WordWolf

Let's not forget vpw pushing the now-famous saying that "the suggestion of a general is tantamount to a command" and suggesting that this applied to him as well. (Otherwise, there was no relevance to the quote...) He WANTED the veneration. He WANTED the special treatment. He set about to accomplish this, and succeeded.

"BEVERLY HILLS COP." The exchange about the red meat lit a bulb for me. And I think another thread discussed how that's an urban myth. Which got me thinking about it again....

Indeed it does. Frankly, it's worth re-reading a few times until the meaning of that sentence sinks in....

Since you asked, you know how to take your own wounds and disappointments and, rather than seeking to understand them and heal, craft them into a knife to slash at your fellow Christian, and pretend THEY have something to do with all that anger caged up under the surface. You know how to spew insults on the electronic page. In those 2 skills, BTW, you exceed the abilities of every Christian I interact with, all over. However, I wouldnt be proud of that- I'd consider that something to think over. Would Christ be pleased to read your posts?

Congratulations! By skipping most of the thread, you were able to find something to correct! 1 Kings 15:5 For David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD and had not failed to keep any of the LORD's commands all the days of his life-- except in the case of Uriah the Hittite. ============= So, the entire concept of Israel having ANY king at ALL was against God's expressed will, and Israel insisted on it over God's clear warnings. They wanted to imitate the other nations and didn't care that they were defying God in the process. So, minimizing damage, God gives them the least-objectionable choices, at the times they're needed- King Saul and King David. Despite God's best efforts to keep them from harm while still respecting their rights to make their own choices-and accept the consequences- Israel is served poorly by having kings. As God had warned them. They were so sure a king could "go before them and fight their battles", but both Saul and David sat back, gave the orders, and sent other men to die instead. (Whoops....) David sinned in ONE insident, mainly. That was the Uriah/Bath-sheba incident. He takes another man's wife, AND has an innocent man killed. This is ONE death and ONE ruined marriage. And for this, David's child dies, and the nation of Israel suffers under his rule. And God never lets this drop- not even when Jesus' family line is covered in Matthew 1, where Uriah's mentioned out of the blue. Looks like God takes sexual sins- and the viewing of His people as DISPOSABLE- VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY. Looks like the God of the Old Testament casts a very dim eye towards leaders who commit even a SINGLE sin where they use undue influence to take the wife of another. (And an unmarried woman would probably be a WORSE crime...) How does HE view causing His people to sin sexually, and perverting the office of a priest? Ask Hophni and Phineas, Eli's sons. Ask Eli- for not stopping them, he suffered a loss bad enough to kill him. (Which it did.)

There's a few guesses on that. My guess is that the Scholastic cover shows the view THROUGH the Veil- Harry having passed through and entered the Deathly Hallows. My guess is that the Bloomsbury kids' cover shows a chamber IN the Deathly Hallows. The netherworld is supposed to be a place of riches. (Precious metals and gems come from underground. The netherworld is supposed to be underground.) The lord of the netherworld- Hades, Pluto, etc- is supposed to be rich as a result. That's why the name "Pluto" is used to mean riches- as in "plutocracy", government by the rich. Then again, this chamber could be somewhere else completely. I personally was expecting LUNA and NEVILLE on the netherworld quest, not Ron and Hermione even IF JKR accidentally guaranteed they would live. Luna because in the Space room in the Dept of Mysteries, Luna blew up Pluto. Neville because I expect his mimbulus mimbletonia plant to be critically important.

CORRECT! And it was probably too easy. In case you're interested, someone made a Flash video of the song. You can find it fast enough with a quick search. (Or I can do one and post the results if you need me to.)

I contrasted with the rest of the sentence, that people wouldn't leave an obviously-incompetent leader in office. I got the idea of this thread after lots of posts where one or two people were saying that it didn't matter how much incompetence, how much being asleep-at-the-switch, how much cluelessness until a situation exploded, we see a leader demonstrate, that God Almighty would want us to leave that person in office, and render them above criticism. In short, that God advocates we approach even blatant incompetence with, at worst, a flat announcement of "bend over, here it comes again." You just take whatever a leader dishes out, no matter how blatantly ungodly, and leave him in office, no matter how corrupt, slothful, or moronic he is. Seems that was not only the minority opinion, we didn't even have a single anonymous vote advocating that position- not even from the one or two posters who advocated it! That means something, but it could be any of several things.

