WordWolf

I think LEONARDO DI CAPRIO was in at least 2 of those.

The first quote could possibly have been "the Honeymooners". Since the second could not be, that makes this show "THE JACKIE GLEASON SHOW", (or "The Jackie Gleason Hour", or whatever it was.)

Taking a swing, but I have to eliminate this one because I keep thinking of it. "AUTOMAN"?????

Oh, "BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER KWAI", featuring "Colonel Bogey's March!"

Taking an educated guess here.... "ANNIE"???

That explains why I couldn't recognize any of the quotes.

Wait, that last part sounds familiar.... Cream's "IN THE WHITE ROOM".

*reads the 9 verses* Even in his own version, it says people will be judged according to their works, and that's all they say. He went from those words to "they'll suffer for some time, and then they'll be annihilated." That was a heck of a jump on his part. It said they would be "judged" (HOW?) and they would be judged "according to their works" (WHAT'S THE CRITERIA, WHAT'S AT STAKE, AND WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES?) With no other verses, JS inserted his own ideas into the subject. -He footnoted and cross-referenced all sorts of things....but not when it came to that. So, it seems that his ideas were more important than being truthful on this subject. It speaks of vanity. It's the kind of thing that you would expect of a man who would publish his own version of the Bible.

Parables, from what I can see, are each meant to make a single, specific point, in a manner that almost anyone could understand it, and that's it. They are not meant to dissect in fine detail for doctrine- except possibly for the single, specific point. The parable in question is rather pointedly about forgiveness. So, in the parable, the framing story shows a person in prison until a debt is paid. As a basis for doctrine, that's missing the mark (to put it nicely.) Shame on JS if he couldn't just see that immediately, let alone catch it on a later read. As I see it, for him to miss something that obvious means he didn't WANT to see it, and was busy trying to justify something he wanted to see, even if he had to torture the verses to PRETEND that's what they said. Right now, it makes no sense to me for a punishment to be more suffering and THEN annihilation. I'll have to look over the 9 verses and see if, somehow, it makes sense to me afterwards.

*looks up from his book* I'll be back in a bit, but I want to see if anyone else gets it first. I'll keep reading in the meantime.

*reads the Appendix* So, he re-invented Purgatory, a name that does not appear in the Bible! I noticed he made an extensive case for everything EXCEPT the Purgatory. For that, he had EXACTLY ONE VERSE. (Matthew 18: 35.) One thing my twi experience taught me, was that, whenever I saw a doctrine based on EXACTLY ONE VERSE, to look at that verse a lot more carefully, because it was being misunderstood or misinterpreted. (Even its proponent couldn't find another verse that said that. He had to go to Romans 2:5- which doesn't say that- and add a word salad and then claim it DOES say that.) Matthew 18 ended with a proverb whose purpose was explaining forgiveness. I notice he was rather selective in reading into the Parable. He didn't read into the slave throwing the other slave in prison over 100 denarii owed himself here, just the last verse. I'd be a lot slower on the draw than to make either a glib comment, or worse, an entire doctrine, over a single verse like that. JS should know better. But then, if one's "education" is limited to twi and ex-twi, one can be hampered with problems like this for life. vpw hinged doctrines on a single verse all the time.

