WordWolf

Easily possible. I don't even see it as "either/or" with what I posted. Both could be meant- after all, he said it twice...

I don't think that's such a sure thing. Look at the contrasts right there in the verse "you are from beneath" versus "I am from above" "you are of this world" versus "I am not of this world" Consider this set of non-figures. "You are from there" versus "I am from here" "You are not of this town" versus "I am of this town". Going back to the original example, if Jesus is contrasting "this world" (i.e. EARTH) with not of this world (i.e. HEAVEN), then those from beneath are of this world (i.e. EARTH), while those from above are not of this world (i.e. HEAVEN.) They were of Earth and minded earthly things, he was of heaven and minded heavenly things. Heaven is "above" earth by everyone's measure, whether you mean the atmosphere, or space, or God's Throneroom. ========= An entirely separate can of worms is the flexibility of the prepositions in Greek. We might say "from this", "for this world", "in this world", "of this world." A born-again Christian may be considered "from" this world, for he was born here, or "from" God if he was sent to a place by an order from God. He would be "for this world" in a sense of helping it, but "not for this world" in his preferences and his destination. He would be "in this world" for that is where he walks, but not "of this world" for he is God's and thus "of heaven." In Greek, however, with the same preposition translated ALL of those things at different times, it is difficult to draw a conclusion affected by a preposition. THERE I see PLENTY of room for disagreement.

"The problem is, I feel responsible for her self-nullifying behavior." ""Turn it off, man! Turn it off! It's sucking my will to live!" "I mean, Led Zeppelin didn't write tunes that everyone liked. They left that to the Bee Gees." ""Guys! Wait up! I fell on my keys!" "I'd never done a crazy thing in my life before that night. Why is it that if a man kills another man in battle it's called heroic, yet if he kills a man in the heat of passion it's called murder?" "...marriage is punishment for shoplifting in some countries." " Well, I'm a regular visitor here, but Milwaukee has certainly had its share of visitors. The French missionaries and explorers began visiting here in the late 16th century." "I'm not evil-I'm just good looking." "Anything wrong, Davy?" "Yeah, I got paid today." "Yeah, I know what that's like." "No. You don't understand. They laid me off. I got one of these." "Yeah, I know how that feels." "Know what I'd like to do?" "Yeah I know what you'd like to do. You'd like to find the guy who did it, rip his still beating heart out of his chest and hold it in front of his face so he can see how black it is before he dies." "Actually, I was thinking of filing a grievance with the union." "Well, the world's a twisted place." "Did you know that if you stab a man in the dead of winter you can see steam rising out of him? The Indians though it was his soul escaping from his body."

Still sounds like "Law and Order." Is it one of the flavours of CSI?

I can answer why I return, but not why you return... In my case, my thoughts are LESS tied up with twi since posting and reading here. Although I do not disagree categorically with EVERYTHING they taught and teach, we've examined quite a few things, both in print and on tape and in classes that twi covered, and shown that they don't reflect sound doctrine. Sometimes they're major things -like the so-called "law" of believing. Sometimes they're minor things-like "were Samson and Jesus molested". Either way, the process of thinking and examining what they taught, each time, makes me a little freer of the choices of blindly accept their docrtrine because they said so, or blindly reject their doctrine because they said to accept it. (Not that I began as wildly embracing every utterance, but every little bit counts.) ======== BTW, on the internet, there are interest groups for EVERYTHING, including ex-members of religious organizations. Here, we can learn what we didn't know, tell others what we do know, discuss what we thought we knew or know, or just socialize. I like to do all of the above, in turns. Some of us are still playing forum games in the Reading Room forum, and I think those who think this place is cheerless really ought to join in a game for a while.

I consider the trinity outrage to be a ridiculous diversion that drew attention from the REAL talking-points. Quite a few Christians are quite levelheaded and won't label their fellow Christians as Satanic for disagreeing with them-even if it's for being on "the wrong side" in discussions on the Trinity. All it takes, however, is a few extremists, and they get all the attention. You are aware that there were at LEAST a few nuts in twi down the years, right? I've heard amazing accounts here about some fellow corps members from some of the corps grads. One guy prepared to go assassinate someone because vpw or lcm said someone should kill him. (The suggestion of a leader, in his mind, was tantamount to a command, after all, which IS what vpw taught. The leader suggested it, so it was commanded.) Another guy, when needing to take a bathroom break during a long lcm teaching, elected to stay seated on a bench instead, relieving himself in his pants rather than get up. Others thought it was ok to beat kids with sticks (wooden spoons) until they were 1/2 unconscious, or until they drew blood, or for 1/2 an hour. Even if those were all the nuts in twi, there were quite a few of those. Now, if a normal person sees THEM and thinks they're REPRESENTATIVE of the AVERAGE twi-er, then it would be small wonder they thought twi'ers were nuts. On the other hand, if your impression of other Christians is based on some of the people who claim that twi was satanic, that Dungeons and Dragons is satanic, that Harry Potter is satanic, that rock and roll is satanic, etc, etc. then your impression would naturally be that THEY were nuts. ========= Me, I agree with those that say vpw LIKED that people like that were outspoken and existed. It made him look better that he could contrast himself with that, and he could pretend they were the AVERAGE Christian, and thus that the choices were between people like THAT and twi, with twi being the only sane ones. Or, to borrow a phrase, if nuts like that didn't exist, vpw would have had to invent them to make himself look better by contrast.

