WordWolf

No. He was pointing out that you're so locked into one or 2 things and only those, and trying to see if the answer is A or if the answer is B, while others are trying to present answers C-E. Wisdom often doesn't show up on demand. In fact, I've found insight tends to sneak in disguised as something else. "Some people can read "War and Peace" and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe."

The phrase "born again" is in I Peter 1:23, John 3:3 and John 3:7. (KJV) ================= 3 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.=========== Looks like John 3:7 and 3:8 are implying an equivalency between "born again" (literally "born from above") and "born of the Spirit."

My 7th/8th grade History teacher (same teacher both years) would have refused to accept it. She had a rule which I've been thinking about a lot during the past few years. Our definitions were not allowed to recurse. That is, we were never allowed to use a word to define itself. (There's never a guarantee your audience knows the meaning of the word, otherwise why ask you what it means?) Most of the time, that was easy to work around. We all hit a snag on defining "fur trader" without using the word "fur". I wrote down "animal pelt" and others ended up using "hairy skin of the animal." So, if she asked you what a fur trader was, and you said it was a trader who traded in furs, she wouldn't have accepted that answer. So, knowing this, and knowing that the same issues of understanding occur all through life, I return to answer your question. To be asked what "incorruptible seed" means to you, and to answer with "it's seed that's incorruptible" is just to shuffle the order of the words you were asked. It answered nothing. If I had no answer at all, I would have left it unstated. If I was game to try to explain it, I would explain, that, to me, it means "[meaning of seed] that can't be [meaning of corrupted.]" Either is a legitimate answer, One just avoids answering if you don't have an answer, one is an answer. (There's also "I don't know", which is a legitimate answer but people seem to loathe to resort to it.) I find this sort of thing is actually an ex-twi thing more than anyone else- when dealing with adults. I've seen so-called leaders resort to dodging when asked questions about the party line when they were forced to agree with it while knowing it made no sense. They dodged in harmony, too. In fact, I was preparing to snail-mail some Saltine crackers to various leaders in reply to those comments when they suddenly all stopped parroting that same line and seemed to all reverse position. Then again, I encountered a different cult where they all parroted the same things as each other also, so it's really more a cult and ex-cult thing than uniquely twi.

Mark Pendel Arthur Kipps Ignatius Perrish Walter Mabry Nate Foster David Copperfield Allen Ginsburg Yossi Ghinsberg Sean Haggerty John Kipling Dr. Vladmir "Nika" Bomgard Alan Strang Maps J. Pierrepont Finch Billy Claven Rosencrantz Sam Houser "Igor Straussman"

The original cartoon was "Dragonball." The main character was Son Goku, a boy who was from another planet and was super-powerful. He was partly inspired by legends of Sun Wukung, the Monkey King, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Wukong and Superboy. He was a Saiyan, and Saiyans are born with tails. When they see a full moon, they turn into King Kong's bigger brother unless their tail is removed (they change back to humanoid if it's removed from Emperor Kong.) The show had a kid who was a stranger to Earth customs AND was super-powerful, plus the sub-plots involving the other characters hunting for the Dragonballs. If you collected the 7, you could summon the big dragon and get a big wish granted or something. The wishes were only grantable once (if you wished for your friend to be returned from the dead and they died again, then you couldn't rewish them back) and the dragon was summon-able once a year. Sequel cartoons included Goku as an adult (Dragonball Z), and later ones included the next generation of kids like Gohan. ("Gohan" translates into English as "rice.") (I'm leaving out a LOT in the descriptions.)

Oh. The adventures of Superboy if he had a tail! I've seen some of those.

"Born again of incorruptible seed." What does it mean?" "To me, it only means the seed is incorruptible. It may mean more than that, but I don't actually know that for sure." There's not answering something, and there's pretending you answered something. If you don't want to address the question, it's ok to leave it alone. But "ducking a question" like this is a politician's strategy for deceiving people and getting them to like him. It's neither needed here nor preferred, and it isn't a good fit for "a discussion forum."

.

I mentioned much the same myself, and I thought everybody else thought it didn't make sense. (I don't "SIT" for the reasons vpw gave because it isn't what vpw said it is. It has legitimate uses, so I use it other ways.) I thought that was just me.