Well, I'd like to weigh in, here. I'm hoping we can avoid personal shots. In an absolute sense, I'm not sure I'd consider ANY standard as "objective." Let's suppose (for a moment only) that an Omniscient, Omnipotent Deity went and wrote a single standard into all of reality below the quantum level, so that the smallest things that make up the things that make things into things were all based on this single standard. So, all of reality would have it. It would be universally consistent. But would it be "objective"? It would be the decision of a single being whose IQ was so far above mine I couldn't fathom it. So, a standard by a being far, far smarter than me, and potentially far better than anything I could come up with. (Presuming at least as much justice and mercy as me, but more brains and more ability to perform.) That having been said, it would be a subjective standard because it was formed by a being (even if this being was The Being.) So, I may be misunderstanding what we're even discussing. (Forgive me if I am, if I am, it's not on purpose.) When it comes to more general standards of morality, ethics, and so on, I find, for the sake of discussion, I keep drawing on the 9 box alignment grid from AD&D. It's easy to picture. Draw a tic tac toe board on a paper. Leave space all around the nine boxes. Leave space inside each box to write in. Above the top line of boxes, write "Good." Below the bottom line of boxes, write "Evil." To the left of the leftmost, write "Law". To the right of the rightmost, write "Chaos." So, the top row are "Good," the bottom row are "Evil", the leftmost are "Lawful", and the rightmost are "Chaotic." If it helps, think of "Lawful" as "ordered", and "Chaotic" as "independent." (I've found that helps, when discussing this.) So, the nine possible Alignments are: Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral ("Neutral Neutral"), Chaotic Neutral. Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, and Chaotic Evil. Discussing True Neutral ("Neutral Neutral") starts arguments all by itself, so let's skip it or leave it for later, please. Lawful Good are those who say to benefit the most people, follow the rules. Superman and Captain America are Lawful Good. The Adam West Batman was Lawful Good. Neutral Good says to benefit the most. Follow the rules, or break them, whichever works best. The TOS Jim Kirk was Neutral Good. Chaotic Good says to benefit the most by circumventing the rules and freeing the people. Robin Hood was Chaotic Good. Lawful Neutral says to play by your rules, and that's what matters. Jean-Luc Picard and Frank Martin the Transporter are Lawful Neutral. Chaotic Neutrals avoid the rules and just want their freedom. Captain Jack Sparrow was Chaotic Neutral. Lawful Neutrals say the rules are so I can hold power. Darth Vader, Emperor Palpatine, Saruman were Lawful Evil. Neutral Evil say power is all that matters. Jafar from Disney's "Aladdin" was Neutral Evil. Chaotic Evil's want the freedom to grab or smash anything. Jason Voorhees and Gollum were Chaotic Evil. I left out real people entirely to avoid arguments. (We know Robin Hood by his legends, not his history.) Of course, characters- and people- can have tendencies leaning one way or another while holding an alignment. One Lawful Good may focus more on the Good than the Lawful, another may focus more on the Lawful than the Good. (We might say the first has Neutral Good tendencies, the second has Lawful Neutral tendencies.) We can discuss things in light of the alignment chart. (We don't have to, here or elsewhere, but we can.) I've found it helpful discussing why people or characters are different from each other. https://easydamus.com/alignment.html

Accepting both your premise and your source, you're jumping to the conclusion that there are exactly 45,000 completely different, mutually-exclusive concepts of hell, exactly one for each denomination. Your source called them "denominations", as in variations on a theme, but you changed that to "religions", which is more like the differences between Bahai, Islam, Hindu, Judaism, etc. The same source pointed out that there are 3 major and 6 minor denominational branches of Christianity. Even if every one of those had a mutually-exclusive vision, that would be 9 positions, not 45,000- which is a significant difference. That having been said, a quick look at what they teach shows that there's not 9 different, mutually-exclusive positions, because even a glance shows some of them have the same positions with cosmetic differences- Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican to name 3. Most of the other minor branches they mentioned agree with each other and with Protestantism. Even if one can argue that those 2 are mutually-exclusive positions (I'm not going to weigh in on it either way), that's not 45,000 different religions, that's 2 denominational positions. The difference is rather pronounced.

"CNN changed the game. In 1990, during Dessert Storm, still no one else was doing 24hr news-only broadcasts." I kept trying to watch Dessert Storm, but I just kept getting hungry.

CORRECT! CNN was founded. Worldwide, it was the FIRST 24-hour, news ONLY network. It was the first US news only network, 24 hour or otherwise. Now there's a bunch of 24 hour, news only networks. Seems like every major network in the US has one somewhere. ( CNBC, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, Reuters, not to mention BBC and Euronews, or business news like Yahoo Finance or Bloomberg.) Now, there's all sorts of 24-hour news channels, whether available for national or international viewing. (Where I live, there's at least one LOCAL 24-hour news channel.)

In 1985, JS wrote his Adultery paper. In 1988, JAL wrote about how this ruined marriages and damaged people. A lot of things had come to light in 3 years. When JS wrote again in 2000 with ces/stfi, the rest of us all knew about vpw raping and drugging women since so many of them had come forth. The young, idealistic guy who JS had been 15 years before now had an organization to promote where he was a top dog, and a vested interest in not looking any closer any more, even if it was dishonest. Plenty of people who have been determined to maintain the fiction that vpw wasn't a plagiarizing rapist and have made it a point to avoid all of their accounts. It makes things easier when they pretend there were never women who came forward. I'll call them like I see them- I have no organization to promote. It's not like you're buying a book I wrote at a table in the back of the theater or anything.

