WordWolf

JohnIam: "In Acts 4:30, AFTER Jesus was born, he is called a holy CHILD. In Luke 1:35, BEFORE Jesus was born, when he was in utero, he is called a holy THING! Some versions of the bible tweak that verse to say holy one or holy child, but the greek is neuter, according to Bullinger. If it's neuter then it's not male or female. If it's not male or female it's not a child. I get mildly annoyed seeing those bumper stickers which say 'It's a child, not a choice'. If I had the means or the inclination I might alter the message to 'It's a fetus, not a child'." "To be fair, when John the Baptist was about to be born it says the BABE leapt in Elisabeth's womb. There. No partial birth abortions. If I could make law, I'd say all abortions must be performed before the end of the first trimester (13 weeks) the only exception being if a doctor concluded that the mother's life would be in danger later than that and that any doctor found to fraudulently sign off on that would permanently lose his med license." Ok, as to the second, I think JohnIam agrees with almost all of us on the second matter, that John the Baptist was referred to as a "babe" and not "a collection of cells", so that sometime BEFORE 9 months he would be considered a baby, which means that he counted as such sometime BEFORE "his first breath". (Which would mean an abortion at that point would be ending his life intentionally, which would be murder in the first degree.) Now, as to the former, JohnIam said =========== "In Acts 4:30, AFTER Jesus was born, he is called a holy CHILD. In Luke 1:35, BEFORE Jesus was born, when he was in utero, he is called a holy THING! Some versions of the bible tweak that verse to say holy one or holy child, but the greek is neuter, according to Bullinger. If it's neuter then it's not male or female. If it's not male or female it's not a child." =========== I'd like to proceed. ============ Oakspear: "According to the blue letter bible concordance, the phrase "that holy thing" is the single Greek word hagios - "thing" was added by the translators, and therefore has no authority. " ============= JohnIam: "It's been awhile since I read this, but yes the only greek for holy thing is hagios, yet in Bullinger's Lexicon and concordance to the NT he says the word hagios is neuter, hence the word thing. What? Are you pro life?" ============= Oakspear: "Actually I brought it up because I will not take anything as truth because Wierwille said it, not because of a position one way or another on abortion. For anyone who still has a good lexicon that lists the parts of speech for all words used in the NT: is johniam correct, is hagios is this case the neuter gender? What gender is used in other instances? Is the use of gender significant in this case? The actual form of hagios in this verse is hagion, and it is modifying the word gennōmenon, translated as "which shall be born". Earlier in the verse, "holy" is in the same form, hagion when modifying pneuma, spirit." ================ WordWolf: "I've wondered if anyone was ever going to bring that up. Actually, back in twi-timeframes, I was going verse-by-verse through the Greek on much of the New Testament. (I had the time.) I did look at this verse, Luke 1:35. It is true that the English calls Jesus "that holy thing". It also says "replenish" in Genesis, which has nothing to do with the Hebrew meaning of the word, "to fill". So, we look at the Greek. The most literal Greek I got from Luke 1:35 in that verse, from the phrase "holy thing", which was the Greek word "hagion", was "Holy One." That's because the plural of that word, "oi hagioi", is translated as "the saints." (My Bullinger's Critical Greek Lexicon notes that thus noun was used for "the saints" 61 times, and "saint" in the singular once.) This happens in the openings of several Church Epistles, like Romans 1:7, where the word "saints" in "to all those who are in Rome beloved of God called saints", the word "saints" is "hagiois". So Jesus, at the time of "the Annunciation" (Gabriel visiting Mary) was referred to as a "hagios", and I NOW am referred to as a "hagios". Either we are both a "thing" or we both are NOT. Basic English places a noun as a person, place or thing. Since I am a person, I am not a "thing", since I can't be both "person" and "thing" under basic definitions. (Unless one wants to split hairs and go into different specialist vocabularies in an effort to obscure the subject, anyway.) Therefore, since I'm a person or a "holy one" in that expression, so was he. That's using simple Bible cross-checking: the meaning in Luke 1:35 must agree with ALL usages in Scripture. And whether one is pro-life, pro-choice or pro-ball