waysider

This one?

I went to twig until about 1990 at which time I simply drifted away due to other obligations. It felt pretty weird at first being "outside the household". The twig I attended was a very old established twig. The leaders knew almost everybody from the early, early days.(1950's and 1960's) I'm quite certain they were never involved in any of this but they must have known. Still, I never heard a word about any of this stuff until I came to GSC. The whole time between 1990 and when I stumbled into GSC, I felt like a real cop-out for leaving. HaHa! I sure as heck don't feel like that anymore.

"I told you once and I told you twice but you never listen to my advise."

A Whiter Shade Of Pale-----Procol Harum

I saw on one of the newscasts (don't remember which one) that the authorities are going to do DNA testing to find out who belongs to whom. I don't know if that is accurate but that is what they were reporting.

Anybody who can listen to this stuff and still defend VP ought to just give up and join the flat earth society. Thank You!!

Amen!! from the waysider camp.

If he did, he borrowed it from Cleveland DJ "Mad Daddy" Pete Myers. Growing up in Cleveland(or as Myers called it "The Land Of Oobladi") it's pretty hard to escape useless trivia like this. Myers used to close his show by saying " Until next time, keep rockin' and reelin' and hangin' from the ceilin'." Great Googly Moogly!!

I think your post spoke VOLUMES, excie ( But I have no idea why it disappeared.)

And a huckster is a huckster. Non exclusively speaking, of course.

"It's the integrity of the literal according to usage that always at stake"---sometimes---kinda, sorta. (All depends on the kind of steak we're talking about, ya know?----N.Y. Strip, Fillet, Rib Eye---) And then there's always the question of whether it's cool to put sauce on it or not. Guess that's the part where you have to factor in the local customs and whatnot.

Personally, I get a bit weary at times of this constant "Oh, Yeah!, well prove it!" line of thought. Certainly not everything should be taken at face value. Documentation of facts and figures is of great value for many things. But, this is, after all, a discussion style forum. That's what we do.------We discuss.----In the open. One should not feel compelled to have provide "absolute proof" of every single statement they make or present extensive research to validate every opinion. That approach stifles the free flow of ideas. This is a public forum. These statements aren't being made in secret, behind closed doors. I would think by now that Walter C. is probably well aware of the existence of GSC. If he is being misrepresented here, it's likely it would come to his attention. He can come here and offer his rebuttal if, in fact, it's warranted, just like anyone else. I would hope he would do that either personally or via a third party. By the way, I had a twig leader once who said "If you squeeze a Greek word too hard, you're likely to come out looking all wet." Do I need a "tape" to verify that?

Hi there, Mo!! Your posts are always insightful and thought provoking. I hope your health is continuing to improve. I know that I strayed off-topic so "we return you now to the regularly scheduled program".

At least he doesn't wear one of those wacky neck scarves.

It appears we may have run out of time for Shakespeare and Chaucer. Perhaps some John Cleland will suffice. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU7_ukdiqs8

Create Your Very Own Commentary For Fun And Profit. First you quote a scripture. Then you expound upon what it "REALLY" means. Perhaps you use some Greek words to give weight to your assertion. Maybe you elaborate on some long forgotten "custom" or social mores of ancient times. You might even translate it as a total package and explain that this is how you feel it should be translated in order to convey its essence in modern vernacular. (In other words, "adjust it for inflation.") That's what is commonly called Bible commentary. Get it? It's commenting on The Bible. It's exactly what Wierwille did. He was highly critical of others who did the same thing. When others did it, he called it private interpretation and insisted it was unacceptable. What's good for the goose is good for the geezer.

For the benefit of anyone concerned with what is and what isn't acceptable in regards to inventions, patents and trademarks, here is a link to the United States Patent and Trademark Office.(USPTO) http://www.uspto.gov/ For the benefit of anyone concerned with what is and what isn't acceptable in regards to copyrights, here is a link to the United States Copyright Office.(The Library of Congress) http://www.copyright.gov/

Is it not customary for one to avoid the usage of "first person" when writing such phrases as " A researcher must consider, etc.-----"?

It's nothing short of a theological dilemma. Choice #1. He was wrong about this and therefore could have been wrong about virtually anything. Not a good choice regardless of one's stance on theism. This is further complicated by his own teaching that if a prophet is wrong even once, he is not to be listened to. Yes, I know, he never called himself a prophet. He did, however, allow his students to believe he got his material by revelation(ie: as a prophet would). Choice #2. "] He was right and we followed the teachings of a "possessed " man. Again, not a very comforting thought. Is there a third choice I may have missed?

