WordWolf

That's not how vpw presented it. He said 2 different things, and it's possible to conflate them because he didn't separate them topically. (Possibly he didn't understand or possibly he just didn't care and focused on his delivery.) He said that "God, who is the Holy Spirit, can only give that which He is, so he gives spirit." This is easy to disprove, so he said it in pfal but didn't say it elsewhere I'm remember. (If anyone has a copy of "Jesus Christ is not God" handy, please check page 130, which may have included it.) As Raf pointed out on this subject, God gave manna-God is NOT manna. The other thing was vpw saying that "God is Spirit, and God can only communicate with that which He is," which is why he invented his supposed Great Principle. It's even recorded in the Orange Book. "God being Spirit can only speak to what He is. God cannot speak to the natural human mind... Things in the natural realm may be known by the five senses - seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching. But God is Spirit and, therefore, cannot speak to brain cells; God cannot speak to a person's mind. It is a law and God never oversteps His own laws." (page 78.) Thus, his supposed Great Principle: "God, who is Spirit, teaches His creation in you, which is now your spirit, and your spirit teaches your mind. Then it becomes manifested in the senses realm as you act." So, according to vpw, it is IMPOSSIBLE for God Almighty, Holy Spirit, to communicate to a human mind, because "it is a law and God never oversteps His own laws." Ok, how do we get revelation? Your own holy spirit communicates to your human mind. Wait-he just said that's IMPOSSIBLE. You probably don't remember it that vividly because it was f'ing stupid.

From twi's beginning, the issue of people leaving has always existed. And, in private, vpw had used a "swear loyalty to me or leave" tactic on the Corps a few times. (ONLY on people primed to be loyal like resident Corps.) vpw KNEW he was a fraud, and had convinced lcm that he was the real deal. So, vpw could talk a good show in public, then lie in private and make it sound pious, knowing he was lying. (God wants you to bless me with extra-marital sex...) After vpw died, lcm was faced with some of vpw's dirty secrets coming out (he told women to have sex with him, his "revelations" were plagiarism...) lcm wandered confused for a few years, and things at the local levels ran FINE. Then lcm decided to demand that EVERYONE swear loyalty to him or else. The result, especially at that time, meant that 80% of twi present either were fired or left voluntarily, many alongside those who were fired. There were now more people leaving twi at once than remaining in twi. Since some areas had ALL their leadership (or nearly all) leave together, they were able to remain together and just change the name on the stationery and a few physical details, and keep the weekly meetings happening. Instead of national news, they got news from the "region" or state as the top dogs. So, twi had to call all those people who were still doing the same thing but without their logos. The popular term for the people was "cop-outs." But it was the GROUPS that were a threat to twi. If people could leave twi for "almost-twi", then threats to kick them out were nullified. So. names like "stick fellowship" were needed, with stories about how they were inferior because they weren't reporting to the farm.

STILL sounds like it. They were "out in left field", which is martindale-speak for "in error" or "confused"

MRAP, I get better results around here when I´m polite and ask nicely. When I ask nicely, I am not guaranteed to get the results I want. That happens with adults. If you can´t handle that, leave and go somewhere you like. Notice how you´ve been given a lot of latitude and been disagreed with and found rude and yet nobody´s banned you yet, just said to act like an adult. That´s the GSC way but it´s not the twi way- they would have just kicked you ans smeared your name. Keep it up at this pace, however, and don´t be surprised if a tantrum is met with some anti-tantrum measure.

If Eve was tricked, that meant I blamed Adam more because he supposedly went in KNOWING he was messing up. I don´t know how that worked for others. The vpw CFS class spent a lot of time mangling words and changing their meaning in one session, so that vpw could claim all of those things meant that "original sin" was some sort of act of "selflove", which apparently was catastrophic THEN but carries no consequences NOW. The lcm CFS class, from what I´ve heard, spent a lot of time mangling things and obsessing about homosexuality, and blaming it fpr everything short of static cling. Both were works of nonsense disguised with a lot of fast talk and paper, none of it containing any substance. (In other sessions, there might have been something of substance here and there mixed in with vpw´s sexual suggestions and implications.)

It´s definitely The Rolling Stones. I think it´s Emotional Rescue.

That's him. Avram Belinski was the rabbi in "the Frisco Kid", Larry Abbott was the radio actor who went on a "Haunted Honeymoon", Eugene Grizzard was in "Bonnie & Clyde", Dr Doug Ross was in "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex", and George Caldwell was in "Silver Streak." I might have gotten it from Larry Abbott but would definitely would have gotten him from the rabbi-he's the only "Avram" I recall.

Larry Abbott Eugene Grizzard Dr Doug Ross Sigerson Holmes George Caldwell Avram Belinski

Considering his free use of coarse words, it's obvious he learned quite a bit under lcm.

