WordWolf

No, "Angels of Light" was like "the Challenging Counterfeit"- a book about things people claimed were of God, but were either staged or supernatural and evil in origin. (Depending on your POV.) The book painted with a broad brush- it said refusal to believe in The Trinity was proof of evil supernatural influence. I'm not sure what book that was in. I know none of the books I read contained them. I also know that the definitions started with things Leonard said which vpw later larded full of multi-syllabic words that only made things harder to understand-and introduced error as well.

I just answered your claim that the introduction actually proved something on the thread you made the claim in, so I won't repost my comments here. You know where to look, though. If you want a messageboard that runs exactly to your satisfaction, the only answer is- start your own messageboard. Of course, then you have to convince people it's worth visiting. (I speak from experience-I HAD a messageboard.) All messageboards have at least one admin/administrator and generally have moderators as well. All messageboards have rules and standards. If you disagree with the rules, you take it to the staff in private. If you don't like the answer you get, then you can leave and post somewhere else. (Again, I speak from experience, both as a poster and as staff.) Generally, messageboards follow what's seen as "COMMON" sense as well as basic internet etiquette. People who can't agree with either are generally unhappy and move from messageboard to messageboard. (I know you've done that-I've posted on another board where you DID leave because the really polite staff didn't conform to your vision of how you thought they should act.) So, the staff here decide what is acceptable to POST (they delete spam), what needs to be moved to ruder sections (hostile threads are moved), what needs to be moved on the basis of content (a movies/television forum is no place to discuss religious doctrine, for example), and what to leave alone, whether or not they need to contact a poster. What all of that means is- the staff decide, by their best judgement, what belongs where, and generally make good decisions even if any poster (including myself) disagrees. It's really poor conduct online to get hostile about them MOVING a thread but leaving it intact- moving it based on content. Honestly, think about it. Is "Doctrinal" a horrible place to post? I post threads there when I think they are appropriate. What do people expect when a thread is in "About The Way"? They expect a DIRECT relation to something in twi, not something completely unrelated with vpw's name tossed in to say "look- I mentioned vpw, so the thread belongs here." Some EXCUSE could be made to dump all kinds of irrelevant threads into "About The Way"- but that defeats the purpose of HAVING forums and sub-forums. They're split the way they are so people can navigate the content and know what to expect in a general way. I know what the staff go through here-I've been staff in the past. NOT HERE- I REFUSED moderator status on the board so I never modded THESE threads. But I know what it's like to moderate and I know that they do a good job even when I disagree. (If I don't like it, I can always just LEAVE.) Oh- and just because you FEEL persecuted is NEVER a guarantee anything is EVER about you. I've learned that lesson the hard way, myself. I hope you can get something from it.

On top of that, you missed the obvious meaning. Look- take it from the perspective of the people who worked on it. I got this from researchers who never heard of twi, vpw, etc. King James really wanted a good, reliable Bible people could read and use. He thought the Tyndale Bible was a STEP in the right direction- that's why there's influences from the Tyndale in the KJV. So, King James assigned a commission- translate a version of the Bible, in English, superior to all previously existing forms. The team was VERY dedicated. The result was the 1611 King James Version. For 1611, it was cutting-edge. For 2012, it's quaint and folksy. Centuries of improvements have gone into other versions. (A few were added incrementally to the KJV.) So, at the time, it was ground-breaking. Christians at the time now had a Bible good enough to be relied on and read at churches-in English. So, King James was pleased-as would any Christian at the time. The staff was pleased-as you might imagine, they'd done a great job with the tools at hand. So, the staff wrote something to the effect of "we are thankful we have a King that cared enough to have this done-it will bless all the Christians of the nation." That's really all their introduction meant-and it meant little to anyone not King James because the book is what mattered, not their introduction-a letter, really. That's why King James Versions don't carry that letter nowadays. So, the entire subject of the text-dump was a non-issue. It does not appear in King James Version Bibles. Most importantly, it certainly doesn't appear in "MY" Bible because I use a New American Standard Bible, and have for about a decade. That was produced in the 20th century, and does not include personal correspondence by translational staff from 1611. Now, if you want to believe that introduction wasn't holy, then I'd thoroughly agree-and point out nobody cares. If you want to believe that the Bible isn't holy, well, that's your privilege, but that huge text-dump did nothing to prove it.