Well for starters, E.W. Bullinger died in 1913. Here is a link that has some information on him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._W._Bullinger In addition to being the person who introduced the concept of understanding The Bible in light of "figures of speech" ,(Figures of Speech In The Bible/ E.W. Bullinger) http://www.peterwade.org/articles/bullingr/append6a.shtml, Bullinger promoted the concept of the "7 dispensations" which were referred to in PFAL as the "7 administrations". (This is from the Wiki link) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Theology Bullinger's theology was a form of dispensationalism on which he wrote numerous articles which appeared in his monthly journal Things to Come. Bullinger described dispensations as divine "administrations" or "arrangements" wherein God deals at distinct time periods and with distinct groups of people "on distinct principles, and the doctrine relating to each must be kept distinct." He emphasizes that "Nothing but confusion can arise from reading into one dispensation that which relates to another." {Companion Bible, [10]} He listed seven "dispensations" in the Bible: 1. The Edenic State (Innocence) - which lasted until the expulsion from Eden. 2. Mankind as a whole (Patriarchal) - from the expulsion from Eden until the giving of the Law to Israel, although in one place Bullinger says that this dispensation ended with the Flood and the confusion of Babel. 3. Israel (under the Law) - ended with the rejection by Israel of the grace of God at the end of Acts. 4. The Church of God (The Secret Dispensation of Grace) - gradual transition from Law to Grace during the Acts period, culminating in the rejection of Israel in Acts 28:24-28. {Companion Bible, Appendix 193} 5. Israel (Judicial) - begins at the "Gathering Together". 6. Mankind as a whole (Millennial or Theocratic) - ends with the destruction of Satan. 7. The Eternal State (Glory) - no end. His name has become virtually synonymous with Ultra-dispensationalism. Although Bullinger was influenced by Edward Irving [11] and although Bullinger shared with Irving's contemporaries, the Plymouth Brethren such as John Nelson Darby, similar dispensational doctrines, members of the Brethren became some of his most persistent critics. Bullinger also taught a form of annihilationism. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- What exactly had Wierwille written prior to 1913 that Bullinger could have copied?

Randy Singer con Franco De Vita y Soledad Bravo

Wierwille stated that God told him that He (God) would teach him (Wierwille) The Word(Didn't say whether by 5 senses or revelation) like it hadn't been known since the first century if he(Wierwille) would then in turn, teach it to others. How many more times are you going to walk that tired horse around the barn?

Former Susan Tedesche guitarist, Sean Costello, (not to be confused with Sean Carney) has passed away just one day short of his 29th birthday. Here he is, pouring his heart into an old Otis Rush tune, It's My Own Fault. R.I.P. Sean

Isn't it ironic that one of the results of brainwashing is the inability to recognize it in one's self? This is from Dr. Singer (on the factnet.org web site) http://www.factnet.org/Thought_Reform_Exists.htm "Thought reform is accomplished through the use of psychological and environmental control processes that do not depend on physical coercion. Today's thought reform programs are sophisticated, subtle, and insidious, creating a psychological bond that in many ways is far more powerful than gun-at-the-head methods of influence. The effects generally lose their potency when the control processes are lifted or neutralized in some way. That is why most Korean War POWs gave up the content of their prison camp indoctrination programs when they came home and why many cultists leave their groups if they spend a substantial amount of time away from the group or have an opportunity to discuss their doubts with in intimate (11). Contrary to popular misconceptions (some intentional on the part of naysayers), a thought reform program does not require physical confinement and does not produce robots. Nor does it permanently capture the allegiance of all those exposed to it. In fact, some persons do not respond at all to the programs, while others retain the contents for varied periods of time. In sum, thought reform should be regarded as "situationally adaptive belief change that is not subtle and is environment-dependent". (8,10) The current effort by cult apologists to deny thought reform exists is linked to earlier protective stances toward cults in which apologists attempted to deny the cults' active and deceptive recruitment practices, deny the massive social, psychological, financial, spiritual and other controls wielded by cult leaders and thus dismiss their often destructive consequences. These earlier efforts to shield cults from criticism rest on a seeker theory of how people get into cults, which overlooks the active and deceptive tactics that most cults use to recruit and retain members. When bad things happened to followers of Jim Jones or David Koresh, the twisted logic of some apologists implied that these "seekers" found what they wanted, thus absolving the cult leader and his conduct. Finally, to promulgate the myth that though reform has been rejected by the scientific community, cult apologists doggedly stick to faulty understanding of the process contrary to findings in the literature, they ---- that physical coercion and debilitation are necessary for thought reform to occur, and that the effects of thought reform must be instant, massive, uniform, universally responded to, and enduring."

We should expect that people would use words and phrases in the same manner as the rest of general populace rather than insist they now have some "special" proprietary meaning.