Mark Pendel Arthur Kipps Ignatius Perrish Walter Mabry Nate Foster David Copperfield Allen Ginsburg Yossi Ghinsberg Sean Haggerty John Kipling Dr. Vladmir "Nika" Bomgard Alan Strang

What little we did hear was long ago, but a few years after he was pushed out of twi, and living in a rent-free house with a doctor there to oversee him, He did apply for a position as a personal trainer at a local gym that had personal trainers. His notice was typed in all caps and spent as much time in self-aggrandizement as in being relevant to the position. It's entirely possible for someone to turn around, but it would not surprise me if he did not. First, you have to be able to be humble and admit that YOU were the problem at least some of the time- and that seems beyond him. THEN he can get to how his many faults were used to manipulate and later oust him completely. There's potential for him to get humble, go to a local church as a parishioner, get involved at the lowest levels, and finally mature and grow from there- but I don't see him "getting humble" because I think he thinks he doesn't need to grow. That would sentence him to spending the rest of his life as he was.

"Avatar-the Last Airbender" spawned a live-action movie and at least 1 sequel (Legend of Korra.) I didn't know about 2 other sequels.

By "departure from the show's history", did you mean the Asian main character was played by a Caucasian? That sometimes causes fights, whether in a Broadway show or in a cartoon-made theatrical movie.

I am adding my own OPINION when I say "we should WANT TO walk in love." I explained WHY we should want to. (It pleases God, and it's the right thing to do-which is why is pleases God.) I thought this was actually beyond dispute and that Christians would stipulate to that without an argument. (No, we shouldn't, no it does not please God, no, it's not the right thing to do...) I made that clear by not putting my OPINION in quotation marks. Really, junior high school English rules should make that clear. ============================== As for Bullinger and definitions of "other" and "another", he's defined "heteros" and "allos" completely differently in 2 ways. A) "Heteros" means "another of a different kind" and "allos" means "another of the same kind." This is consistent through the Bible. (One usage is in Galatians 1, the warning against being drawn to "another gospel which is not another". "Another/heteros gospel which is not another/allo", or "a different gospel with is not of the same kind", which sounds redundant when rendered plainly. Then again, if you accept "pleonasm" as a legitimate figure of speech as Bullinger did, that's just fine.) The other usage was to say one was "another when there are exactly two" and the other was "another where there are more than two." That actually is not used consistently in Scripture, and that was pointed out here, long ago. (Someone said that the mention of cheeks should obviously refer to two since a person has exactly two, but the Greek word used was the other, and so on.) I haven't looked into that one for something like 20 years because that definition seemed both INCORRECT and SUPERFLUOUS. The usage of "same kind" and "different kind" was consistent, sensible, and easy to demonstrate. So, in other words, I say Bullinger was correct in his OTHER (heteros, different) definition, and not in this one. Since the definitions contradicted each other, it seems evident at as many as one could be correct (both could have been wrong, or one could have been wrong, but since they contradict, they couldn't both be right.) ================================== There's this thing that's actually pretty common among ex-twi splinter leaders. It's a false bifurcation that's based on over-compensation. They take one extreme position on something, see that there's problems with that extreme position, so they conclude that the polar opposite position must be true, and skip over the problems with that extreme position. We saw that when Geer attempted to reconcile God's Love and God's Omnipotence with the continued existence of evil. (This is a very old question, and smarter men than him have hit the reefs on it.) Time Magazine addressed this same problem once as their cover story. They claimed that any TWO of those could operate together, but that all 3 could not. If God was Omnipotent and evil existed, He wouldn't be Love because He'd be fine with evil existing. And so on. Geer decided that the issue could be decided by rejecting God's Omnipotence. Specifically, he rejected God's Omniscience, His "All-Knowingness", if you please. He imposed that explanation on Scripture, and mangled Genesis 3 to claim it supported his assertion when it actually did the opposite. In this case, the problem was looking at vpw's proclaimed grotesque position that- once one is saved, one can sin with impunity without any significant consequences and God would just let it go because you have Eternal life and Incorruptible seed. Well, the seed won't corrupt, the life won't end, but that's hardly the same as saying there will be no consequences. I'm confident there will be severe consequences but that they won't end eternal life or rot incorruptible seed. If you like, we can get into this in a Doctrinal thread. Personally, I think it doesn't matter because of the results. If I'm planning on backstabbing God, the actual consequences won't scare me into a turnaround. And if I don't, then it doesn't matter what the penalty would be for doing so. (I don't care about the legal penalty for counterfeiting because I have no plans to ever counterfeit.) In other words, no, I don't think that we have "a guaranteed place in Heaven." I think we have "eternal life" and "incorruptible seed". None of that guarantees "Heaven." That was what vpw referred to (incorrectly) as "private interpretation" no matter how many people taught that in twi.