Anyone notice-when it was up-that among the twi offshoots, they listed twi?

Unless I missed something recent, cg has his own little corporation (probably non-profit) and sells his classes in exchange for a tithe from the locals or an annual license to run his classes. Depending on who you ask, that's either a good or a bad thing in and of itself. Some posters here could tell you more, since they seem to be in some local group under him. ========= To those of us who left twi in the 70s and 80s, it's ludicrous and ridiculous to see where things went eventually. Here's how I see the progression. vpw trained lcm, and put him in charge of the corps training. Then he put him in charge of the whole shebang. lcm thus started close to the top and stayed there, and had vpw's example of special treatment to fall back on, rather than a conventional education like seminary or grad school. lcm thus relied on his experience observing vpw, or running the corps, and extrapolated from there on how to run the entire organization. vpw kicked out an entire corps class twice, and once allowed them to return, provided they signed an oath of allegiance. So, when lcm wanted to tighten his grip, he demanded an oath of allegiance from the staff and the corps. Those that didn't agree, he kicked out, and he didn't have to deal with them anymore. Incidentally, this resulted in about 80% of twi's members leaving WITH the local staff. Those who remained (about 20%) were loyal enough to stick around despite the issues that many or most of those who left considered sufficient grounds for leaving. (I found the entire demanding of an oath sufficient grounds for leaving, myself, and added direct observation to that of lcm and company to clinch my suspicions.) Over the next few years, there was some reshuffling of assets, and some adjusting of expectations. According to eyewitnesses, about 1994, that all changed. Now, everybody began getting "orders", and they had to do whatever lcm said-which meant they had to do what the Limb leader said, which meant they had to do what the Branch leader said, which meant they had to do what the Twig leader said. We missed things like being expected (required de facto if not de jure) to provide free babysitting services for local leaders, free housecleaning services for local leaders, and all kinds of things where the response from you or I would vary between sarcastic laughter, a rude hand-gesture, just walking out, or the rough edge of your tongue. But, see, all the people who would object were gone, and these changes came so, so, slowly..... ============ "When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out." - Hans Neimoller (translated.)

My problem with that isn't just that he was a jerk (or even my problem with lcm was that HE was a jerk), but that vpw was the one promoting he was The MOG. (As lcm later promoted of himself.) Being flawed is no surprise, being a jerk, in and of itself, is not an outrage. My purpose in making this thread-before it was co-opted recently by someone whothought it was useless because discussion had stopped- was to compile in one place the explanations, meanings, definitions and examples of what plagiarism IS, what plagiarism is NOT, why plagiarism is BAD, and how to avoid plagiarism. Pretty simple subject. What bothers me the most about this is that a number of people STILL can't seem to get many of those. When vpw slapped his name as AUTHOR on JCOP and JCOPS, that was dishonest, and deceptive, and fed into his self-promotion as MOG. However, so long as the writers consented to this (and I can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they did not) this was perfectly legal. I've liked the Destroyer book series. Almost all the books in it I liked were written by James Mullaney. The covers say "Warren Murphy and Richard (Ben) Sapir" wrote them. The latter is especially difficult, since Sapir died before most of them were written. Mullaney (and others) ghost-wrote a lot of the series-most of the GOOD books, in fact. Ghost-writing (paying someone else to write a book in your name) is legal-so long as they consent to this usage of their writing. So, JCOPS and JCOP were examples of the research dept's work, and of ghost-writing, but NOT examples of plagiarism. Those whose words were used there consented to their use. The White Book, by contrast, was Stiles' work with some of Bullinger's work added. (Probably some of Leonard's, as well.) None of them gave consent for their work to be lifted, and none of them are properly cited. Even if all of them were in the public domain- which they were not- they would STILL need to be properly cited in order to be legal. vpw was NOT "legally right" when he put his name on the White Book, nor the Orange Book, which were unquestionably the work of others, recompiled with their names removed and his name added. That's plagiarism, and legally, it's a crime. Leonard was within his rights to sue-but he CHOSE NOT TO DO SO. (Perhaps because of one Christian standard of morality that says not to sue other Christians.) We know he was offended because he later added an elaborate notice about plagiarism to his books. Perhaps vpw lied to himself and eventually believed he was entitles to plagiarize. He knew what it was and that it was wrong because he went to high school, college, and Princeton Theological Seminary. Each of those-and especially Princeton Theological Seminary- would have taught what it was and why it was wrong. (My junior high school, even, taught me that.) