WordWolf

"Said 'doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take?' I said 'Doctor, to relieve this belly ache,'

[i know you and I represent the two positions here on exactly what physical factors were the major contributors to vpw getting cancer. I don't mean any malice toward you, but I do feel the need to dispute some of what you said....] [i did. They showed some film-footage of vpw that was claimed to be him sending off the first wows. He wore sunglasses (which made sense) and sandals with dark socks (which was amusing.) I'm limited to how much film footage I ever saw of him outdoors during the day. You interacted with him live, and perhaps saw him a lot of time out-of-doors, without sunglasses. However, he DID wear them from time to time. Has anyone heard that lots of the local farmers ended up getting eye cancer? If someone can produce some studies on that, my position suddenly looks a lot weaker. Sadly, I can't use the absence of such a study as proof it didn't happen- you can't prove a negative.] [You didn't provide a link to the article. http://www.sickamongthepure.net/uvradiation/fluorescent.html I question just how close "close proximity" means here, and how long a time "long periods" means here. "Close proximity" to me means "I can pick up an umbrella and tap the light source". From the photos in "the Way:Living in Love", the distances were much greater-effectively across a large living room. And "long periods" to me means "at work across months nearly a year, or more than a year", if it doesn't mean more. I question whether 14 days across the room from a halogen or xenon lamp- which we still can't prove were in the room- would have produced the effect spoken of in this article. By comparison, I found this article about warnings. http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:11545460 "The analysis based on the job exposure matrix showed a significantly increased risk of ocular melanoma in occupational groups exposed to artificial ultraviolet radiation, but not in outdoor occupational groups exposed to sunlight. An elevated risk of ocular melanoma was seen among welders (odds ratio = 7.3; 95% confidence interval = 2.6-20.1 for men), and a dose-response relationship with job duration was observed." "CONCLUSION: Following the present study, the existence of an excess risk of ocular melanoma in welders may now be considered as established. Exposure to ultraviolet light is a likely causal agent, but a possible role of other exposures in the welding processes should not be overlooked." Being a WELDER for YEARS is a risk for ocular melanoma. That's a whole order of magnitude CLOSER to a light source which is BRIGHTER over MONTHS AND YEARS and not 2 weeks.] [Question.Positing the existence of a studio with lights that give off large amounts of UV light. Positing a man with fair skin and light eyes-supposedly more sensitive to UV light- works there. Positing he works there for 2 weeks, and receives large amounts of UV light, enough to hurt his eyes. Would not this same man be getting SUNBURN ON HIS FACE after several days of exposure? We've NEVER seen a story where vpw got SUNBURNED from filming pfal. On the other hand, we also know that exposure to bright lights that are NOT UV lights can result in feelings like this. Really bright, standard lightbulbs will result in burning and painful sensations, light sensitivity, and irritation-which means tearing. (I'm not sure about the foreign object thing, but that's pretty subjective anyway.)] [Technically true. We can't even say exactly what definitely WILL and definitely WON'T cause cancer. George Burns smoked cigars and lived to 100. Some children never smoke and die of cancer. However, we can address what will increase and what will decrease the chances for getting cancer.] [We live in a fallen world, in fallen bodies, and are exposed to dangerous things in the air we breathe, and the food we eat. All of those, I would trace, ultimately, to malefic causes. That's far from saying a demon is immediately present at every instance of cancer. And if vpw was 1/2 the man he was putting forth he was, he should have been radiating anti-demon presence for several feet around him. This should have made it nearly impossible for demons to enter the same ROOM with him. His "demonic activity causes cancer" idea is incompatible with the image he put forth of himself.]