You are correct that they didn't immediately connect all the dots. vpw had intentionally designed a tight, secretive cadre. He knew it was a crime and knew any sane person would say it was wrong, so he surrounded himself with a blackout of news on the subject, and maintained a cover story saying the opposite. So, by reputation on the field, people would think such a claim was ridiculous. That having been said, he did sometimes let a passing comment go that gave something away. Also, as you got closer to the cadre, you started to get exposed to sex stuff- like on-grounds people and pornography "so they could minister to people better after watching the pornography." So, these guys knew about "consensual" sex, but not outright rapes or drugging where she was unconscious and he molested her. I put "consensual" in quotes because, with a power imbalance, exactly how much "consent" is there is a matter for disagreement and discussion. Miles away from anywhere else, thousands of miles from family, friends and home, and surrounded by people as indoctrinated as you, you're told this man has a direct link with God and are indoctrinated that he can do no wrong, nor would he want to. Then he starts telling you lies, like God wants you to commit adultery or fornication, and rationalizes it. In an absolute sense, she can say "No", but vpw set his little "consensual sex" game up rather cleverly. And those women likely to say something were never invited, and those women likely to be better victims- those with histories of sexual assault- were invited, and they were still monitored in case they looked ready to spill the beans. So, no, JS and RD had heard about some "consensual" sex, but not about druggings and rapes. What they did manage to hear was bad enough, and was not easy to hear due to the cadre doing their best to cover vpw's tracks. However, I think you misunderstood me about the timeline of events with JS and the Adultery paper. He gave 2 different accounts as to why he did the research, and 2 different time-frames as to how long it took. 1) He did it for his own knowledge because he realized he didn't know any verses offhand to recite to counter thoughts of fornication 2) No, he researched it because RD and VF told him that vpw requested a paper on the subject. A) So, it took him 3 years to research the paper. B) No, it was done in a few months. I doubt JS was INTENTIONALLY lying to us. I think he CONFLATED two different events, and each thing he said happened, happened. The order I see them happening and not contradicting each other nor common sense is 1A, then 2B. So, here's how I think the sequence of events went. 1) JS had the incident he mentioned, where he said "no" and sent the woman on her way, and realized he didn't have any verses in his "retemories" to recite on this subject. On his own time, and only as he felt like it, he spent the next 3 years on and off doing the research. He finished it to his own satisfaction, and went on his way. 2) Some time later, RD and VF approach him. "We were told the Grand Poobah wants you to research this. Let us know when you're done." JS now has an actual paper to write, an actual request to do so, and a request from the Grand Poobah. So, on his own time and in between everything else, he revisits old ground (it's old ground to him because he's researched it before), and in a few months during his down time, he's got a full paper on the subject. While he was writing it, he may easily have talked to a few people, sounding them out, asking what they were taught, and so on. That would account for having all the relevant "Appendices" with the "arguments" that JS had to address to be thorough and address twi's issues. He was honest, so he did so. Even when he finished it, he still had no idea it was the tip of the iceberg- or that vpw was the biggest offender- after all, if vpw ordered it written, why would he do so if it would expose him? So, JS didn't see it coming- although I think RD and VF did. So, that's how I reconcile JS's accounts. He wasn't lying, he was mistaken and conflated 2 different things. Of course, I could easily be wrong and one of those was a lie. You'll have to decide what you think was more likely. I really don't know the man. I know it's more common for the average person to be honestly mistaken than to go around lying. (In that respect, vpw wasn't "an average person." As a liar, he was an EXCEPTIONAL liar.)

It had nothing to do with flatscreens nor digital TV.

But Raf does. Why?

OK, this is probably too easy, but I'll give it a shot. In 1980, something happened in US television. It made world history one way, and it made US history in that way (obviously) and in another. In its own way, it changed television around the world, and that way still applies to this very day. What happened? By they way, cable TV had already existed, so it's not "cable TV was founded."

