WordWolf

Nicely put. I can't see any way to phrase this any better. :) BTW, welcome to the GSC. :)

I'm not going to argue about whether or not we're arguing. It seems, however, some of us (me included) got the impression that the thread (especially the first page) seemed slanted to dismiss a more Fundamentalist approach to the Bible. (No, I really don't want to quote the words that gave that impression, since I see that as adding fuel to the fire.) Can we agree that it either wasn't true, or that if it was true, it's not worth devoting any more time to?

Kurt Russell the Best of Times Robin Williams

I'd call that "less UNfair, and less DIShonest", but that's a lot of money for what they're getting. And it's not like this presented as OPTIONAL or anything. Either 10% or you lack "the truth" because he won't give it, and only HE's got it. Just because something is an improvement over twi does not mean I consider it "right". Some people were arm-twisted into giving more than 10% in twi. If they were arm-twisted into giving 8%, that is an improvement, but still not "right."

You can look FOREVER- nothing specific was ever mentioned. There was some vague admissions of "not doing the Word" stuff. Howard's "confession" had to do with the idea that vpw could have used his super-believing and become de-cancered "if only" he would have had support from twi's top people. That's what PoP says. It really tugs on the heartstrings... In the real world, vpw was an alcoholic and drank ALL THE TIME. This weakened his body's filtration systems-like his liver. vpw was also a chain-smoker, and took in tobacco ALL THE TIME. This exposed his body to a known carcinogen- which was publicly known back in the 1940s and onward. This meant vpw was exposed-over decades-to things that would give him cancer and reduce his body's ability to fight off cancer. According to vpw's "LAW of Believing", any exposure to cancer would be easy to destroy with a simple application of "positive believing." If you reread PoP, you'll see cg referred to this, and thought that vpw could "change his mind" and delete his own cancer. Meanwhile, vpw told the corps that the source of his cancer was the bright lights used in filming 2 weeks of foundational class in the early 1970s. Do I need to tell you that bright lights do not cause cancer? Attributing it to this "noble" source meant it wasn't the result of him spending thousands of dollars of ABS and tithes to support his VICES. He was specific that his cancerous eye was directly the result of his "moving the Word". We have eyewitnesses here that heard him speak on committments to God and say "I gave MY EYE- what are YOU willing to give?" Mind you, a lot of twi-ers didn't even know about the CANCER. A lot of us heard "he just stopped believing", and that's ALL we heard. So, what actually killed vpw? It's like some game of Clue. Was it the cigar with the tobacco in the study? Was it the successor with the leotards in the auditorium? Was it the bus driver with the bad news in the Scottish village? Was it the old pal with the opportunism in the OSC? Was it the scion with the incompatible priorities in the Kansas campus? Was it the decanter with the Drambuie in the office?

I agree. However, that presumes we accepted that hq was prepared to bend us over a chair, and didn't care about how we got stuff done locally. We were naive and thought they cared about US, not just our MONEY.

Anyone else thinks this is worthy of the "Greasespot Gems" list? Thanks. I sometimes find that a "parable" or poem articulates my thinking better than me just trying to say it plainly. (Off-topic: I find the subject of how many poems, over the years, never got all the proper attributions, or mysteriously got attributed to vpw somewhere along the lines, a fascinating one.)

Right. But that would have meant less money in their hands. Besides, if even the way corps were DISPOSABLE, the people on the field were MORE DISPOSABLE. So, you passing out was an acceptable consequence of them keeping the money. No, they didn't care about your comforts or your mentality. "Just send all the money to hq. You? 'Believe God' for whatever else you need."