His Death Certificate says the cause of death was "metastatic melanoma of the liver" and "ocular melanoma," which means the cause of death was cancer of the liver and eye. Here's what the experts known as the American Cancer Society say: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/ped_10.asp "Tobacco and Cancer. Smoking damages nearly every organ in the human body, is linked to at least 10 different cancers, and accounts for some 30% of all cancer deaths." So, tobacco is a known carcinogen (cancer-causing agent), and damages nearly every organ. That would include the eye, the liver, or both. In case someone needs that specified, however.... http://www.news-medical.net/?id=10150 "Although studies across the globe have examined the link between smoking and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most common form of liver cancer, little research has been done in North America, where liver cancer is on the rise. Researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine found that a history of smoking significantly increased the risk of liver cancer. Investigators compared the records of patients diagnosed with HCC to chronic liver disease patients who did not have HCC. Results showed that people who have more than a pack per day over ten years were more likely to develop liver cancer than their non-smoking counterparts who suffer from chronic liver disease." ""As with other organs in the body, the effects of tobacco can have damaging consequences on the liver, significantly increasing the risk of developing liver cancer," said Paul Kwo, M.D., of Indiana University and lead study author. "Smoking cessation is one major way that patients can be proactive in preventing liver cancer, especially if they already suffer from chronic liver disease." http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/volume83.pdf Tobacco Smoking and Tobacco Smoke, Summary of Data Reported and Evaluation (International Agency for Research on Cancer The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Organization (WHO).) There is now sufficient evidence to judge the association between tobacco smoking and liver cancer as causal." As for the eye.... http://www.medem.com/medlb/article_detaill...E&sub_cat=0 (courtesy of the American Academy on Opthalmology) They concern themselves with the occurrence of cataracts as a result of smoking, primarily. ====== What about chronic drinking of alcohol? http://www.elc.org.uk/pages/healthimmunesystem.htm "2. Excess alcohol Excessive alcohol intake can harm the body's immune system in two ways. First, it produces an overall nutritional deficiency, depriving the body of valuable immune- boosting nutrients. Second, alcohol, like sugar, consumed in excess can reduce the ability of white cells to kill germs. High doses of alcohol suppress the ability of the white blood cells to multiply, inhibit the action of killer white cells on cancer cells, and lessen the ability of macrophages to produce tumour necrosis factors. One drink (the equivalent of 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine, or 1 ounces of hard liquor) does not appear to bother the immune system, but three or more drinks do. Damage to the immune system increases in proportion to the quantity of alcohol consumed. Amounts of alcohol that are enough to cause intoxication are also enough to suppress immunity. " http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa15.htm "Alcohol can impair normal immune responses that protect the body from disease (6,7,8). Chronic alcohol consumption has been shown to reduce the number of infection-fighting white blood cells in laboratory animals (9,10,11) and in humans (12,13). Chronic alcohol ingestion or alcohol dependence can depress antibody production and other immune responses in animals (10,9) and in humans (14,15). Alcohol can suppress activities of certain immune system cells, called macrophages, that help keep the lungs free from infection (16,17). In addition, alcoholics appear to be more susceptible to bacterial infections and cancer than are nonalcoholics (18,19). Studies in animals and in humans indicate that consuming alcohol during pregnancy can decrease immune resistance in the offspring (20,21,22)." http://www.hiv.va.gov/vahiv?page=alc-01-01 "The organ in your body that alcohol and other drugs affect most is your liver. The liver rounds up waste from chemicals that you put in your body. Those chemicals include recreational drugs as well as prescription drugs, such as your HIV medications. A weaker liver means less efficient "housekeeping" and, probably, a weaker you." http://www.health.state.ny.us/statistics/c...bouts/liver.htm "You can reduce your chances of getting liver cancer by consuming alcoholic beverages only in moderation." =========== So, we know-from reputed sources like the American Cancer Society, and the US National Institute of Health, that drinking lots of alcohol, long-term, and smoking, long-term, are risk factors that make a person MUCH more likely to get cancer-including cancer of the liver, and cancer of the eye- than people who don't drink or smoke. This really shouldn't come as news to us-we should already know that both are bad for you, and can damage organs. So, what about bright lights? A few web-searches will show you there's almost no "hits" when looking at possible connections between "ocular cancer" and "bright lights" or even "halogen lamps" (which someone suggested MIGHT have been present since those supposedly have been claimed to cause SKIN cancer.) In fact, one of the few hits for either is the speculation on the GSC. Actors have spent decades on stage. I asked someone who's performed on stage and as a stagehand for DECADES, and he can't even remember hearing ONE actor came down with eye cancer. That's among people who spend hour after hour for week after week for SEVERAL MONTHS with bright lights. But I'm supposed to believe that a man who smoked for DECADES and drank for DECADES and then spent 14 days among bright lights-and those lights gave him cancer. I'd easily believe that the smoking and drinking gave him cancer, and the bright lights irritated weakened eyes in the early stages of ocular cancer. (Why was vpw the ONLY one who was recording at the time who was wearing ice on his eyes in-between filming?) Until someone can find some more actors who got eye cancer supposedly from bright lights, or from filming, I consider this speculation -and ridiculous speculation, when OBVIOUS causes are ALREADY PRESENT.

"I told you 158 times I cannot stand little notes on my pillow. 'We are out of corn flakes, F.U.' It took me three hours to figure out F.U. was Felix Unger."- Walter Matthau, The Odd Couple. (Play and movie.)