player when discussing what it actually SAYS is a nonissue." ============ JohnIam: "quote: so that sometime BEFORE 9 months he would be considered a baby, You don't know that. All we know is that shortly before John the Baptist's birth he was a babe, not a thing. quote: Which would mean an abortion at that point would be ending his life intentionally, which would be murder in the first degree.) At WHAT point? Shortly before his birth? or anytime before his birth? quote: So Jesus, at the time of "the Annunciation" (Gabriel visiting Mary) was referred to as a "hagios", and I NOW am referred to as a "hagios". What do you NOW have to do with Jesus in utero? I'm not really trying to pick a fight with you; as I said earlier, push comes to shove, I think the mother's life is priority over the fetus's. Even in the example of Abigail's friend. Your position on this is not clear. I have 3 kids. All 3 were born at home with a midwife. Our 3rd had the cord wrapped around his neck several times by the time he got to the birth canal. The midwife caught it and stuck 2 fingers in there and pryed the cord away from his neck so that he wouldn't suffocate when he crowned. I was there. Knowing what he has grown into, I don't even want to think of the idea of someone drilling a hole in his head at that moment thus ending his life, but I would have preferred that over having my wife die. You got kids, Wordwolf?" I said "sometime BEFORE 9 months he would be considered a baby" JohnIam replied "You don't know that. All we know is that shortly before John the Baptist's birth he was a babe, not a thing." Frankly, I'm amazed someone can read that and say you DON'T know that. Here's the account-which you YOURSELF CITED. Luke 1:41 "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost" Luke 1:44 "For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy." (Greek word 'brephos', which is also rendered "infant" or "young child" elsewhere.) So, since John was not born yet, he was considered a babe/baby. (I'm skipping any " 'babe does not mean baby thing' because I try not to get involved in discussions that are EXCEPTIONALLY stupid.) What month was he at? Well, according to Gabriel, 6 months. Luke 1:36. "And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren." So, John the Baptist, at 6 months if not sooner, was considered a baby, which is some 3 months before "first breath" on the average. That's "sometime before nine months", so that darn well IS what we know. SINCE John the Baptist, at 6 months, was considered by God to be a babe and not a "thing", and therefore a person (a babe is a person, I believe MOST of us can see this without further elaboration) , then killing him is like killing any OTHER person, and planning to kill a person and doing so is Murder in the First Degree, under US Law. JohnIam then wanted to debate the precise point of gestation this would apply- but seems not to have agreed that this was the case. --------- When I pointed out God Almighty (by the mouth of Gabriel in the first place, and the pen of Paul in the second place) called Jesus and me by the same term-hagios, apparently this drew an exception. "What do you NOW have to do with Jesus in utero?" Well, I'll say it again. We're both people. God called Jesus a "hagios" when in the womb, at a point BEFORE 6 months. God called me a "hagios" as I am now. Therefore, GOD ALMIGHTY has drawn a connection between me NOW and Jesus THEN. Since as an adult I am a PERSON and not a THING, GOD ALMIGHTY has not "downgraded" all Christians into "things", he naturally refers to them as people or "ones", in this case "holy ones." That completely invalidates the poor translation of Jesus as a "hagios" into "holy THING". Jesus was a "holy ONE" at the time. QED. Therefore, the entire doctrine of claiming he was a THING based on ONE MISTRANSLED WORD is WITHOUT MERIT. GOD ALMIGHTY called it that way, and I for one am disinclined to disagree with Him on this. Feel free to disagree and tell Him "I believe vpw, not You" on this subject. ========= Now, as to exactly WHEN a baby is a person, and what to do when the life of a mother is in danger, and whether or not I have kids, this thread asked what GOD said, not what WORDWOLF said, and asked for avoidance of personal opinion. Therefore, before any other matter is discussed on this thread, by the rules of this thread, I'm addressing its designed purpose. So far, we have been unable to complete THAT issue, but instead have diverted from it to other issues FIRST. It's almost as if someone's disinterested in the stated purpose of the thread, or is making an effort to divert the thread. Me, I have to answer to my own conscience on this.