"John S. wrote, "In 1982 or 1983 Rev. Ralph Dubofsky and Rev. Vince Finegan came to me. Dr. Wierwille had asked them to do some work on the subject of adultery...This paper is the result of those years of study." In his Additional Comments, he said, "My paper is quite accurately presented here in WayDale. I wrote in through the summer of 1986 and handed it in to the research department in September of 1986." Do you or anyone else know more about why vp wanted such a study done? Was he having doubts about his ideas about adultery being accurate? Or was he counting on the study exonerating him? Did the fact that he was having serious health issues at the time have anything to do with this request?" "Also, why did it take JS around 3 years to study the topic and then begin to write it and hand it in after wierwille's death? That was a long time to keep him waiting, even denying him the privilege of actually getting an answer. Did he possibly share his results with vp privately before his death." Charity, I read that and thought about the same things you did- at least, when I was pasting it at the start of the thread. I'll go over what we know. We know that vpw was unrepentant and went to his grave, either unaware he was sinning, or willing to pretend, to the end, he wasn't sinning. We had an eyewitness say that, in his final hours, vpw was trying to scour his memory, and find where he'd "gotten off the Word" and blocked his own healing. Either vpw lied for that person- and knew he had sinned- or vpw told the truth- and he really didn't see what he'd done as "off the Word" when he raped and plagiarized and all the rest. Now, it's been said that, as people approach their final hours, if they see them coming, they look back over their lives, and may repent of wrongs. vpw didn't repent his wrong- he repented his lack of deliverance, because, to him, other people were things that he could use for his benefit. He wasn't "exploiting people", he was "using things." That's how he saw others. We know RD wasn't consenting to the rapes, and at the first sign there was one, he started to make a fuss- which is when the cadre gave him the bum rush off campus, making sure he spoke to nobody, kept an armed guard and attack dog in his presence, and so on. I suspect VF wasn't consenting, but I have no evidence other than my conviction. So, vpw was fine with adultery. RD and VF were NOT fine with adultery. RD and VF approach JS and say "Dr W wants adultery studied from The Word." I believe RD and VF told JS this. I do not believe vpw told RD and/or VF to look into this. I think they took it upon themselves to request this, and tacked on vpw's name to make sure it was taken seriously. JS had given 2 accounts as to why this paper was written. One says that RD and VF said vpw requested it. The other says that he studied this because he was propositioned, and realized he didn't have any verses come to mind to say not to commit adultery. Taking as given he's telling the truth as he remembers it, I think there were 2 events, which he conflated. In the first event, JS has his incident, and does his own research as to what is and isn't acceptable to God re: adultery. In the second event, RD and VF approached him. He finished the paper and had it ready to go in a few months. So, it's all speculation, but it's good speculation. I think vpw never requested the paper. I think JS studied the subject and didn't write the paper. A few years later, he was approached and asked to write it- and he finished it in a few months, revisiting the previous study, and speaking to women at the time, which is how he got the appendices written.

That's where vpw's cadre of sin came in. First, they procure the victim and get them to go to him in private. Afterwards, one of them "coincidentally" ran into her as she left, trying to make sense of what happened. This exit counselor, so to speak, can tell her how she was privileged and so on, and watch her for signs of exploding. If she seemed ready to spill the beans on having been raped/sexually assaulted, then the exit counselor passed word. Quickly, she's announced as unworthy in some way and kicked off grounds. This attacks her self-esteem while she's trying to make sense of things, and let's some innocent people possibly see she was kicked out for supposedly some weakness on her part (kept vague, of course.) She's immediately put on a nice, slow bus. That's really cheap, and since they're in the middle of nowhere, it will take her a day to reach home if she is close, dayS if she is not. That gives the twi propaganda machine lots of time to contact all the leadership in the person's home area and destroy her reputation. That way, if she says something to them, they've already "poisoned the well." Furthermore, it isolates her further, damaging her self-esteem even more. Any time someone was any kind of liability, twi shoved them on a bus. Sometimes it meant a person took a WEEK to get home, because they were in no shape to go home alone, and got lost somewhere in the US. That happened a few times. lcm documented vpw doing it in his book "VP and Me." (We discussed that in the thread "VP and Me in Wonderland.") A man in residence evidenced some sort of event- he was incoherent. Any normal place- where having a fiduciary responsibility to care for people they accepted responsibility for- would have had him taken to a hospital and evaluated. What did vpw do? He CONFRONTED the man! As if this was a sane response. Then he sent the man home on a bus. lcm worried about the man getting home, but vpw told him to stop worrying and the man would get home. A WEEK later, he turned up at home. That's the most anyone at twi knew about what happened to the man. He showed up at home a WEEK later. I wish we had details about his ordeal, and about what medical situation had happened. Was it acute malnutrition or sleep deprivation? Was it some undiagnosed brain condition? Was it something else? We'll never know, and vpw never cared. We know at least one woman got sent home (IIRC, after getting raped hitchhiking on LEAD when she was sent alone on someone's vehicle) and she was a mess psychologically when she left. Nobody cared. She was in no shape to take care of her connections, and she got lost somewhere in the US. Several days later, she made it home.