I'd say that's true of a number of those who don't post here- but many never came here because they've cocooned themselves in a twi bubble. Meanwhile, a number of us here have resolved all our twi issues and are here having fun and otherwise interacting. There's no correlation one to the other. See my previous point. That last line agreed with one of my points- posters here post for different reasons. Some are Never-Been-Way, if you never noticed. Makes it hard to have unresolved twi issues that way. SOME of the people of similar opinion are in one place. Where's the guarantee the rest of the population isn't all agreeing with that? Not that any of us guaranteed numbers=truth, but if almost everyone examines the facts and comes to the same conclusion, that should be sufficient reason to consider that they might be seeing something that the exceptions are missing. I've noted that consideration is lacking among some people, who object even to DISCUSSION of the facts, let along CONSIDERATION of them.

If you knew half what you THOUGHT you knew, you'd know he personally was not out there "selling"- "witnessing", "preaching"- in most locales, EVER. What he did was go and convince a handful of REAL Christians who were having TREMENDOUS outreach to do his marketing FOR him rather than only for God like they were doing. Your family didn't first hear from vpw- they heard from people who heard from other people, and if you trace back far enough, the majority of THEM can all be traced back to the handful of REAL Christians, and the double-handful that THEY taught. That's why there's a few places where people can trace big numbers coming from- they're where THESE people were. So, many (thousands???? you're extrapolating from the experience of TWO posters into THOUSANDS???? Most of us reported the OPPOSITE...) were born again under THEIR ministries, which vpw slapped his name on. vpw was GREAT at adding his name to the work of other Christians. The Lord was working in THEM. THEY were successes in outreach.) Your lack of knowing what you THINK you know is showing again here.Jack Stiles gave copies of his book and booklets on the holy spirit for FREE to all sorts of Christians. He wasn't in an ivory tower-he travelled all over. And BG Leonard's name had gotten around a lot of Christian circles among ministers. His intention was to teach MINISTERS so those ministers could serve entire COMMUNITIES in their own churches. Maximum impact, minimum money and name recognition. Leonard had an impact far exceeding his name recognition- and he's still discussed to this day, his materials are still sought, and not just by ex-twiers. Ever see how vpw ever heard of them? Stiles he met at a big Christian convention, where Stiles was one of the guys. Leonard he read about-and not in some ivory tower vpw never visited. And Leonard was all the way in Canada at the time.... Your ignorance of what you THINK you know is showing again. The first "pfal" class- titled "receiving the holy spirit today" by vpw- was Leonard's class in every way, both in what it included, in what it excluded, and in examples even down to the imaginary names, and the only change was the name on the class. That is, vpw sat in Leonard's class, then taught Leonard's class, changing its name, and telling the students it was a vpw class. Leonard's "Gifts of the Spirit" class brought an entire package of understanding down to the "common man" and presented it so that the Bible made sense as a whole. The strength of LEONARD's work, and the work of the groovy Christians, and Stiles' book (which vpw cut-and-pasted) were what impressed people. The subliminal messages are evident in how you can't stop with the vpw commercials even when everyone except you knows the origins of the materials. You might try the internet- there's HUNDREDS you can find with a little dedication. I've found LOTS you've never interacted with, and I wasn't looking that hard. And many of them are strong in areas that ex-twi are remarkably weak in- Scriptural history, differences between texts, and history of the Church of the first 3 centuries- which are VERY useful but require more WORK than vpw was willing to put into any of those subjects. You don't even need to leave your computer to find "average church-goers" who can equal or surpass typical Advanced Class grads. To a degree, but that's only AVERAGE in many Christian circles, and the education was a compilation of Stiles, Bullinger, and Leonard. I'd have much fewer objections if we'd been told that from the beginning. Most of us would. The DECEPTION by a supposed CHRISTIAN is telling. Make up your mind- you're objecting to scholastic circles-made up of scholastics, or you're praising a scholastic approach- which scholastics used? Mind you, if you looked around, you'd find plenty of Christians who have put in STUDY. You haven't found them, but we have, so we're dubious you looked very hard.... Since you asked.... He had a number of goals, demonstrated by a number of activities. When he went to the groovy Christians, he was looking to find a sales force. (He was also looking to find some Christians who believed in free love, as evidenced by his inquiries into ORGIES among them, and his explanation of how orgies are permitted by God.) When he was enrolling way corps, he was looking for people who would follow orders without question (he disbanded at least one entire corps, only allowing them to re-join after declaring their loyalty to him IN WRITING), while seeking to make money off the deal. (They were charged tuition, given tasks which cost nothing, and the financial outlay ON THEM was nearly nonexistent- they lived in tiny cells, they ate cheap, disgusting food, and they performed lots and lots of manual labour for free while paying tuition.) The only formal education they had-other than taking classes they didn't need more than a year to take FROM twi- was DALE CARNEGIE SALES TRAINING. Why was the only expense laid out for them SALES TRAINING? Because the most important thing about them was their use as a sales force. And some of the time, his goal was to get young, impressionable women to submit to sexual overtures.