Reminds me of Arthur Conan Doyle's "Sherlock Holmes.

"Listen to me, Sirah. You must return to bed. To be out here... in your condition..." "Your concern touches me, Doctor. But I'm in the hands of the prophets." "Instinct. The Ninth Rule of Acquisition clearly states "opportunity plus instinct equals profit.""

Like some people's time in twi... "What a Long, Strange Trip It's Been", by the Greatful Dead. No, wait, it's called "Trucking", right?

*thinks* is this "Our Man Bashir"? Once again, a holo-program can kill people. But Bashir wins by losing and ending the program.

It reminds me of "Lost Boys", but Grandpa HAD a telephone.

The rules are: no cheating (if you're guessing, and you look it up, you're disqualified from guessing anymore) and correct guesser posts the next episode. All episodes from the original series, NextGen, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise are fair game. However, Voyager and Enterprise clues usually will sit a lot longer, since fewer of us saw them. (We may never guess correctly, in other words.) Everything else is by preference. I prefer to post quotes in pairs, starting from tougher quotes that actually say something about the episode, to longer and more obvious quotes. I also prefer to post them about once a day, since more often means posters who don't live on this board don't get a chance if you post all your quotes in one day, and if you're TOO slow, the thread lags for weeks. So I consider once a day to be about right-until I've posted for a few days, then I'm looking to move it along and just get a correct guess. I try not to make it too obvious with the very first quote, but not impossible, either. Those are my preferences, you can use your own.

Hello! If you've been lurking for a while, you know where everything is. Remember to post friendly, and enjoy your stay. :)

Personally, I think this is at LEAST as likely as any other possibility. vpw loved to get to punctuate with drama, and showed a marked laziness in diverging from the source material of the Christians he ripped things off from. For all the material he used, the amount of change was VERY small. (Name of "administrations" and which times they covered, "gifts" became "manifestations", and that's most of it.) Retelling a dramatic point in Leonard's class as a dramatic point in his OWN class sound EXACTLY like something he would do. I think I have one from the 300s. The sound quality from the early ones blew chunks, but they're legible, so to speak. I don't think he mentioned this subject in that one. I would have noted it.

I do not question one word of your testimony. I question your final sentence-the interpretation of events- as the only possibility. IF vpw were a first-class scumbag who was all show and little substance, and someone called who had an urgent medical need, he would certainly advise them to trust those local doctors. After all, that just happens to be the answer with the least work for him. So, just that answer tells us nothing of his motives either way- it's the answer of the genuine AND the fraud. Similarly, if he was a charlatan who played a part, he would take the stage and "sell" sermons on Jesus' self-sacrifice. Charlatans do that, and any good actor could do the same. vpw DID maintain access to teachings from other Christians all through his career, and use THEM instead of mostly his own work. If he were a complete fraud, he could use THEIR work and sell it onstage. To a degree, he would even convince HIMSELF for a moment- the mark of an actor fully "in the moment." When Christopher Reeve played Superman, there was a scene in the first movie where he and Margo Kidder/Lois Lane fly above the city. The actors were suspended from a wire-frame in a green-screen studio (bluescreen actually) for the filming. At one point, Margot's frame was breaking, and she was going to fall. Reeve pulled her to him to support her. Afterwards, he said it was the WRONG thing to do-his frame wasn't build to support TWO people, and could have dropped them both. But at that moment, he really thought he was Superman, so his instant response was genuine to the character. Do I think he ever needed to LIVE the talk to do what he did speaking to you and when you saw him? No. Could it all have been genuine? Yes. Could it all have been a fraud? Yes. I believe the evidence supports either conclusion.

It's a VERY specific misspeak. We also know that vpw was a Trinitarian earlier in his career. He himself said so, and examples include using a Trinitarian opening to letters: i.e. "..in the name of God Incarnate, Jesus Christ" earlier in his career. If there's a timeframe showing when he no longer was a Trinitarian, I haven't seen it yet. So, you think his comment was more from HABIT, that he was going for drama and misspoke because he went to an old script rather than an update that reflected his current theology? Well, that's certainly possible. If he were doing one of his dramatic segment closings- and his rising voice-volume seconds before the segment ends suggests that- he could easily have done so. I think either could be the answer.

Sounds like it. Tinkerbelle has wings and is pretty strong, Peter Pan flies and crows, and so on.