Really, thanks for the clarification. The group sounded VERY different before and after that little addendum.

A) Ephesians says nothing about salvation being dependent upon us walking in love. It says to walk in love. It doesn't say "walk in love OR ELSE..." We should WANT TO walk in love because it pleases God AND because it's the right thing to do (which is why it pleases God.) B) One of the great problems of twi survivors is this dependency on a version of the Bible that's 450 years old. This introduces 2 problems: 1) It doesn't correct various corrections that were made in the last 450 years (most weren't retro-fitted into the KJV, although a few were.) 2) The archaic language suits those of us who read Shakespeare for fun, but for the rest, relying on Elizabethan English and not modern words leads to MISUNDERSTANDINGS and MISCOMMUNICATIONS. vpw made a lot of bank on some of those, and exploited them. (Example: A page of explanation on "replenish" being used rather than "fill"- when the non-English texts translated INTO the KJV said "fill".) In this case, "creature" is not understood they way it would have been understood by Shakespeare or any of his contemporaries. It means, in simple modern English, "created thing." The sentence is making a very big point, and builds up to it somewhat from big to GIGANTIC. "I am convinced that neither what's dead, nor what's alive, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor the things that EXIST, nor the things that DON'T EXIST YET, nor height, nor depth, nor ANY OTHER THING IN CREATION, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." I agree with Paul here. I'm also convinced, but I can only speak for myself here. I obviously don't speak for Dan. We count as "created things". things in creation. So, we can't separate ourselves from the love of God either.

Ok, next round. Name the actor.... Mark Pendel Arthur Kipps Ignatius Perrish Walter Mabry Nate Foster David Copperfield

"Having answered one correctly, I have officially taken the round." True, and that should not be in dispute by anyone. "As much as I'd like to be able to guess the other shows, I don't think I'm going to be able to. (And Human and Raf are MIA.)" Well, we should close it out anyway. "(B) might be the name of some card in the Major Arcana, although there is no TV show "The Fool," and I'm not going to go through the other 21 cards." The card is "the Queen of Swords." Inspired by Zorro shows, but this show had a woman swashbuckler. It could have found an audience, but it didn't. "(C) clearly involves Musketeers. For some reason, I saw your note about "job title" and was thinking "show title." They were obviously swordsmen, but the only TV show with that name was Chinese." The show was "Young Blades." That also could have found an audience, but didn't. "(D) I haven't ignored the quotes; they just don't mean anything to me. "Eternal Thief"? Plus all of the references to spin-offs. I have no idea." George I showed Mrs Wolf just the 2 quotes, and she figured it was a spinoff of "Highlander." The giveaways were that it involved an "immortal", and the last quote ended with "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE", which is the "Highlander" franchise marker no matter where you look. When she glanced at the rest, she identified "Highlander-the Raven", the spinoff show that featured Amanda the thief immortal. (Played by Elizabeth Gracen.) It lasted a season, but it wasn't until they'd chased off almost all the fans that they made it less of a cop show and more like a "Highlander" show. If they'd started it that way, it could have lasted longer. By the time they fixed it, nobody was watching to notice it WAS fixed. And neither of the 2 main characters ever returned, despite movies that took place later, like "Highlander-Endgame." All these shows were short-lived, and featured swashbucklers. I think they were all pretty good (except H-tR when it began), but bad management kept them from getting an audience. Your turn!