On the one hand, I can freely admit that, at least part of the time, that the twi method relied on faking it. I agree the "excellor's sessions" relied on that, and were practice in faking it. On the other hand, I can freely admit that, at least part of the time, I'm convinced there was genuine godly stuff in spite of the twi method and the faking it of other times. I remember hearing that people get MORE convinced they're not faking it during INTERPRETATION or PROPHECY than tongues, because you can tell if you're making up meanings. (My wording.) I remember enough incidents involving interpretation or prophecy that I can't just blow them ALL off. (I CAN, however, blow off some.) I think John had a legitimate point about experiencing the power of God, but it got lost in the shuffle. I would say that- after experiencing the power of God in dramatic fashion in one's life- that it is easy to dismiss the concept that it is ALL fake. Power of God? Certainly. Is everything someone wants to attribute to God the power of God? Certainly NOT. Many so-called "supernatural" things have mundane explanations. vpw was amateur enough to fall for some and pass them along in the so-called "Advanced" class as actual, supernatural things. Yet stage magicians can produce them. So, I can say I've participated in some WELL-INTENTIONED error and lying when I thought I wasn't, and I've participated in some legitimate supernatural stuff in spite of the former.

I agree. I'm willing to hear any reasoned position on the subject, but I'm ok with not knowing exactly when.

Ooo, inspiration hit me..... Charlie Sheen Ferris Buehler's Day Off Matthew Broderick No, we linked through Broderick last page, so how about Charlie Sheen Ferris Buehler's Day Off Jennifer Grey

Bruce Almighty Jim Carrey the Mask

Correct, of course.

Actually, once in a while, a wild guess is correct around here... ========================= Next one.... "As you wish."

Ralph and Schonheit... To hear their own accounts, as soon as Ralph began to hear things, he said something and was forced off-grounds. Schonheit said he was faced with the chance to cheat, and realized all his twi background left him absent a good verse to use to refuse it. This started his study- and things snowballed from there. ==================== Concerning vpw and his rationalizations, don't blame them on any doctrine. Lots of people hold that doctrine and are NOT sex maniacs. vpw was going to rationalize no matter WHAT he had to work with. In private, he took a verse that said to avoid fornication and claimed it actually meant fornication was fine. He didn't need a specific doctrine to support his lusts- he was just fine making things up out of whole cloth. Whether or not dispensationalism is right or wrong, the problem is not dispensationalism as much as it is a lone sex maniac who would have grabbed any straw and woven it into a "sex-positive" message.

socks was not born- socks was built. socks was the last in a design- because when they made socks, they broke the mold. :)

Ah, yes, the "mid-life crisis" and twi, where a person's glory days depend on an organization that views them as cattle. On a fashion note, 80s styles are coming back, too. Where did I leave my sunglasses? I may need to wear them when passing these styles on the street...

Possibly. Then again, hiding the evidence of their activities instead of transparency has a proud tradition at twi. Other Christians might consider that disgraceful.

Taking a swing at it. "Heat"?

"Star Trek II-the Wrath of Khan".

As much as I appreciate the chance to hit something that needs breaking, the chance to meet with Christians through the centuries and ones I've met before will be much more interesting. That's not even counting the chance to be face-to-face with my Lord and Savior. I've tentative plans for a barbeque at my place the second Tuesday after we meet up.

It helps if you know a name to narrow down the search. I remembered the author's name was "Ernest Martin" and that made it a LOT easier. Ernest Martin's book is "The Star That Astonished the World." http://www.askelm.com/star/index.asp His previous book was in JCOPS's bibliography- "The Birth of Christ Recalculated". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_L._Martin "In 1974 Martin wrote the first of five editions of The Tithing Dilemma of which over 100,000 copies were sold. It was this work which triggered the first of many major schisms within the Worldwide Church of God. In 1978 he first wrote The Birth of Christ Recalculated; in 1984 Restoring the Original Bible; in 1987 Secrets of Golgotha; in 1991 101 Bible Secrets; in 1985 The Biblical Manual; in 1996 The Star that Astonished the World; in 1999 The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot and in that same year The Essentials of New Testament Doctrine. His book The Star that Astonished the World claimed the "Star of Bethlehem" was the planet (or "wandering star" in antiquity) Jupiter, or Zedeq ("Righteousness") in Hebrew, leading the wise men to Jesus in Bethlehem on December 25, 2 BCE, coinciding with the Jewish Festival of Lamps or Hanukkah that year. Dr. Martin claimed that the birth of Jesus happened on the evening of September 11, 3 BCE on the Gregorian calendar, or the first of Tishri on the Jewish calendar which marks Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year." http://www.amazon.com/Star-That-Astonished-World/dp/0945657870

vpw, as usual, extended his double-standards to us having emotions. The man had poor impulse control and would fly off the handle all the time- yelling, storming off, and engaging in loud and florid displays. Whenever asked about it, he always gave some rationalization for it- how it secretly was done to build character in the observers, how it was "spiritual" anger or whatever, and so on. lcm and others just copied what vpw did..... However, vpw taught that it was always wrong for US to display emotions. WE had to be disciplined- something vpw COULD NOT teach by example because he was a slave to his vices and passions. Having us be the same would not benefit HIM, however, so most of us were TOLD to be disciplined, and sometimes TOLD that vpw was disciplined- while he was obeying the lusts of his flesh, the lusts of his eyes, and his pride of life. Then again, he wanted us to be ROBOTS- MACHINES that OBEYED without question and otherwise were not underfoot and requiring any kind of help-or even "preventative maintenance" like any machine cared for, even. Everyone with a hint of talent is run off as a threat- if they get popular, it draws from rfr's authority. Everyone with a hint of emotion is run off as a threat- if they're feeling rather than obeying coldly, it undermines rfr's authority. Life in twi is pretty barren.

It's factually correct that he's dead. However, you didn't address what you think of him at all. You changed the subject- which, I think, is rather telling. His actions which still affect some of the living, his practices- which some still carry out, and his doctrines-some of which are still taught, those aren't buried with him.

Ooo- got it in one! The man obviously remembered "Hawk."

Congratulations on the radio show and enjoying life post-twi. Even Rosa-lie can't say as much- she's stagnating and you're growing.

Next show. This SF TV show about the future featured a few pilots- including a pilot who supposedly was some sort of bird-person. It ran in the '70s/early '80s.

History of the World Part 1 Dom de Luise the Muppet Movie

Right. Ultimately, either we'll find out when we're "upgraded"" (or maybe later), or it's all smoke and we'll never find out. Either way, speculating can be FUN ((maybe tolemerase production has degraded due to chromosomal aberration, maybe A Wizard Did It), but won't get us very far.

I found myself wondering if "GALACTICA 1980" had floating motorcycles or if I imagined it. (I don't think I've seen the series SINCE about 1980.) Battlestar Galactica was an SF version of "Wagon Train." It was about the JOURNEY. Universal said to Larsen: "Let them reach Earth." "Yeah-THEN what?" "Doesn't matter." But they showed us it darned well DOES matter. Worse, they slashed his budget, so everything was done even cheaper than before- and they didn't have enough money to pay the original cast. (Starbuck made an appearance.) Larsen was going to make it several generations later, but Lorne Greene was SO sad-puppy about the thing that he couldn't bring himself to fire Lorne with the rest. So, he stayed and the story made even LESS sense than it would have. And no, I have avoided the new series ENTIRELY.