TWI's sedative to the conscience - About The Way - GreaseSpot Cafe T-Bone, 9-12-2008 "What is Libel" thread. What is Libel? - Page 3 - About The Way - GreaseSpot Cafe Fact: On September 13th 1984, TWI's Rome City Indiana Campus, I was at a pajama party hosted by vp. In attendance were some two hundred Family Corps [both adults and teenagers]. He played a porn video followed by a talk on how a Christian can so renew their mind that this stuff wouldn't bother them, the spiritually mature can handle anything and that anything done in the love of God is okay. After the talk, he lightened up things by telling a few jokes and showing a porn pen to a sixteen-year-old girl. -------------------------------------------------------------- T-Bone 3-10-2008 "A note on forgiving" thread. And you know – it's not like I've brought up anything that happened on a remote island, a long time ago…in a galaxy far, far away...and so maybe you think I don't have all the facts straight…My stuff is written down…They encouraged us to keep a journal while going through the Corps program. Man oh man did I write stuff down! I'm working on "My Story" – don't know if I'll ever post it here – but it's been very therapeutic for me to articulate my experience. I'm up to chapter 5 of "My Story" – my Corps experience…Yecch! I'm reviewing my Corps journals. I can tell you the exact "day and time and hour " when vp showed our Corps the porn video at the pajama party. Wanna hear something really scary? At what point in our Corps training do you think he showed it to us? It's on the third page of my first Corps journal – Tonto and I had only been in residence eleven days!

tonto, 1-31-2005, When was the first time you knew of sexual abuse/harrasment - About The Way - GreaseSpot Cafe Right after we left TWI in '86 we talked with a girl who had been groped by veepee when she was in rez in the 70's. We heard of other accounts and suddenly all of those incidents that never sat well with me rushed to the forefront. Like the in rez pajama party where he showed porn flicks, (and I mean the ones with a woman and a horse) to us in the corps with the junior corps present. There were other incidents throughout the years which should have been huge red flags, but when you don't connect the dots because you think you are part of the single most important spiritual movement of our time, you become blind to reality. Shoot, I can't believe how duped I was. ================================================ T-Bone, 3-3-2006 https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/9344-why-you-cant-sweep-it-under-the-carpet/One memory hit me real hard – VPW having a pajama party at our campus. He shows us a porn movie [a dog and a woman]. He invites one young lady up to the front to show her a porn pen he has . What do you think of that?!?! How appropriate is that? Imagine your local pastor having a sleepover and doing things like that? Kind of scary – okay make it an uncle or a neighbor – yeccchhh – still creepy. Oh – wait I forgot one more little sordid detail – I neglected to tell you this was the Indiana Campus – the Family Corps! There were teenagers in this pajama party. Oooops – I'm sorry another little detail – the young lady VPW was showing the porn pen to – I think she was 16. Oh – I can hear it now – a TWI screw-with-your-head-ism – "Get your head out of the gutter – I've just so renewed my mind that I don't think like that." Yeah, you just so f---d your conscience that it doesn't bother you. tonto, 5-27-2005 VPW, Cancer, and Gartmore - Page 5 - About The Way - GreaseSpot Cafe Uh, a "pajama party" to which VP specifically invited the junior corps, was the setting for this particular screening of the beastiality film. Shortly before its' screening a pajama-clad VP called an extremely shapely pajama-wearing 16 year old junior corps girl up to personally see the porno pen he had in his hand. Yeah, we all needed to see that "shocking wake-up call". Oh, and monkeys might fly out of my b*++. ======================================================= T-Bone 4-3-2007 Does twi need to be good? - Page 7 - About The Way - GreaseSpot Cafe Jean – I know this is a lot to take in. This stuff sounds so appalling…shocking…unbelievable…and unless a person was a member of the Way Corps [the people who were trained by and worked for TWI] they may never fully understand how VPW sabotaged people's moral compass and laid the groundwork for sexual predators like himself. I was in the Family Corps – and if you have a hard time believing first hand accounts because you do not know the person – you may want to consider the implications of something that was experienced by all Corps and on occasion even some TWI followers who were not Corps…At some point during Corps training everyone gets to see one of VPW's favorite videos – a dog having sex with a woman. VPW's Christian Family and Sex Class was only a hint of his lascivious attitudes. When I was in residence – VPW had a pajama part [an informal setting for making a good soft-sell of his perverted lifestyle] and showed us that porn video – remember I said I was in Family Corps – there were teens present! At one point during the pajama party VPW invited a sixteen year old girl to the front of the room and shows her this pen as he describes to the rest of us that it has little figures of a man and a woman having sex and you make them do it by moving the pen up and down. VPW's very presence always had the power to sedate the intellectual and moral functions of his most devote followers – there we were cutting up with jokes during the video – he's laughing along with us – all the while slipping in all that nonsense about how he's so renewed his mind that this doesn't bother him or shock him.

Not only was NOTHING like that ever taught in CFS, but I don't remember ever hearing anything like that anywhere in twi. Admittedly, I wasn't everywhere, but nobody seems to have seen it in all the posts I've ever read. I'm not keen to endorse everything in the Catholic catechism, but what you quoted is a lot more sound than vpw's version of things. In 7 sessions of "Christian Family and Sex". there was less than 1 episode on "Christian Family" and 6 full episodes on sex.