Despite the program and its attempts to make surrogate lcms and vpws of all its candidates, many Christians came out of it as great Christians. Let us not underestimate what this says about each of them. They were each quite a set of individuals to come through that fundamentally good Christians. Some even only cherry-picked out the good things in the progam. Amazing. They each had quite a heart for God, to have managed that.

I believe the title of the song is "Country In My Veins." I never had that song, so it's not on "Branded:A Lifetime."

I was operating under the assumption that VF knew about the rapes and stuff since he told someone to shush up. However, I now think it was a psychological blind-spot he showed later. Whenever anything controversial ever came up, his response was to embrace what was most harmonious, least-contentious. He seemed to think "that the ministry be not blamed" was an edict that meant to silence dissent regardless of the CONTENT. So, if you found a problem with "the establishment", his response was to silence the objection, and it would ALWAYS be so regardless of what the problem WAS. Of course, this strikes me as consistent with the current comments about "legalism", in that it means a slavish worship of the organization. It's also interesting that I also remember him responding to the firings, including his own, by saying "If I want organic unity, I'll join a bowling league", but was in his own way dedicated to organic unity as well when the microphone was off. And, of course, someone might claim that the off-microphone issues don't exist, since they contradict his press releases. Up to each person what conclusions they'd draw.

Worked fine with Firefox and Real for me. You would think that it would fail with one or the other if that was the case, since neither is a Windows product. Maybe you're overdue to update your browser or media player. I think it was on that subject that Monty Python had a viewer "write in", saying that he was beaten as a child, and never suffered any harm, except for the maladjustment and occasional blurred vision. (I forget the Monty Python episode.) This here clip was from an episode of South Park where the parents were convinced ALL the kids had ADHD and drugged ALL of them. Most or all of them were just fine once they went off the Ritalin and tried the "new experimental" behavioral method used by this Doctor.

JohnIam: "In Acts 4:30, AFTER Jesus was born, he is called a holy CHILD. In Luke 1:35, BEFORE Jesus was born, when he was in utero, he is called a holy THING! Some versions of the bible tweak that verse to say holy one or holy child, but the greek is neuter, according to Bullinger. If it's neuter then it's not male or female. If it's not male or female it's not a child. I get mildly annoyed seeing those bumper stickers which say 'It's a child, not a choice'. If I had the means or the inclination I might alter the message to 'It's a fetus, not a child'." "To be fair, when John the Baptist was about to be born it says the BABE leapt in Elisabeth's womb. There. No partial birth abortions. If I could make law, I'd say all abortions must be performed before the end of the first trimester (13 weeks) the only exception being if a doctor concluded that the mother's life would be in danger later than that and that any doctor found to fraudulently sign off on that would permanently lose his med license." Ok, as to the second, I think JohnIam agrees with almost all of us on the second matter, that John the Baptist was referred to as a "babe" and not "a collection of cells", so that sometime BEFORE 9 months he would be considered a baby, which means that he counted as such sometime BEFORE "his first breath". (Which would mean an abortion at that point would be ending his life intentionally, which would be murder in the first degree.) Now, as to the former, JohnIam said =========== "In Acts 4:30, AFTER Jesus was born, he is called a holy CHILD. In Luke 1:35, BEFORE Jesus was born, when he was in utero, he is called a holy THING! Some versions of the bible tweak that verse to say holy one or holy child, but the greek is neuter, according to Bullinger. If it's neuter then it's not male or female. If it's not male or female it's not a child." =========== I'd like to proceed. ============ Oakspear: "According to the blue letter bible concordance, the phrase "that holy thing" is the single Greek word hagios - "thing" was added by the translators, and therefore has no authority. " ============= JohnIam: "It's been awhile since I read this, but yes the only greek for holy thing is hagios, yet in Bullinger's Lexicon and concordance to the NT he says the word hagios is neuter, hence the word thing. What? Are you pro life?" ============= Oakspear: "Actually I brought it up because I will not take anything as truth because Wierwille said it, not because of a position one way or another on abortion. For anyone who still has a good lexicon that lists the parts of speech for all words used in the NT: is johniam correct, is hagios is this case the neuter gender? What gender is used in other instances? Is the use of gender significant in this case? The actual form of hagios in this verse is hagion, and it is modifying the word gennōmenon, translated as "which shall be born". Earlier in the verse, "holy" is in the same form, hagion when modifying pneuma, spirit." ================ Ok, it is here that WordWolf joins the discussion.... I've wondered if anyone was ever going to bring that up. Actually, back in twi-timeframes, I was going verse-by-verse through the Greek on much of the New Testament. (I had the time.) I did look at this verse, Luke 1:35. It is true that the English calls Jesus "that holy thing". It also says "replenish" in Genesis, which has nothing to do with the Hebrew meaning of the word, "to fill". So, we look at the Greek. The most literal Greek I got from Luke 1:35 in that verse, from the phrase "holy thing", which was the Greek word "hagion", was "Holy One." That's because the plural of that word, "oi hagioi", is translated as "the saints." (My Bullinger's Critical Greek Lexicon notes that thus noun was used for "the saints" 61 times, and "saint" in the singular once.) This happens in the openings of several Church Epistles, like Romans 1:7, where the word "saints" in "to all those who are in Rome beloved of God called saints", the word "saints" is "hagiois". So Jesus, at the time of "the Annunciation" (Gabriel visiting Mary) was referred to as a "hagios", and I NOW am referred to as a "hagios". Either we are both a "thing" or we both are NOT. Basic English places a noun as a person, place or thing. Since I am a person, I am not a "thing", since I can't be both "person" and "thing" under basic definitions. (Unless one wants to split hairs and go into different specialist vocabularies in an effort to obscure the subject, anyway.) Therefore, since I'm a person or a "holy one" in that expression, so was he. That's using simple Bible cross-checking: the meaning in Luke 1:35 must agree with ALL usages in Scripture. And whether one is pro-life, pro-choice or pro-ball player when discussing what it actually SAYS is a nonissue.

Well, since I was asked.... I think that-just as there are many ways to counterfeit a dollar bill- there are many counterfeits of spiritual realities, each sounding, to some degree, internally-consistent, and as great a number not bothering. And, of course, even seeing something is no guarantee it's accurate, nor a guarantee it was true. I read a book by Dan Corem called "Powers" once. As a Christian, he's familiar with stage-magic and so on, and suggests that the stage-magic of the time of the Exodus was sufficient to accomplish the things Pharaoh's magicians did (such as a hollow tube concealing a serpent, making it look as if the staff became a snake-which was then beaten by a miraculous snake from Moses.) Further, once the 10 Plagues exceeded their abilities to fake, they stopped trying. "This is the finger of God." He made a compelling case. That makes for a non-supernatural counterfeit. Others have mentioned that a lot of what was cited in the Advanced classes as genuine devil-magic, was later shown to be stage-magic dressed up as supernatural. Those are more supernatural counterfeit. Raphael Gasson claimed to have spent years exercising "supernatural" powers that had nothing to do with misdirection, drained the life of the user, and weakened his spiritual defenses against possession. He was completely sincere, internally consistent, and -although he didn't realize it- consistent within a framework he never designed nor saw. When the Advanced class covered the supernatural, it treaded on firm ground when addressing directly what the Bible said, and wandered out far into speculation whenever it said otherwise.

Then I recommend asking a moderator to move this thread to DOCTRINAL, because you want a DOCTRINAL discussion. (Check out the pinned/sticky topic.) Or you could restart this as a new thread in Doctrinal, and ask a mod to delete this one. I could swear we DID discuss this once... I'll chime in when I remember what was said on-topic.

Jerry Maguire Tom "Psycho" Cruise Interview with the Vampire

Still in search of recollections of this particular, peculiar year....

