WordWolf

*thinks* I KNOW I've heard that first one somewhere.....

Welcome. Most of the people hear are nice people. There's a sticky topic pinned up top, and I recommend you look it over if you haven't already. It's got a welcome in it. There's a variety of opinions, and a variety of people here. That's what happens when people are allowed the freedom to think for themselves. (Or to refrain from thinking for themselves, as the case may be.) Mostly, that's healthy here. Keep in mind NOBODY's the "typical" poster here. Enjoy your stay. We have discussions that are serious, or jokes, or somewhere in between.

Somehow, I have trouble buying that one, as well...

Ok, 7 days, can we move this along, Tom?

Acts 16:16-18 (King James Version) 16And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: 17The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. 18And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour. Acts 16:16-18 (NASB) 16It happened that as we were going to the place of prayer, a slave-girl having a spirit of divination met us, who was bringing her masters much profit by fortune-telling. 17Following after Paul and us, she kept crying out, saying, "These men are bond-servants of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation." 18She continued doing this for many days. But Paul was greatly annoyed, and turned and said to the spirit, "I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her!" And it came out at that very moment. ========== I say this was old news long before that. II Chronicles 18:4-23 (KJV) 4And Jehoshaphat said unto the king of Israel, Enquire, I pray thee, at the word of the LORD to day. 5Therefore the king of Israel gathered together of prophets four hundred men, and said unto them, Shall we go to Ramothgilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And they said, Go up; for God will deliver it into the king's hand. 6But Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the LORD besides, that we might enquire of him? 7And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man, by whom we may enquire of the LORD: but I hate him; for he never prophesied good unto me, but always evil: the same is Micaiah the son of Imla. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so. 8And the king of Israel called for one of his officers, and said, Fetch quickly Micaiah the son of Imla. 9And the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah sat either of them on his throne, clothed in their robes, and they sat in a void place at the entering in of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets prophesied before them. 10And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah had made him horns of iron, and said, Thus saith the LORD, With these thou shalt push Syria until they be consumed. 11And all the prophets prophesied so, saying, Go up to Ramothgilead, and prosper: for the LORD shall deliver it into the hand of the king. 12And the messenger that went to call Micaiah spake to him, saying, Behold, the words of the prophets declare good to the king with one assent; let thy word therefore, I pray thee, be like one of their's, and speak thou good. 13And Micaiah said, As the LORD liveth, even what my God saith, that will I speak. 14And when he was come to the king, the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go to Ramothgilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And he said, Go ye up, and prosper, and they shall be delivered into your hand. 15And the king said to him, How many times shall I adjure thee that thou say nothing but the truth to me in the name of the LORD? 16Then he said, I did see all Israel scattered upon the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd: and the LORD said, These have no master; let them return therefore every man to his house in peace. 17And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he would not prophesy good unto me, but evil? 18Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the LORD; I saw the LORD sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left. 19And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one spake saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner. 20Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? 21And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the Lord said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so. 22Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee. 23Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near, and smote Micaiah upon the cheek, and said, Which way went the Spirit of the LORD from me to speak unto thee? ========= And here's how I broke that down.... Let's look it over. " 4And Jehoshaphat said unto the king of Israel, Enquire, I pray thee, at the word of the LORD to day. 5Therefore the king of Israel gathered together of prophets four hundred men, and said unto them, Shall we go to Ramothgilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And they said, Go up; for God will deliver it into the king's hand. 6But Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the LORD besides, that we might enquire of him?" Wow, 400 "personal prophets", and not one of the LORD among them. "7And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man, by whom we may enquire of the LORD: but I hate him; for he never prophesied good unto me, but always evil: the same is Micaiah the son of Imla. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so. " Ohh, what a bad boy that Michaiah is! He's always speaking all those negatives! He must never have learned that Godly communications are REQUIRED to be all cheerful and light, never saying anything bad, never warning about problems, never exposing evil, and never confronting evil. " 8And the king of Israel called for one of his officers, and said, Fetch quickly Micaiah the son of Imla. 9And the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah sat either of them on his throne, clothed in their robes, and they sat in a void place at the entering in of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets prophesied before them. " Wow, they got the full act. " 10And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah had made him horns of iron, and said, Thus saith the LORD, With these thou shalt push Syria until they be consumed." Zedekiah really knows how to wow an audience. He's got flair and drama in play while he delivers his personal prophecy. " 11And all the prophets prophesied so, saying, Go up to Ramothgilead, and prosper: for the LORD shall deliver it into the hand of the king. 12And the messenger that went to call Micaiah spake to him, saying, Behold, the words of the prophets declare good to the king with one assent; let thy word therefore, I pray thee, be like one of their's, and speak thou good. 13And Micaiah said, As the LORD liveth, even what my God saith, that will I speak." That Micaiah is NOT a team player. He also doesn't know about tailoring his message to the audience like the 400 other guys. " 14And when he was come to the king, the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go to Ramothgilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And he said, Go ye up, and prosper, and they shall be delivered into your hand. 15And the king said to him, How many times shall I adjure thee that thou say nothing but the truth to me in the name of the LORD? 16Then he said, I did see all Israel scattered upon the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd: and the LORD said, These have no master; let them return therefore every man to his house in peace. 17And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he would not prophesy good unto me, but evil? " Real prophets risk their lives giving messages they know the people won't want, and accept they are set at naught and despised for it. REAL prophets don't get cushy jobs. " 18Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the LORD; I saw the LORD sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left. 19And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one spake saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner. 20Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? 21And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the Lord said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so. 22Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee. " So, we see there are 2 ways to be a personal prophet. One is to speak words from one's own self and claim they are of God, the other is to speak words from a lying spirit and claim they are of God. " 23Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near, and smote Micaiah upon the cheek, and said, Which way went the Spirit of the LORD from me to speak unto thee? " That Zedekiah knows how to keep his stage-act up. Even exposed, he's trying to discredit a REAL prophet and claim he HIMSELF speaks the truth. =================== As someone else pointed out, God gave a very simple standard- and a very simple consequence- for telling TRUE prophets and words from God, from personal prophets and words from other-than-God. Deuternomy 18:20-22. (KJV) " 20But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. 21And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? 22When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." For those of you who missed it, here it is in the NASB. " 20But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. 21You may say in your heart, 'How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?' 22When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him. " This is very simple. If a prophet speaks a prophecy, and ANY prophecy he speaks fails, he is a false prophet. If 99.999% of his prophecies come true, and 1 in 100,000 fails, he is a false prophet. What were they to do with false prophets? They were to kill them a lot. Thus, prophets whose prophecies "USUALLY" or "OFTEN" were accurate, but OCCASIONALLY fail are false prophets and should be killed. As we've all seen, even people trying to justify the utterances of the CES/STFI "personal prophetess" have said she's not accurate 100% of the time, which the Bible says makes her a FALSE prophet, and Israel was supposed to kill those. Fine, we don't kill them in the US. We don't even slap them in the face. We can AT THE VERY LEAST follow GOD'S injunction and not respect them any more. And I still want to know why their entire organization needs an anonymous outsider like me to explain all this when they've had over a decade to work it out. If I was a supporter of CES/STFI, I'd have some burning questions concerning the management of the group, and just how well they really understand the Bible if they could make mistakes of this magnitude.

