WordWolf

Let's try again. Same artist, different song. "I'm in heaven With the maven of funk mutation. Clinton's musicians such as Bootsy Collins Raise expectations to a new intention. No one can sing Quite like Smokey, Smokey Robinson. Wailin' and shakin' to Bob Marley Reggae's expanding with Sly and Robbie."

I know both Bullinger and chris geer (who got it from Bullinger) put forth that "katabole" meant "overthrow" and not "foundation". However, having done a study on it (Raf did much of the work), I do not believe either was correct in doing so. Bullinger even noted there was a verse that made no sense if "katabole" was translated that way, yet he persisted. "Katabole" is typically translated "foundation." After having looked at the evidence, I have concluded that this translation is correct.

He started with that sort of thing in pfal, when talking about speaking in tongues. He said it was "rest to the soul", and then began expounding further from there. He claimed he'd gotten to the point that he never dreamed. Horse manure- if he wasn't INTENTIONALLY lying, he simply DID NOT REMEMBER his dreams. People deprived of the ability to dream when asleep- that is, being kept awake or awakened just as it starts- will have their bodies recalibrate to compensate. So, if you're not getting ENOUGH sleep (REM-sleep tends to occur at the END of the sleep cycles, so wake up early and cut off the dream-state), then your body will adjust so that you'll go into REM sleep soon after falling asleep. You'll end up dreaming during short naps. Avoid sleep entirely, and you will discover you'll go into a waking state of dreams. Now, THAT, if anything, might scare the uneducated, since it seems like you're awake and yet you're "hallucinating" or "receiving" something, when it's just your body's "emergency dream" system. I knew that even when I heard victor paul wierwille expounding that nonsense. I said "he just doesn't remember his dreams" and let it go at that. It should have been a warning that he made sh* up to cover when he had no idea about something.

The 80s. The band in question had 2 hits, AFAIK. (This was one.) "I tell you he was a masterpiece. 'How are you,' says I. 'Just cool,' says he. He never shook my hand. He was no gentleman. But he was oh-oh-oh over me, oh-oh-oh. I met him hanging out at the park. I was scared 'cause it was after dark. And he wore fast street clothes And he was clearly posed. But he was oh-oh-oh-over me, oh-oh-oh." "His smile was rich although his clothes were poor. Something in his eyes of great allure. And I could not resist A calculated risk. Since he was oh-oh-oh over me, oh-oh-oh. We broke the rules, but we won the game. Nothing to lose and everything to gain. And he will marry me. I'll carry his baby. 'cause I'm oh-oh-oh over him, oh-oh-oh."

Raf hasn't been checking in lately- he knows this one....

That's not what it said, so I agree we aren't meant to think that. It said the plants and trees were given to us for food. It said that the animals were given the green plants for food. In general principle, it means the plants were meant (originally) as the diet for the animals and humans. Since we now have herbivores eating plants, and insectivores eating insects, and carnivores eating herbivores, obviously it does not apply now, and something has changed. That some plants can't be part of a diet NOW should be less of a surprise, knowing that. MOST plants form part of an ecosystem and diet of some form of animal, whether insect or herbivore or something else. Then again, I still say this was not MEANT to be a scientific textbook explanation- just sufficient for the understanding of people 4000 years ago without being inaccurate.

"I tell you he was a masterpiece. 'How are you,' says I. 'Just cool,' says he. He never shook my hand. He was no gentleman." "I met him hanging out at the park. I was scared 'cause it was after dark. And he wore fast street clothes And he was clearly posed. But he was oh-oh-oh-over me, oh-oh-oh." "His smile was rich although his clothes were poor. Something in his eyes of great allure. And I could not resist A calculated risk Since he was oh-oh-oh-over me, oh-oh-oh." "We broke the rules, but we won the game. Nothing to lose and everything to gain."

Definitely "Dune."

GrouchoMarxJr on the last 10 years of twi under Rivenbark...

Well put! My description of her teaching style is still that it has all the personality of wet cardboard, with a chalky aftertaste. The funny part is the practice of the moglets all following the mog in charge. In this case, that leeches the last of the "interesting" from the dregs of twi. In attempting to stay in power, Rosalie Rivenbark has set the stage for more disintegration of the way international. Since anyone with a lick of talent is a threat to her and can stage a coup for the throne, she runs off all the talent before they can backstab her like she backstabbed craig martindale. Currently, she has to watch for the day John Rupp or Donna Martindale shows up on the throne..and rfr has to be pushing 80 as it is. She's going to need their help just to function, and won't be able to oppose their ascension to the throne. Of course, at that point, twi even kicked Mrs Wierwille off-grounds, so I'm sure Rosa-lie has had a few nights to dwell on her own future.....