It is. It is not, but since that leaves 1 film, it's your turn. BTW, Wednesday and Pugsley's presentation seems to have the dialogue composed entirely of Shakespearean quotes. "A hit! A very palpable hit!" is from Hamlet's last scene. Hamlet swears to stop contemplating and turn his thoughts bloody-to revenge- about 1/2 way through the story.

A) Did I miss something? The constructs were conclusively shown to actually have a structure of sentences and paragraphs? B) "as opposed to just uttering gibberish" doesn't follow from "it was organized into sentences and paragraphs." Gibberish can be organized into sentences and paragraphs, and we're trying not to use the word "gibberish" because it's a loaded term with pejorative connotations. So, I'm unsure what YOU mean by it. (Another reason to avoid it-usage is INCONSISTENT.)

Hannibal Gary Oldman The Professional

Definitely not. "'How all occasions do inform against me and spur my dull revenge. O, from this time forth, my thoughts be bloody or nothing worth. If I must strike you dead, I will.'" "'A hit! A very palpable hit!'" "'O, Proud Death. What feast is toward in thine eternal cell? Sweet Oblivion, open your arms!'" " I would die for her. I would kill for her. Either way, what bliss!" "They say a man who represents himself has a fool for a client. Well, with God as my witness, I am that fool!" "Last night you were unhinged. You were like some desperate, howling demon. You frightened me. Do it again!"

We can't dictate the speed with which someone recovers from twi or anything else. Other posters have had worse trouble with this, for different reasons. We've shown them a little understanding and pathos. GENTLEMEN, I trust we can all behave ourselves WITHOUT any moderator needing to say anything.

I agree with this statement. Not at all. However, it would not surprise me if one of the phrases there was originally FROM "Othello" and used in this movie.

"'How all occasions do inform against me and spur my dull revenge. O, from this time forth, my thoughts be bloody or nothing worth. If I must strike you dead, I will.'" "'A hit! A very palpable hit!'" "'O, Proud Death. What feast is toward in thine eternal cell? Sweet Oblivion, open your arms!'"

Larry Abbott Eugene Grizzard Dr Doug Ross

Should tell them you're being sneaky. This was "The DeadPool," combining "DeadPool" (now in theaters) with "the Dead Pool", a Dirty Harry movie.

I saw neither the movie nor television series of "THE DEAD ZONE."

Try not to confuse "disagreeing" with "negative posts" with "personal attacks." Personal attacks overstep the discussion of the subject, and get into a meta-discussion about the other posters. Disagreeing is a natural consequence of discussion. If you're supposedly answering a question, and your reply doesn't address the question, other people may point that out-which is not necessarily negative. "I don't see how this follows logically." -Either it doesn't, or your communication was not sufficient to show that person how it IS logical. (It's possible, but less common, for the person to be impenetrable to logic, but that wasn't the case here.) So, lay it out again, clearer. This should result in one of 3 things, each of which have happened here, at different times: A) the logic is shown to be flawed B) the logic is demonstrated to be sound and is easier to understand C) the asker is demonstrated to be wasting everyone's time That last one was the hallmark of a few posters. My comment was "negative" but was no "attack" on you. Your phrasing was slanted- and, apparently, you didn't notice it. It was a loaded question, and I showed one equally loaded, just as unfair, and representing a different position. It isn't "negative if it disagrees with me and positive if it disagrees with someone else." I made a rather fundamental comment about the Greek and an obvious error in the same post. I don't think you INTENTIONALLY skipped over them, but you didn't address them, either. Considering the context- you sounding like something was obvious and unquestionable, yet missing something basic that was a basis for questioning it all by itself- I thought it was at least worth noting. One goal is "disagreeing without being disagreeable." If we got personal, I'm sure Raf and I could really insult and verbally abuse each other here-but we agree not to even if we agree on nothing else. There's ways to really disagree without making them personal. (Reminds me, Raf. I'll get back to Genesis 3 when the weather stays cool if I can manage enough time to sleep in between posts.) BTW, was Raf correct in his summary of your position?

IF you're correct about what he's saying, then my disagreements with him as to substance are COSMETIC, and my only disagreements with him would be about "style." But I'm not sure you're correct about what he's saying.

Actually, since you posted those verses in a SLANTED way, one could just as easily ask the EQUALLY LOADED question (it wasn't nice of you to ask the question the way you did) "Do you DELIBERATELY hide information that doesn't suit you?" All pfal grads SHOULD be able to remember something interesting about that verse. You didn't use the NASB. I just checked the Nestle-and the Greek agrees with it. The word "them" in the NIV is NOT IN THE GREEK-it was ADDED BY THE TRANSLATOR. It is VOID OF AUTHORITY. It is the translator's BEST GUESS as to what belonged in the sentence- and often we find the translator's skill WANTING. I Corinthians 14:2 NASB For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. The Greek seems consistent with a read that no "one who speaks in a tongue" UNDERSTANDS while he speaks mysteries. As for the more florid examples of English versions, well, they're nice, but all based on the opinion and not unquestionably a reflection of the Greek on which they were allegedly based. Personal attacks and appeals to OPINION are beneath the declared purposes of these threads.