*studies the options* Hm. I certainly MEANT to put that as one response among all the others. The closest response-the one that reflects most closely to "nonlethal self-defense strictly in response to imminent threat of loss of life" would be the first one-that violence is wrong, period, i.e. that the violence you're responding to is wrong, and you're FORCED to respond with violence only to save your life. I didn't MEAN to make it any sort of trick question, I'm sorry. I think most people here who selected the first would say that violence in general is wrong, but if violence by another is already in effect, use of violence in defense of self or other is necessary, if not preferred. That would apply on the street as well as anywhere else, and self-defense against imminent loss of life is justified. The law sees it the same way, as well. I wanted to give that sort of person room to select a fair representation of their position, and a place to explain why they feel it is appropriate.

Unless you're talking a completely different letter from lcm, the form-letter that said "I'm firing your local staff because they were evil and now I expect loyalty from the rest of you" came in April 1989 and was dated then. It's especially easy for me to remember, since one of my responses to it was to make a point of attending ROA '89 and making a fact-finding mission part of my agenda. (I'd seen the local people in action, now I wanted to see the people who fired them in action, specifically with their current agenda in place. I figured an informed decision was best.) That was also my last ROA. ========= If it was the letter TO STAFF, it was BEFORE then, since the public letter was sent in response to staff letters saying it was unBiblical to choose among men.