I do not know. the way international does their best to hide SPECIFICS. However, here is what we do know. 1) The TOTAL number of members has dwindled to within a few thousand. (I'd say 3000 for all the adults would be a GENEROUS number, it's probably about 2000 adults.) 2) The ages of the members ("followers"), as measured by mean, median and mode, have climbed consistently every year. (The people they retain are almost always people who've been around for a number of years, and they have been unable to replace even their leaving members since 1989, in terms of overall numbers.) So, they essentially have 3 types of people. A) Aging people who have stayed around. They're in their late 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s. B) A few teenagers, their children, who haven't learned yet that they won't be able to reform the corrupt organization. C) A few young folk who know that,and are trying to leave with their families D) A few young folk who know that and want to be the ones barking the orders E) a tiny handful of new folk Considering that the current members are not replacing their numbers by recruitment, by childbirth, or both (especially since twi used to condemn them for having kids), the members overall are decreasing in numbers, and increasing in age. Eventually, the twi membership will just die out of old age. It won't happen all at once, but it HAS already started. ===================================== How does this address the initial question? I'd say the talent pool is almost completely empty. the way international has an average of less than 100 people per US state. Nearly all the members are in their 50s or older. Among them are a handful of people who would jump off a cliff if instructed to do so- but can their blind loyalty make up for an absence of skills and talent? When twi does a musical number, they display first a video of a group of elderly people singing in long-outdated clothes. When they try to change that, they find ONE younger person who can barely sing, can't dance, and can't write lyrics. (They have no one to write lyrics for him or choreograph his dance moves-a major change since the 1980s...) The result is arguably worse than the previous video- it becomes a laughingstock all over cyberspace among people who've never HEARD of twi or vpw. The few staffers they have are almost all approaching "their golden years", with possibly a few younger people who have no idea how badly they're getting hosed.

"If we walk without rhythm, we won't attract The Worm." "I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when my fear is gone I will turn and face fear's path, and only I will remain." "It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of Sappho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion." "The Spice must flow." "My name is a killing word."

"I met him hanging out at the park. I was scared 'cause it was after dark. And he wore fast street clothes And he was clearly posed. But he was oh-oh-oh-over me, oh-oh-oh." "His smile was rich although his clothes were poor. Something in his eyes of great allure. And I could not resist A calculated risk Since he was oh-oh-oh-over me, oh-oh-oh." "We broke the rules, but we won the game. Nothing to lose and everything to gain."

If one read the plain meaning of the verses, it's obvious the plants are given for food for human and animal. (Making the original plan vegetarian.) If one discards that and has to follow the pfal rules, then one falls back on Bullinger's rules which were transcribed over. Then, all Scripture must PRIMARILY explain itself right in the verse where it is written (according to vpw, over 85% of verses are straightforward and mean what they say- like John 3:16.) If one thinks this might be an exception, it's worth pointing out to them that the usage of the terms "as used before" is impossible, since these are the FIRST USAGES. In fact, according to Bullinger/vpw, these first usages RIGHT HERE set the meaning for LATER usages. Therefore, reading into them a meaning other than the clear one would then OBLIGATE one to distort the meanings of the same terms all over the rest of Scripture. ALL references to plants and fruit would then be REQUIRED to be twisted into the same bizarre explanation.

Thanks. In all fairness, everything from the bumper sticker comment on was mine, but the early paragraphs have already come up here years ago, so the post was more a recap of points of earlier posters (at least the first 1/2 was.)

"I met him hanging out at the park. I was scared 'cause it was after dark. And he wore fast street clothes And he was clearly posed. But he was oh-oh-oh-over me, oh-oh-oh." "We broke the rules, but we won the game. Nothing to lose and everything to gain."

No. And your feelings are incorrect here. It's very literal. Maybe if I change the punctuation slightly. I actually thought this would be easier. "If we walk without rhythm, we won't attract The Worm."

"If we walk without rhythm, we won't attract the worm."

