of the truth themselves. But if you are someone who just wants to debate the subject or the doctrine of the Trinity with someone else, then by all means go ahead and get those books by those other authors. You may be on better footing for a theological debate with them.