I consider the book to have been poorly-written. Since he couldn't just plagiarize it from someone like Bullinger or Stiles, that it's MUCH weaker-because he actually had to WRITE- is obvious in hindsight. That having been said, despite having been poorly-written, insufficiently-researched, and more of an indoctrination than anything else, I think the position was correct. This shouldn't be THAT shocking. There were 2 main positions to take. His odds were 50/50, same as a cointoss. And his book was about as authoritative as a cointoss. Were you saying that holding that belief was the same as saying the book was correct? If so, I disagree. Lots of people of that belief have never been exposed to that book.

The quality of the teaching was no deeper than a sex ed class. The photos used were FAR more explicit than in a sex ed class. I kept MENTALLY censoring what he was saying, but upon later reflection and once the subject was broached, he sure spent significant amounts of time with women's body parts onscreen, commenting on how nice they looked. I think women are beautiful, but I don't think the point need be made with nude photos of women.... The class was 7 sessions long. If one stretched it, the Christian-related materials MIGHT cover ONE class. That left 6 sessions that were on biology and sex ed. "Dealing with the Adversary" had pages of material. "The Renewed Mind" had pages of material. "CFS" had TWO SHEETS. One was vpw's gonzo idea that the original sin was masturbation, the other sheet was that chapter in Proverbs. The rest of the class was sex ed. This class was inappropriate, IMHO, for 17-year olds, and 13 should have been out-of-the-question. Then again, since this class added nothing to the student, the entire class was inappropriate and should have been out-of-the-question.

Should I try to stop him?

With your kind indulgence, I shall use Oakspear's post as a comparison. I do this not because I want to criticize it, but rather since I thought it was well-written, and I could clearly indicate what I agreed with and what I didn't agree with. Disclaimer: All of this is me speaking for ME and no other party. This is my OPINION. Feel free to disagree all you want. First of all, Oakspear and I disagree in our basic belief systems in a fundamental way. (We agree on mutual respect.) I am a Bible believer, and I DO believe the Bible is God's Word, that is, the deliberate intent of God Almighty to communicate directly to us. That having been said, if you begin from one position- Jesus is God the Son, or begin from the other position-Jesus is The Son of God but not God, you will find verses that seem to support your position, and verses that seem to OPPOSE your position. I find it particularly noteworthy that most of the Bible verses with the most tampering- the end of Matthew, and I John 5 are what I'm thinking of here mainly- are demonstrated to have been FORGERIES- people came along later and ADDED doctrine to them-doctrine which just happens to push the Trinitarian position. (There's a few other verses, but those are the most egregious examples.) That's enough to get me suspicious of the Trinitatian position-a position where some people felt it was significant enough to alter the Bible to insert their beliefs into it. Now, when the Samaritan Pentateuch is a fair representation of the Pentateuch, but suddenly includes a few verses that elevate Mount Gerezim-the place of Samaritan worship- far above its previous position, we can accept those verses were forgeries, skip them, and skip their doctrine. We can't QUITE do that with these verses here, since some people will dogmatically oppose that-they WILL scream, call names, and label anyone trying to honestly arrive at the truth of the verses, if that truth disagrees with theirs. I've come to the conclusion that I have NOT heard the CORRECT position yet- that both positions that are popular fail to completely account for everything, and so they're both right to a point and WRONG to a point. Naturally, I can get flak from both sides about that. I consider it childish and petty that some of my fellow Christians can waste their time doing that- and labelling both ME and EACH OTHER as non-Christians, but I can't stop them, either. Mind you, outside of the ex-twi community, I've had Christians know my positions, and some have said I wasn't a Christian, some have said I was, and the positions range between a respected, beloved brother in Christ, and being yelled at in the street. That the ex-twi community should know better and STILL can't rise above that is a little sad to me, but I can't affect that, either. Since I do not believe the verses clearly make the case one way or the other, I do not believe God considers this issue to be the make-or-break, and thus spurns one side while embracing the other. I believe he considers them all Christians, no matter what labels we down here insist on using AGAINST each other. I would also add that "co-equal" is a necessary part of the doctrine, IMHO. Since it's Three-in-One and One Unity of Three, that's how it seems to be represented mathematically, anyway. No part of the Trinity any less than another. I agree with everything so far. I will clarify the last point, however- if one believes Jesus of Nazareth is not The Son of God, unique in birth, prophesied, The Messiah, The Atonement, He Who Will Return As King of Kings and Lord of Lords, who shall Judge the Earth in righteousness, who lived a physical life on Earth for some 30 years, was crucified, died, buried, and resurrected, THEN you're talking "another Jesus." I consider "another Jesus" to be "any Jesus who is not The Messiah, The Son of God, who is not unique in all of the history of man, and The Redeemer." There's people who claim that one, but they're not in THIS discussion claiming to be Christians. (Unless I missed them posting-in which case, my apologies.) JCNG is a poorly-written work. If the argument is made, it is NOT made with that book. If all the strength of that side was purely from JCNG, then it WOULD be fair to say "all non-Trinitarian Christians are silly and illogical." As it is, that does a grave disservice to those who say "it's true in spite of that book" as well as all the Christians throughout history who were devout Christians who did not believe in a Trinity. I am NOT prepared to call Sir Isaac Newton silly, illogical, or a less-than-devout Christian. I was raise with Catholic dogma, and told to believe in the Trinity. By the time I was a teenager, I had discarded what I'd been taught as insufficient answers. To this day, I believe those answers were incorrect. Since I'd been taught that Roman Catholics had all the answers, I wrongly generalized that ALL Christians were wrong and NONE had the answers I sought, and the Bible was an outdated set of books with no authority. I found twi teaching superior to what I personally had been taught in general. So, I believed the Trinity to be an incorrect doctrine. I did NOT, however, villainize the Trinitarians as I was taught in twi-I still considered them fellow Christians even if they had incorrect doctrines (including praying to saints, praying the Rosary, etc.) I do believe that, if I hadn't left twi when I DID leave, I would have found increasing problems with twi doctrine and twi dogma. Having left, I've had a number of years to examine a lot of it, and agree with some and disagree with some. I STILL don't believe this is THE make-or-break, "You're not a Christian" doctrine. I've seen good examples of Christians on both sides. (Poor examples, too.) I've seen sufficient evidence to convince me that God answers prayers for both, and miracles deliver both equally. I'm convinced the arguments we have on Earth are petty squabbles that waste the limited time we have here, and divide the family of God unnecessarily.