As for Donna's motivations, I'll take her OWN words, as reported by those who knew her personally... "My time with Donna was during the time period of 1978-80. At that time she was an arrogant, mean-spirited b*tch in her late twenties. She coveted after power....she explained to a bunch of us once that when she was 'husband-hunting', she had dated numerous top twi leaders, dropping names of 1st and 2nd corps guys. She said that when she got to craiggers, she knew he was the one. Why? Because she knew that he was going to 'the top' as she put it. She somehow knew that she was destined to be on the top rung of the twi ladder and she got herself there. It's almost like the story of MacBeth- ambition, power, money. She was willing to put up with lcm's adultery in order to maintain her position as 'first lady of twi'- it was a simple tradeoff. Her disgust with her husband was only exceeded by her own lust for power and position. Today, she probably feels like she 'earned' the right to live in the corps chalet for all the years of putting up with bozo." "That's exactly what she told ME once in a conversation. She told me (this was late '70s) that she had decided years before she would do Whatever It Takes to 'get to the top'. She was totally committed to being a top hot dog (as they used to say.) She was very calculating. Although, back when she was young, to look at her, you never would have thunk it because at one time, she was a wonderful, compassionate person who truly did have a heart for people. In fact, I think it was that quality that helped get her to the 'top.' She is where she is now by deliberate, scheming decision." Compare and contrast this with what's been said so far...

You weren't at enough meetings before saying you were claustrophobic to get it from twi, dude. You were already claustro sometime before ROA '89, which was the first time I heard you mention it. Before that, you were part of the group in an investigative capacity, and not in the chain of command. ======= Actually, I take that back. I MENTIONED IT ALOUD at ROA '89, which means I knew BEFORE then. So that means it wasn't news that summer, which pushes it back a few months.

Grosse Point Blank Minnie Driver Sleepers

BG Leonard: quote: One day God spoke to me. "If thou wilt wait patiently before me, I will give thee the revelation concerning that which is written in my Word touching these things; the revelation my people need to bring them out of their chaos and confusion." I believed God. For months I waited before His presence in solitude, During those wonderful days, He revealed the truth to me concerning the gifts of the Spirit. As He did, these things were proven by acting upon the knowledge thus received, and by examining the results in light of His Word. Add "an early October invisible snowstorm", and inflate it to "like it hasn't been known" and you have the 1942 promise.

And was all of that a distraction from the lack of Biblical scholars in twi- people that were not twi-trained and indoctrinated from the get-go? Maybe...

Interesting point. We're asking if God has "emotions" without checking that all of us have ONE definition of "emotions." Nice one. I've held a position along this line for some time.

Ok, that was simple and direct. I'd agree IN PART. Both institutions have had corruption. We are unable to go back and see what the literal motivation was for starting the Roman Catholic Church. However, with twi we ARE because it was fairly recent, historically. twi's inception was based on dishonesty and other things. That means it was wrong from the beginning. (Let me know if you need me to outline that one all over again.) I agree that both organizations have had people in them who have acted for good, and others that have acted for evil. I'll take another step and say I'd like/liked all those who've done evil at both to do hard time at Leavenworth or a similar hard-labour prison. (Big rocks to little rocks, little rocks to sand.) As to truth and God's use of both institutions (and others), I'll tentatively agree with what was said here-God can work with both, even as he worked with Israel. (That all 3 should have done better is a separate issue that excuses NONE of them.) And anyone who can manage to misunderstand me this time has obviously been working hard at doing so. I posted another description. I think you'll appreciate this one more than the last one, and it explains the reason for the name.

Actually, when the opponent's position is unassailable, and someone wants to try to discredit what can't be discredited, it's common to try to use the "ad hominem" attack. That's its purpose. It's wrong, unprincipled, and petty, but that's how it goes.

Description of Ad Hominem Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person." An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form: 1. Person A makes claim X. 2. Person B makes an attack on person A. 3. Therefore A's claim is false. The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). ( http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html )

*wild swing* Is it CLERKS or CLERKS 2????

The line sounds familiar. The clues eliminated INXS and the Grateful Dead, who lost their lead singers. (And Jerry Garcia was never "very hot.") A lot of "classic rock" bands werent together in the late 80s- like Led Zeppelin. Bands like Twisted Sister are out because Dee Snider was never "very hot" either. But I'd need another line to work out who's left. I'm thinking it was a band who FORMED in the '80s, not someone like the Rolling Stones.