" It was all designed so that if you accepted vic's definitions of the "gift ministries", you would "figure out" that vic made the definitions in a manner where all definitions pointed to vic as a current, biblically defined apostle, prophet and teacher. He never claimed to be an evangelist or pastor, but he sure made it appear as if he had the big three as listed in Corinthians. So if you accepted vic's definitions then you would reflexively accept that vic had at least the big three, and some thought all 5!" He may never have OFFICIALLY claimed to be an evangelist or pastor, but he sure HINTED about them shamelessly and, as you said, he redefined all 5 to make it sound like he fit ALL the definitions. Ever see a group say an Evangelist's primary function was NOT to "evangelize", but to GET OTHER PEOPLE TO EVANGELIZE? Only vpw was that shameless. He said that Evangelists had the duty to get others emotionally hot enough so that THEY evangelized. (Then the evangelist could stay at HQ and enjoy all the comforts.) My, how CONVENIENT. And how odd that the very word that defines the function supposedly doesn't apply at all to the function!

Are you saying that- ACCORDING TO STRONG'S- it might be equally accurate to render the same Greek expression either "forever and ever" OR "to the ages of the ages"? Last time I worked on it, I rendered it the latter, since it seems the most direct translation.

I know this comes as a shock to people at times, but this "phenomena" thing was an invention, probably of vpw's, and there is no BIBLICAL definition of it. Number of occurrences of the words phenomenon/phenomena in the KJV is ZERO, in the NIV is ZERO, in the RSV is ZERO. Since the words is NONEXISTENT in the Bible, it is not a word that has a BIBLICAL definition. What kind of definition can it have? It can be defined by its use. Back in 1989, when I was in a room with several people, someone claimed that phenomena were not guaranteed. I pointed out that WE LABEL something a phenomena when we are surprised by the results, that we did not consider this the expected result. I silenced the room for an instant, then someone IMMEDIATELY gave the knee-jerk reaction that we can't say that. Someone else quickly disagreed-but still didn't explain what it seemed the entire room was missing. It's perfectly acceptable to make up a word or a phrase to explain something new. We DO, however, need to be aware of what we do when we do it, and be aware that our IMPOSED labels are not CANON and are not AUTHORITATIVE. I bring all of that up now to bring up what may or may not be obvious- that calling something "phenomena", in and of itself, is a label, and a label without authority or a universal definition. "As we saw in Acts 2, sometimes people can understand what is being spoken in tongues, but this is rare and could be considered miraculous." That's 2 statements, neither supported by the verses themselves. If there's a rationale for either statement, it was not presented. "This is rare" "This could be considered miraculous". Mind you, all supernatural activity "could be considered miraculous." I believe what was MEANT here-correct me if it was NOT meant- was that "this could be considered unique." If the first occurrence of something is supposed to set the standard by which it is understood, then THE OPPOSITE is demonstrated. "Speaking in tongues is speaking to God a hidden or secret thing as inspired by the Holy Spirit." And yet, that's on the "God-end" of things, and the DEMONSTRATED end, certainly at Pentecost, was that the speakers spoke in languages they didn't understand but many observers did-and they explained the speech was of "the wonderful works of God." "The fact that these people of different nations heard the 12 apostles speak in their own native individual languages is phenomenon," I think we all agree that the people of the different nations heard the 12 apostles speak in their own native individual languages. The "it's a phenomenon" label, supposing it carries an actual meaning of "there's no guarantees of this", is a CLAIM and was not supported. "and a reverse effect of that which occurred at the Tower of Babel when God confounded the languages. See Genesis chapter 11, verses 1-9." It looks similar, but there are important differences. We can discuss them if you wish. "That everyone understood in their own different language in Acts chapter 2 does not normally happen, but apparently this phenomenon was a sign of the importance and significance of the receiving of the Holy Spirit as promised by God." Again, that it "does not normally happen" is a claim. "Apparently" means the claim is being explained when it wasn't ever SUPPORTED. I saw this when people explained the significance of the cross Jesus was crucified on as being the "lowercase t" shape. Nice explanation, not factual, and not supported. "If someone speaks in tongues or speaks in tongues with interpretation, it is possible for someone to know the language or tongue if it is a language of men that they know." I would agree. If the listener understood the language of either the "tongue" or the interpretation, they would be able to follow it. Mind you, I think this claim ruffles feathers. "However, the person speaking in tongues according to the scriptures will not know the language otherwise it wouldn’t be a tongue described as a mystery or divine secret to the speaker." I think that this is uncontested, and we all agree. Providing what is done is actual tongues (that's a "given" for that statement.) When vpw supposedly spoke Greek when told to "speak in tongues", he was intentionally faking it, so he knew what he was saying. (Presuming this was a true story he recounted.)