These renames WERE widespread. We definitely heard them in NYC. (Actually, I didn't hear "Bless and Treat", but I figure it was only a matter of time.) It was also said that changing Valentine's Day was an improvement, because the original name wasn't actually after a Catholic saint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Valentine but instead after a MASSACRE. http://www.prairieghosts.com/valentine.html That came from a corps person's mouth who is now on twi's national board. Your bod at work! It's possible he said it tongue-in-cheek, but he deadpanned it and certainly never gave any impression he was joking. It also fits in perfectly with lcm's claims that holidays were named after murders. After all, he claimed "Christ-mass" wasn't named after a mass attended on that day, but instead for the "massacre" of the children (those sometimes termed the "holy innocents" in Herod's attempt to have the King of the Jews killed.) He also made other comments about it like calling it " 'Happy Kill-Christ Day', celebrating the death of Christ." I was no Rhodes scholar, but I knew it was bs the first time I'd heard of it, because there's other holidays named in the same convention, like Michaelmas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michaelmas and Candlemas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candlemas which were Days of Obligation on the liturgical calendar. lcm was the head of twi at the time. I don't expect he should necessarily have been able to recite the derivations of all the holidays on the liturgical calendar (although he should have had a nodding familiarity with Christian topics in general if he was to be running such an organization), but-if he was going to open his fool mouth and announce what the correct history and derivation was- it should have been expected that he open a decent set of encyclopedias, and at least check he wasn't making an obvious mistake. But, hey, it's not like there was any sort of "quality control" at the top of twi. vpw never wanted ANY mechanisms that could have removed power from his hands.

As it's generally told, lucifer was one of three angels placed in authority over the others, and of the three, he was the pre-eminent one, God's "right-hand man", the bright and morning star. He was smart, persuasive, good-looking, and influential. And he became enthralled with his OWN greatness, and decided that his OWN will be done, and that he deserved the WHOLE show rather than be the Executive Vice-President and Chief-of-Operations. Thus he put his persuasive "speech" to work, and convinced his 1/3 to rebel against the status quo and the Almighty. They waged war, and lost, and were thrown to the earth. (This puts him in the same place he later is claimed to interfere with Eden.) Well, if our positions were reversed, I doubt I would have made such a move.I've never been arrogant enough to think I wasn't capable of being smacked down- there's always a bigger fish. Further, he met God Almighty directly and still decided he himself knew better. I've seen arrogant people consider themselves "above the law" and decide the rules apply to everyone BUT THEM plenty of times. That's an OLD story, frankly. Plus, it's been said that-no matter the system-there will always be malcontents. That's because it's grossly oversimplified. He decided to take God's place at the "throne", true. He decided he should become God. We judge that evil. (Well, I judge that evil, anyway.) He decided to actively oppose God, and work to overthrow his established order, and to frustrate his plans and derange his people. Some of his plans or SUSPECTED plans include the Fall of Man, an attempt to wipe out the Christ-line by polluting all bloodlines, an attempt to wipe out humanity, various plans to crush Israel, corruption of all humanity, corruption of the leaders of Israel, corruption of God's spokesmen for Israel, the death of the Messiah at various times, the subversion of the Messiah into his own agent, and attempts to subvert Christianity into his own agency and so on. His methods of executing his plans are varied, but involve a few common threads. They involve his OWN order, set in opposition to the order set in place by God. They involve dismissing ANY and ALL utterances of God. And so on. Does his EVERY action radiate "eeeee--vvviiiillll"? No. Some of it may look completely innocuous-until it's seen as a necessary part of a framework designed to oppose God. He also takes a longer view than just the sort of "smash-and-grab" of a common street-criminal or mugger. (Although he will use them as well...) If I were to consider him "the opposite of God", I might support the idea that their power-levels and intellects were in some way comparable. I think he considers himself in that category. I think his intentions often overlap what we consider "evil". I think evil actions and evil intent generally serve his purposes- especially since his purposes include "cause trouble."

Now, as to where the war in heaven fits in, that's from Revelation 12. Revelation 12:7-9 (NASB again.) "7And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon The dragon and his angels waged war, 8and they were not strong enough, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven. 9And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. " As to the troops being 1/3 of the angels of heaven, that's from Revelation 12:4a. "4And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth..." =============== So, the supposition is that these verses at least partly refer to an event in the distant past- a war in heaven, with 1/3 the angels of heaven in open rebellion, and 2/3 the angels of heaven defending heaven, where the losers and their commander were cast down to the earth. (That it may refer to many other things as well, including events yet-to-be, is generally accepted even among those who are certain this refers to such an event in the past. Many prophecies in Scripture are said to have referred to 2 events, and been fulfilled twice, and this is confirmed right in the Gospels.) An ironclad case? Hardly. If God had asked me, I would have requested a textbook with some direct statements of fact on the subject. That fits my 21st century sensibilities. However, it would be a hindrance to many centuries of people NOT my contemporaries. That IS where the numbers come from.