Sounds like an old school version of "20 Questions." (Not the show with the computer.)

The bigger nonsense-which is why they backed off quietly on it no matter how many times vpw said it, was "God is Spirit, and GOD CAN ONLY SPEAK TO THAT WHICH HE IS." Sometimes it was "God is Spirit, and GOD CAN ONLY GIVE THAT WHICH HE IS." These were, and still are, nonsense. God gives spirit. God is Spirit. (For the sake of discussion, I'll agree.) God gave manna. God is NOT manna. Follow me through this supposed "Great Principle." (Others have posted here about this before.) The idea is that God gives you "spirit". God then communicates with that spirit- since He can't communicate with flesh and blood. Then your spirit communicates with your flesh and blood. Wait, what? HOW? If GOD'S Spirit can't manage it-and we're talking GOD ALMIGHTY here- why should I think my own comparatively miniscule spirit can manage it? If MY spirit can communicate with flesh and blood, then so can God's, and the stated reason for me to have spirit is negated. (If I have been given spirit, communication is not the reason.) ================= God can do whatever He wants whenever He wants. If He wants to communicate with someone, He has lots of choices as to how to accomplish it,and is NOT limited due to being Spirit. (Too much work trying to simplify things ends up trivializing a TRANSCENDENT God into a God we can define into a neat box.) I noticed that this obsession with trying to simplify deep concepts into neat little slogans that fit on bumper stickers affects lots of teachings and lots of subjects. In the Advanced class, it ends up ruining other material. A made-up explanation is given as to how God communicates with non-believers who don't HAVE spirit. Supposedly, God has to ambush them with spirit, giving them spirit they never asked for nor wanted, in order to communicate with them. This explanation was given for the handwriting on the wall. ("Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin.") Supposedly, the sole reason the false prophets and seers were unable to give an explanation was they didn't have spirit and the message was purely in a spiritual dimension. When one is not forced to make up elaborate rationalizations for one's doctrine, they are then free to seek the truth. FF Bruce had a better answer. He pointed out that these words were given without vowels, so the resembled a message something along the lines of "a dollar and change" rather than "weighed, numbered, divided." No need for an elaborate construct when the mundane answer works just fine..... ============= I also noticed that people were completely oblivious to the arbitrary nature of the supposed definition of "phenomena." Whenever something happened that wasn't specifically promised, twi feels compelled to give it a title-"phenomena." That's anything that happens that wasn't guaranteed by God. Instead, they smugly categorize the unexpected as "phenomena" and are unaware that this does nothing to actually EXPLAIN what probably was inexplicable to begin with. They're convinced this actually addressed the subject. the way international has found many ways to istill errors and blind obedience in people who deserve a lot better than twi...

"We broke the rules, but we won the game. Nothing to lose and everything to gain."

If it was pre-me, then it wouldn't be a gameshow like "Joker's Wild" or "Card Sharks"...

Never seen it, but the groundskeeper has to be in "Caddyshack."

The claim OF accuracy drew in some people. Bullinger's approach was used to appeal to the intellectual, partly divorced from mentioning it WAS Bullinger's approach, and claims it was primarily vpw's approach. Naturally, HE didn't understand it as well as he claimed, which is how he ended up trying to quote Bullinger and making mistakes as he went along. Example: Peter denied Jesus three times. Bullinger claimed Peter denied Jesus six times. In the taped pfal class, vpw (without mentioning Bullinger) claimed Peter denied Jesus "THREE TIMES THREE" times, or NINE times. vpw never actually covered 9 denials- all documentation matched EWB's 6 denials. For a man who supposedly knew the material well enough to never need a syllabus, even the very first time he taught "his" (Leonard's stolen) class, he sure made plenty of avoidable mistakes YEARS LATER in the tapes. He confused "anabolepto" for "eidon", he confused Felix and Festus- and then proceeded to quote AGRIPPA instead. "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." (And I quoted that from memory just now, complete with the names. It's not the easiest thing in the world, but if he really was the so-called 'master' of the material, he would never have made easily-correctible mistakes like that. the way international was-and is- based on nothing more than lies and deceptions, and the plagiarized work of others, larded with the personal errors of vpw who convinced himself that God was ok with ORGIES.

Right- they claimed two mutually exclusive positions at the same time, so they could invoke whichever was most expedient for them to claim at any moment.