'Debbie Does Damage?'

There's been a number of discussions, where a number of people made a number of comments. Some you'll probably agree with, some you'll probably DISagree with. Here's the ones I remember offhand. -Mrs W could be super-specific with Way Builders, even to the point of working counter to the best judgements of professional builders. One poster said he had to redo a day's work to a lower work-standard because she wanted the aesthetics different. -That account was an exception to most stories of her. Where vpw was full of bluster about his own greatness, and meanness when things weren't PRECISELY how he wanted them, for the most part, she's been reported as rather subdued and reserved. Nobody's come forth with accounts of her screaming at people or humiliating them. So, she's remembered as someone whose actions were better. -As important as what she DID was, what she did NOT do was more important- she did NOT rape the flock, drug anyone, or participate in any of the conspiracies TO do any of those. She's not reported to have even PRIVATE vices, in comparison to vpw's PUBLIC vices and addictions to alcohol and tobacco. ====== That having been said, it's a fair question why she's not condemned. After all, she did not come forth and give testimony against vpw the criminal. Therefore, one would ask-why didn't she? A more petty person may lead in and say she liked the money and general higher standard of living she got. Perhaps that person would be right. However, she avoided conspicuous displays of wealth. (No fancy cars, fur coats, or Imelda Marcos shoe collections.) Further, when she married vpw, he was seriously broke. He WAS already the convincing talker he met, and he was already a candidate for "the ministry." One might speculate he convinced her-at first-that he was a godly man with godly conduct. (He convinced us, why not her?) So, perhaps (I'm speculating here) she didn't see his true nature emerge until much later, much "too late". What does "too late" mean? Just as one must understand the times, customs and cultures in the Bible, one must understand her in terms of her own time/culture. At that point in history, divorce was nearly unheard-of. Women stood by their men, right or wrong. She already had children with him before he was overtly evil to even the discerning eye. It was unheard of to divorce with kids on the line. Would she have to leave them behind? Would she need to support them? Was she ready to raise them without a father? Perhaps people living NOW can suppose those were simple decisions THEN. The other possibilities would have been to "turn state's evidence" against vpw- either exposing him to the police or to the ministry. If she "went public" in the ministry, almost nobody would take her seriously. vpw had built up a great reputation as deeply and uniquely spiritual. She had not. If there was a question, HE would be believed. If she "went public" to the police, she'd need EVIDENCE. Direct testimony of victims who left was hard since they'd been run off. Direct testimony of victims who stayed was harder since they were intimidated into accepting vpw's doctrine of "the lockbox." Further, vpw had a criminal gang prepared to facilitate his rapes and druggings by doing things like lying on the witness stand. Could she use videotaped evidence? Not when portable video cameras DIDN'T EXIST. So, simply put, if she stepped forward, she stood to lose EVERYTHING and succeed in NOTHING. Worse was being married to him-when he could be a mean drunk. Imagine being married to a drunken, belligerent tyrant who barked orders and brooked no dissent. I never saw him hit her, but I'd be surprised if he went as far as he did and NEVER hit her. He certainly grew up thinking violence was an option. At his BURIAL, she was heart to say "He was a mean man." She knew he'd "get even" if she ever tried to expose him. Did she ever help some of his victims? One stepped forward and said she arrived in time to interrupt vpw's moves on her, enabling her to contrive an exit. ===================== So, on a purely moral front, yes, it is wrong that she did not step forward and report a criminal. However, for reasons mentioned above (and others left out), it is understandable (if wrong) that she would conclude speaking up would only harm her and her children, and it would be best to not interfere (much) with his felonies. Double-standard? Not quite. It was still wrong-but we understand. She felt powerless for many reasons. In short, what one would ask of her in this case was more than she was able to give- and it seems she wished she WAS able.....

Who needs actual Biblical scholars when your people are actively discouraged from reading the Bible for themselves and thinking for themselves?

twi's official timeline (issued at vpw's memorial thing) gave the opening as 1985. (Same as vpw's death.)