"Dictionary of Misinformation", by Tom Burnam. I have a copy. Paperback: 334 pages Publisher: Perennial Library; 1st Perennial Library ed edition (1986) Language: English ISBN: 0060913150

Actually, I've found that some more erudite Wiccans say that Cernunnos was taken from Herne and was supposed to be the same guy. As for Dis Pater, he and Orcus were merged into Pluto the Roman god, where they had all previously been separate from Hades the Greek god. Is there a reference somewhere that equates him with the Horned Gods of the fields like Pan?

A) You were thinking for yourself. B) Someone at hq didn't like it-therefore it was "wrong." C) It would have resulted in you handling money yourselves, making a decision as to its disposition, and executing it. twi did NOT want you getting ANY practice at that...

That's got to be from when Julian Bashir is running his James Bond-like "secret agent" holodeck progam. I forget the title-it may be "Our Man Bashir", but I'm not absolutely certain. My favourite character title from that one was that there's a chick named Honey Bare.

Sure you can join in! Right now, we're waiting for Raf to post, since it is his turn. (He got the last correct answer.) It will be your turn if you get the next correct answer, or he forfeits it to anyone (or you specifically, I suppose) and you're the next poster, or he doesn't post it for a week or something and we want to move the thread. Right now, you join us by waiting for Raf's next (first) quote for this round.

Ok, here's my position, and why I maintain it. (Judging from the previous posts, my position has already been judged capricious and provincial. That hasn't changed my position-I believe the stronger case is for this position.) The Dictionary of Misinformation claims that the Isaiah 14 section never refers to the devil, because it says it's addressed to the King of Babylon. Well, it DOES say that, and I won't pretend it doesn't. (All quotes from the NASB.) Isaiah 14:4 "that you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon, and say, 'How the oppressor has ceased, And how fury has ceased!' " However, that is hardly the entire case. Addressing something to someone serving satan does not mean that the message is not meant for satan's ears after all. If that person is a mouthpiece of his, even a self-proclaimed one, the message IS for satan. Isaiah 14:12-14. "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! 13 But you said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north. 14'I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' Interesting set of attributes this guy has. He's referred to as a star. That's also been the case for angels, and for Jesus Christ at the end of the Book of Revelation. In fact, this is rendered nearly the same, or EXACTLY the same, as the title Jesus has at the end of Revelation. Revelation 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you these things for the churches I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star." Even for a king, this guy's aspirations appear pretty lofty. We've got that "stars" thing again, almost as if it's saying he wanted to elevate himself above the angels. That's accurate if it's describing someone replacing God. In fact, that's what it says he thinks he can do, in verse 14. Is this really describing a monomaniacal king, or someone pulling his strings? Ezekiel 28:12-17 "Son of man, take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre and say to him, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "You had the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13"You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The ruby, the topaz and the diamond; The beryl, the onyx and the jasper; The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald; And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, Was in you. On the day that you were created They were prepared. 14"You were the anointed cherub who covers, And I placed you there You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked in the midst of the stones of fire. 15"You were blameless in your ways From the day you were created Until unrighteousness was found in you. 16"By the abundance of your trade You were internally filled with violence, And you sinned; Therefore I have cast you as profane From the mountain of God. And I have destroyed you, O covering cherub, From the midst of the stones of fire. 17"Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; You corrupted your wisdom by reason of your splendor I cast you to the ground; I put you before kings, That they may see you.'" Someone may of course say "this says it's about the king of Tyre. Any other possibility is precluded." Well, it's not quite that simple. This supposed "man" has some even MORE peculiar properties. He was in EDEN, THE GARDEN OF GOD. Only 2 humans were said to have been there, and they died. Might this not be a description of someone who is not human? He "walked in the midst of the stones of fire." This might mean magma or lava, or might not. Either way, strange for a human, no matter what it means. Finally, he's called a "cherub."(Twice.) Maybe I missed something, but I thought the only "cherubs" are either angels or stylistic depictions OF angels. Is this all about the literal King of Tyre? You make up your own mind; I think it's clear there's more to this account than just a message to an overproud king. (Ok, that's not everyting, but that's a beginning.)

"More accurate" defined, of course, in a practical sense as "it matches my theology." (But hey, you can consider that "more accurate" if you want. I checked and I disagree.) I find the alternate translation you're working with-a variant rendering of the phrasing of Genesis 1:1- to be a rather thin reed to use to weave an entire boat of a theology concerning different people every time the term changes. But that's your privilege. I won't be joining you on your journey.