No. He's said before that men have-in his opinion-physical advantages, and women have verbal advantages. So long as women have unrestricted verbal freedom-and can say WHATEVER they wish in whatever quantities, and men do not have unrestricted physical freedom-and can strike HOWEVER they wish in whatever quantities, an unlevel playing field exists, it's not even fair to say men and women both have unrestricted verbal freedom.

Maybe- after all, it MIGHT have worked...

Please select the most flexible level of communication, and the most free use of violence, that comes closest to your opinion. The poll's anonymous, but feel free to post and make your position known and explain it.

Seems obvious to me that you and them are using different meanings for the word "nag." When I was in high school, I wanted to make sure all my friends signed my yearbook. So, I made a point of asking a few a few times-so I could catch them when they had time to write something. Is that "finding fault with them continually?" Obviously not. However, one commented IN the yearbook that I'd been a "nag" over getting them to sign it. (At the end of a longer personal note, of course.) Sounds like THAT person's usage of "nag" is closer to what OTHER people here were saying, but NOT close to what you were saying. Perhaps we need to agree on definitions of certain words, around which anyone's going to wrangle- in this case, it's obvious "nag" is going to be one of those words. You went from using a different meaning for the word they used,to an interpretation BASED on that meaning ("that constitutes abuse"), and thence to saying there's a double-standard. That is, claiming they say verbal abuse is normal, and acceptable, but physical abuse is neither. That was a leap far beyond what anyone was saying. I'd say it's ok to ask a friend a few times to sign a yearbook, but it's not OK to respond to that request by punching the requester in the face. (One usage of "nag", followed by physical violence, the simplest usage of physical abuse.) I think others would agree with me. Perhaps even you would. This is still making assumptions based on your usage of a DIFFERENT definition of "nag" than they were. They said nothing about being entitled to "disdain" or "abuse men"- that all sprang from your interpretation and your definition. "You think you're better than we are"- I can't even find where this came from- was it supposed to be some sort of extrapolation from what you just said? I think there's rather fewer usages of the word "hit" than there are of the word "nag". One person "hitting" another could be flicking them behind an ear, or rapping their knuckles, or a slap on the wrist, or a poke to the chest, or a slap in the face, or a punch or a kick. All of those differ, mainly on degree and intent, but all are acts of violence, even the lightest. All meanings of "nag" involve communicating on a subject more than once. And if asking someone more than once to sign a yearbook, and verbally harassing and haranguing them, can be meant with the same word, then it behooves us to use that word more precisely and more carefully, and NOT jump to conclusions. How about ASKING what was meant?

Hello. Welcome to the GSC. There's different people, with different points of view here, who engage in discussions- after all, it's a "discussion forum". :) On the whole, I find that's a healthy process, and people can generally tell the difference between healthy speech and unhealthy speech, once they can compare them side-by-side. One of the things I find unhealthy, for example, is an eagerness to label other people. Here is an example of what I mean. The poster here has already labelled and categorized the people who disagree with you- or who don't agree with you 100%. He's already taken ALL their DIFFERENT points of view, and eliminated all the positions except the most extreme. This would limit your ability to see that there are MANY points of view, and limit the amount that all of them have to offer you. After all, everyone here offers SOMETHING, and sometimes, the most surprising things come up from the most surprising people. If you allow labelling like this to close you off to learning from them, you'll be the poorer for it. Individual posters, sooner or later, may earn-in the eyes of some people- some sort of "title" representing their PARTICULAR position. Whether or not that's fair or proper, it's equally common for such people to presume other people will get the SAME title with little or small reason, in the mistake or the pretense that they got theirs from little or small reason as well. Then again, of course, THIS poster may be right, and I may be in error. It's up to you, as always, to evaluate things and see whether you believe they're right, I'm right, or we're BOTH wrong and the truth is something else entirely. Enjoy your stay.