No it didn't. Nor did he put something up and THEN ask for donations to keep it running. He put together a (free) Facebook page. Before spending $20 on all the costs of a webpage and domain, he wants to raise all $20 of it- or more, probably. Compare that to the GSC, where Paw put it all together out-of-pocket.

Ever hear what that was about? vpw made some offhand comment about how he broke the breath-mints he was using at the podium. So, someone decided that what vpw wanted was broken mints, so broken mints started showing up all over the place for him. Then he mentioned at one podium that all he could find were these little fragments. Someone replied that they were getting him the broken breath-mints like he used. "I mean I break them IN MY MOUTH!" vpw didn't want someone to pre-break his breath-mints. He was hiding breath heavy with alcohol and cigarettes, so he took a breath-mint in his mouth and bit it in half, releasing all the mintiness in a few seconds rather than slowly. (That's what you do to hide a really extreme reek.) But since he castigated people who asked him ANY clarifications (as if it was THEIR faults if HE communicated vaguely), and he put forth that his whims and "suggestions" should be taken as "commands", people were stuck trying to read his mind and determine his intent, then try to carry it out.

This was business as usual for all of them FOR DECADES. But NOW, we're supposed to believe that's all COMPLETELY changed. And they're UNREPENTANT of DECADES of what they did. Which is proof it hasn't changed.

If one is determined to only find the negative at the GSC, that's what one will find. It's not honest and lacks integrity, but this should come as no shock by now. It's really cute the way these splinters like to refer to the GSC and explain why they're not going to explain. Lots more people got deliverance here and got on with their lives than they've actually HELPED. Perhaps it's "deliverance envy". The GSC has a proven track record lasting more than 20 years, and they spent the last 20 years as drones to the twi cadre and hurting people whenever they were told to. Either they did that knowing they were hurting the people- and were fine with it because they kept it up for DECADES- or they hurt people for decades and had no idea they were ruining people's lives. Either way, that track record should disqualify them all from leading ANYTHING. But, no, they've silenced their consciences over the decades, so they see nothing wrong with what they did- only with someone pointing it out! Just like with vpw, where his rapes were forgivable, but bringing them to light was inexcusable!

So, you're saved as long as you do what I say. If you don't God Almighty will revoke your eternal life. Yes, that's certainly an EVIL doctrine. I bet that was quietly buried in the middle of some teaching where it was camouflaged nicely with some Bible verses.

(A) was defintely "ZORRO AND SON." I liked the show, and I was one of a handful of viewers. There's a memorable moment in the first episode where Zorro is still swashbuckling after he should have retired, and manages to escape capture, only partly-admitting he's not as acrobatic as he was 15-20 years ago. (It's on YT because I wasn't the only one who thought the clip was memorable.) By the end of the episode, his son (recalled to his Dad's side because his Dad's aide thought Diego might get killed) has put on the costume and appeared as Zorro (with Diego present as "Zorro" gets the job done.) I liked the concept, it was light, but it seemed to have too small an audience to survive. That and nobody seemed to have publicized it. Eiizabeth Gracen is ALLEGED to have had a one-night-stand with the Governor of Arkansas in 1982 or 1983. Kenneth Starr tried to subpoena her in 1998 about this. He was unsuccessful because she was out of the US filming a TV show at the time. Calling "the Musketeers" musketeers will always be a misnomer because they didn't use muskets and they rarely even used pistols (blunderbusses), so they're NOT known for using any kind of firearm (neither rifles NOR pistols.) Even their old guard never used them- and this show didn't follow the old guard with their weapons, it followed the not-old new arrivals with their traditional Musketeer weapons. (Come on, close your eyes and picture an armed Musketeer. What weapon is in his hand?) In other news, for (D), your insistence on ignoring the quotes is keeping you from figuring out almost everything about the show. (And it's STILL never included vampires nor any form of the undead.)

A musket is a type of rifle. What you said about (C) tracks very well. You might even guess or stumble upon the name if you work at it (which I'm not requiring but it would be neat.) Who said anything about who (A) is or is not about? None of the shows feature any vampire or vampires. But there WAS an actress who was reputed to have engaged in some Presidential hanky-panky. So, if (D) is not about vampires, what does that leave?