"THERE ARE...FOUR LIGHTS!" Technically, Chain of Command PART TWO, but Raf still beat me to it.

You may well be right. However, you'll need to support your case. Find a few examples that most clearly support it, and run through them for the studio audience. You may find support, you may even convince a few people. God knows I've learned things in discussions on this board, and reversed my opinions based on them at times. Try to let the verses-and direct conclusions FROM the verses- carry your posts, and they'll carry more weight. And no, you don't have to find them this second-you may not have the time now either. :)

That would be the fellow in Genesis 1:1"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." 'God' in that verse is 'Elohim'. So, you're saying in one place that we have ONE Creator-The Almighty, who's "Elohim" in Genesis 1:1, and in another place that Elohim means Spirit Angels, and THEY created man. Oh, and WE'RE Elohim also. So, "Elohim" SPECIFICALLY means God Himself in Genesis 1:1, who created angels AND us, and "Elohim" SPECIFICALLY means angels who created us, and "Elohim" SPECIFICALLY means us. "Elohim" seems to be a very flexible word! =========== Or, I can believe that the Bible was written primarily to enlighten the understanding of the simple, and was never intended to be the tool of small cabals of people off scrutinizing the precise placement of the orders of Greek and Hebrew words, seeking for the difference between where the verb fits in the sentence, or the differences, say, between "krima" and "krisis". This would mean that "Elohim" can refer to God Almighty in one place completely, and to a human or humans in another place with another connotation- just as a human can be a judge, but God is THE JUDGE, and so on. Sorry, I can't get behind you on this system. If you enjoy it, though, be my guest, have a blast.

Every minute that passes bring us closer to "the end times". If Jesus is to be believed, no man knows the hour. I like to say that this means the longest warning we could get would be 59 minutes, since that would mean a man knew in LESS than an hour. Now, soon, or far in the future, I am confident there WILL be such a time. Others are confident there will not. Some aren't sure. Somebody's right. No matter how you slice it, none of the positions affect how I live my life.

Maybe you should find the verses that you believe support your position, post them, then say "this is why I believe this verse supports my position..." vpw dashed thru this stuff at high speed in pfal, and never supported his case. (I've gone over the verses since then, and have engaged in dialogues concerning their meanings, but vpw didn't.) You have the chance to explain why YOU believe what you believe, and this is one time you might have others on your side. This is NOT strengthened by starting with an attitude of "well, my esteemed opponent is obviously illiterate, else he'd agree with me..." This was a start-but if you want to make a case from this, you'll need to put in a little time. I'll get back to this when I HAVE the time this warrants, myself.

That's poor stewardship of the family. It's no more different than buying farmland and ignoring 1/2 of it and letting it grow weeds. (And not intentionally as a "nature reserve.) It's poor management. Let us not forget HIGH INFANT MORTALITY RATES. In centuries of old, they had lots of kids, and some of them even survived childhood. In modern, high-tech societies, it is always a surprise, a shock, and a blow when we hear of children dying for any reason. It's not expected.

Keep Internet Explorer, but only use it when "needed" (Microsoft websites and a few other places.) Why do I like it so much? The basic program is cleaner and leaner than any Internet Explorer. Any time a problem is discovered, exploits are patched in an an average of "just-under-a-day". IE, the average is "about-3-days", and THAT only since the US Federal Govt announced that a delay of over a month meant they were going to recommend consumers switch OFF of IE---then the month's delay was over in 18 hours! So long as you follow the instructions, it is VERY EASY to "switch." FF will import all your Bookmarks/Favourite Sites when you install, if you tell it to. (And you can organize them better.) FireFox "Extensions" (add-ons) can be added for just about anything you can imagine. Like to increase the security of your browsing experience, like I do? There's hundreds, if not thousands, of Extensions you can add to the thing to make it safer. With one click, I can have a virus-scan done on any link before I even surf to it. Want to skip redirects and jump straight to the target-site? There's an Extension for that too. Want to always see the local IP of the site you're on? Etc. etc. The only reason IE ever added a pop-up blocker was because people were saying that FF with its DEFAULT pop-up blocker, and adding ONLY "AdBlock" made for a superior browsing experience, with fewer ads. And, yes, the option to use the Tabbed browsing and open a new page in a tab OR a new window is very handy. (I use both for different things, and the tabs are in the basic FF program.)