I might believe that was an accurate number. When it comes to vpw, the almighty dollar was the great arbiter of spirituality. His best line on this? "You can stay as long as your money holds!" which was his rule for way corps students.

That was discussed in this thread... http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=178225

The original recalls concerned wet foods, so you're safer with dry foods than wet foods. The ingredient that seems to be on the news, that was affected, was "wheat gluten." So, find a package of dry food, and read the ingredients. No wheat gluten, no tainted ingredients. Please note that this is free advice, not guaranteed in any way, and I'm no expert.

BTW, if you stick around, eventually probably want to call yourself something else, something more personally descriptive.

I recognized it when you included Hyannis. ======= Ok, next song. "Rose and Valerie screaming from the gallery Say he must go free"

To be specific, it's supposedly the number of people who ever signed up for pfal. A) I question if there really were 100,000 who ever signed green cards. B) Not everyone who ever signed the green card showed up for Session I. When I first took it, one of 7 was a no-show from the beginning. C) Not everyone who ever showed up for Session 1 showed up for Session 8 (the Born Again session), or Session 12. When I first took it, we were down to 3-4 by Session 8, with 3 grads at Session 12. (Me, a coordinator's wife, and a different coordinator's teen.) I've considered the number 100,000 an inflated number for years, just when using it to measure GRADS. ==== Someone already pointed out that most pfal students were already born again long before they ever heard of pfal.

Thanks to all who've appreciated my posts. I'd like to add, you'd never SEE my posts, because there would BE no posts, if PAWTUCKET hadn't set up the GSC in the first place, and kept it up since then. I've learned a lot here, and posted a lot here in that time. So, I'd like to thank PAW once again. How anyone could know PAW runs this place and claim it was dominated by women is beyond me-if they're trying to be HONEST. ==== T-Bone, under the offensive posting, please remember that this is not entirely the result of someone just acting out. These are the result of dysfunctional thought patterns inflicted in twi, which are still in effect, never having been replaced by different cognitive processes. He's a VICTIM of vpw, TOO. His WOUNDS haven't healed, EITHER. Even if HE can't find sympathy for his fellow victims, that doesn't mean WE can't find sympathy for ALL vpw's victims, even when they are inflammatory.

That's all I've read to date. There have been discussions with variations on some of the above, but that's the brief summary, the bullet points. There's also an "argument from silence"-the lack of her EVER getting involved with a guy- which by itself is proof of nothing, but is enough to make one go "Hmmmm..." (At some point in the past she was married, but we haven't seen her in any relationship thru her entire twi history.)

Was not a "questionable" couple. They were known to be lesbians. The story that went around was that they were PREVIOUSLY lesbian, but had been delivered. Naturally, they exhibited NO behaviour that showed this was in the past, and they shared a basement apartment. You also left out something that was posted- that Donna and Rosa-lie travelled together- and shared a room- and shared a BED-they stayed in 1-bed rooms. (When I split a room with another guy, we split the room, and the bathroom, but the room has 2 beds, and each of us gets one bed.) That's independent of one person who said they walked in on them "after". (As in "right after the crime stopped blazing", so to speak.)

You must have been playing in a "ROCK AND ROLL BAND", and touring off in some city, like "BOSTON".