Well, this thread's gone a number of pages. Except for the fact that there's new posters who've read it and understood what's happening without difficulty, this is pretty much the same type of thread we had all the way back at the waydale forums. We have people who were direct eyewitnesses of things that happened, who have said "I was in the room when this happened", and we have people determined to do everything they can to attempt to silence or discredit their testimony, despite not being where and when it happened, and using every tool, starting with calling them liars without having the courage to use the word "liar", to claiming their unchanging testimony has changed, to claiming ulterior motives to those who've come forth, to claiming to be able to read their minds as to details and what they did and didn't do, and so on. Anything they personally didn't see didn't happen, especially if it was something unpleasant. And anyone saying so must produce ludicrous amounts of evidence to back up things they were witnesses of....all to silence unpleasant information. Truth is truth, even when it is UNPLEASANT truth. And love is often easy to see in progress. And those who CLAIM to love while doing otherwise, well, is it that hard to tell?

I misunderstood you. Please accept my apology.

Jeff Sjo may be new here, but he's making up for lost time on the Gems list.... I don't say this every day....I am impressed.

In the version I heard, the door was opened by a 12-year old boy. He's wearing a fedora, and a towel is tied around his neck like a cape. He has a cigar in his mouth, a snifter of brandy in his left hand, and a tv remote control in his right. (This kid was really maximizing his time...)

How true! Several posters said this is what they were told PERSONALLY. That is a fact. WD claims they are lying. That is an opinion. This is not difficult for most people to track.

Wayne Gretsky's in this movie????

Thanks for the link. For those wondering, I scanned the link, and it came up clean. (Can't be too careful nowadays...) I downloaded the zip file and extracted it, too. Amazing how much text can fit when it's left as a simple txt file rather than bloated into a doc or something.

Funny thing- I know a song that begins ALMOST with this line, so it's probably a completely DIFFERENT song.

I've posted-and post-on boards with LOTS of Trinitarians who are loving. Except when there's certain doctrinal discussions, things tend to go very smoothly- and I've yet to see any board where SOMETHING wasn't controversial.

Mr Hammeroni did as well. I agreed with Ham... Nobody was "ugly" with you. Mild sarcasm, at best, is what I said, which is what you quoted. It RESPONDED to what you ALREADY posted, and had nothing to do with your imaginary "baiting". Someone gave personal testimony. You said "liar." We contested your response. That's not "baiting." The claim, however, looks like someone ELSE was given bad doctrine from twi, suffered by trying to carry it out, and YOU'RE claiming to be the suffering one because you heard later that some people were taught some stuff you didn't like or agree with. How about a drop of sympathy for the ones who actually had to try to LIVE it? This may come as a shock, but the people who are SPEAKING UP about twi are here. Those who wish to remain silent, or refuse to remember, or insist it was all sweetness and light, DON'T come here. And "here", we have people from all over the country (and countries), and across twi's decades, including recent evacuees. Different people, who were in different places at different times, have come forth and said it was taught to them. The logical approach is to admit they probably WERE taught that-even if you weren't. Nero replied again: As did Watered Garden. As did rascal. Your continuing to dismiss accounts of different people from different places and different times as all being part of some singular imaginary "Greasespot region" was responded to by Tom, and I think he has the right of it.

Oh, WD, want to change the subject and draw some heat off of John? Ok, I'll bite. Don't pretend to be an injured party, it's a poor fit. Here's a quick recap to what happened: rascal said YOU used the OLD posting style-from all the way back to waydale, even, to say Which was used, as of old, to take someone's personal testimony, and, instead of saying "I wasn't in the room when it was taught," you said "I wasn't taught this-therefore it wasn't taught and you're a liar". OLD posting style. Don't pretend it's not what you were saying. I replied to YOUR post with That was a reminder that-as has come up a lot-different people were told different things in twi, and not everyone's experience was identical. Just as some things you were taught were supposedly close to perfect, others have reported things they were taught that were far from perfect. There's room for both of you to tell the truth and say different things. Your reply? Repeating you're calling it a lie-without saying the WORD "lie", of course... potato spoke up, as someone ELSE who heard this.... And rascal replied As did Nero.

It's one of my favourites! Yes, let's see who else chimes in.

Ah, I see. However, I DID post a first line this time... :)