The thing is, without the Kool-Aid drinkers, the organization couldn't have kept the rest of us that could say "WTF? That's ridiculous!" and have us show up again. There were plenty of people who just took vpw's word for anything he said. I was chatting with a COUNTRY Coordinator, and I made a statement-which was true, but I hadn't been asked to SUPPORT it, I was just told I was wrong because they didn't see the support (which I could have shown in seconds if asked.) I asked them if they'd automatically accept it as true if vpw had said it was true but hadn't explained why. Their answer was, basically, "Of course." There were plenty of adults, Advanced class grads, corps grads, and so on, who were willing to accept almost anything because vpw said so.

I forget if it was Dot who said that vpw had summoned her with intent to do what vpw intended to do in private, and had her "Birth to the Corps" paper IN HIS HAND.

It's been reported that dirt from them was reported publicly about people if they quit or were fired.

Maybe he could use an onion motif- you know, like "the Onion" newspaper- and call himself "Raf-Scallion."

Oh, go ahead. Let's keep this moving.

Well, there's a subject I've heard vpw teach on ("Believing-Hebrews 11") and Chris G teach on ("God's Roll Call of Honour.") Both covered the same verses, but both had radically different conclusions on the martyrs mentioned at the end of Hebrews 11. ========================== KJV 32And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: 33Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions. 34Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. 35Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: =================== NASB 32And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets, 33who by faith conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, 34quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. 35Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection; ================ cg taught that the "deliverance" they didn't accept in 11:35 was a SECULAR one-meaning that the prophets could have accepted that "deliverance" by giving up to the people who tortured them- but instead remained faithful to God, and, as such, remained worthy of "a better resurrection." vpw made it clear how he saw the verses. vpw said the prophets COULD have been delivered-that is, GOD could have delivered them from the torture if they had asked- but they turned down the opportunity for deliverance, and instead preferred to die so they could cut out further living until the "better resurrection." He then went into how sometimes people "get tired of the fight," and just get too tired to go on. Of the two, I think cg had the right of it. But vpw's position is pretty clear here- if a prophet wasn't delivered, it was due to a failing of the prophet- either he had disobeyed God and was now outside God's protection, or failed to believe sufficiently for deliverance. It's of a piece with how he viewed Paul's imprisonment in Jerusalem-he was clear he thought Paul stepped out from under God's protection, and thus was imprisoned. Therefore, although before that, all of Asia Minor had heard God's Word in 2 years, 3 months, now, the closest Paul can get is someone saying "Almost you persuade me to be a Christian." Job's suffering, of course, was due to his FEAR-his "negative believing."