Wow. *does the math* You were around when vpw was alive. (I don't capitalize his initials since learning everything I've learned about him.) You're not the only one who had to leave a spouse behind because they would rather hide in the "bubble" of twi than face life outside of twi. Not me, but a number of posters have had that happen. I'm glad your kids aren't "in"-or at least are only "in" on paper and are awaiting an airlift, whichever is the case. Well, for starters, here's some advice for new posters.... http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=7913 If you're completely new to the internet and/or messageboards, just say so, and the posters will provide some general guides. (In the meantime, you can just watch this video... http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting.php ) Many of us are still Christians-just not in twi. Some of us aren't anymore, but are still well-mannered participants in the discussions here. Some of us joined denominations. Some of us joined "splinter groups" -ex-twi groups managed by people twi taught. Some of us run screaming when someone suggests joining a splinter group. Some of us are "free agent" Christians, sort of "free tange". It's considered healthy by almost all of us to examine the doctrines you were taught- since you weren't allowed to do that until now, so you probably didn't. The Doctrinal Forum has many discussions on those. What else can you do? Well, we have games in the Reading Room, and live chat in the Live Chat room. We discuss all sorts of things in all sorts of forums. I recommend spending some time in some of the Archives, in Doctrinal, and looking thru old threads in "About the Way." You'll learn a lot, and will have many, many surprises. If you still have a copy of "the Way:Living in Love", you might want to look at the thread "the Way:Living in Wonderland" for another look at its contents. (Or if you don't still have a copy, for that matter.) I also recommend taking a few months and working thru the Documents and Editorials on the main website. They're useful and worth reading-and rereading.

The really odd thing: despite my inability to find any actual signs of a church called the Navelites, someone here claimed they spoke to someone who claimed they interacted with them- a Never-Been-Way person, yet! However, this person supposedly was a member in Ohio, and the tale of this group keeps placing them in California, home of weird doctrines. I honestly don't know what to believe on this.

*bumps thread in the hopes a quote will emerge* Looks like a Voyager or Enterprise quote, and I saw little of either.

I'll add Jesus wouldn't fog issues with SPECIFIC insults by name, meant to add irrelevant digressions, when we're discussing those who committed offenses against the little ones. Then again, Jesus isn't one of my wounded brothers, and is unlikely to make mistakes brought on by injury.

If you were paying attention, and not just focusing on justifying a worldview that venerates vpw no matter what he did, you'd see I added to the subject ALREADY. But, of course, even admitting THAT interferes with a blanket label of all my posts, which is necessary to avert one's gaze from the substance in them. Since I am not a MODERATOR, I'm free to post without worrying whether or not anything butthe substance of my posts will interfere with the free exchange of ideas, and swaying the opinion of any reader. Thus, my posts only carry THEIR OWN weight, and any reader can consider their content on their own merits. Actually, the logic and facts was all the eyewitness accounts of the VICTIMS, and the CONFESSIONS OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND THOSE WHO KNEW AND WERE ASHAMED THEY DIDN'T STOP IT. But, of course, you don't care about those... The scenario is only BARELY hypothetical. For a lot of women, that's PERSONAL HISTORY. Since you care not that vpw attacked THEM, since it touches you not as a non-participant who knew nothing of it and don't have their blood on your hands, the question was raised- what if he HAD victimized someone you actually can summon an ounce of compassion for? Amazing that you're saying that you STILL would be more interested- had it been a close loved-one of yourself- to say responding would actually be "losing sight of the facts." The facts would be "he raped my daughter." "I respected him before she reported he raped her." The only questions are: "Is my daughter claiming to me someone raped her because she is lying?" and "If I believe her, what do I do about it?" So, there's more emotion that someone would claim vpw raped them- attack the one reporting it!- than to the man who was reported as having performed the rape- "that the ministry be not blamed!" That's dedication for you. That's single-mindedness for you. That's fricking inhuman is what it is..... And if you actually WOULD attack a family member for reporting their rape by vpw, well, all I can say is, you wouldn't be the first....... Wait- so, you're saying, that, just as a hypothetical, if you raised her as a member of, say, the "Wheat Tares Church of Sheboygan" (I made that up) while you both were members, and she came to you, reporting that the head of the denomination raped her, that you actually might care? That would actually add something to the discussion.....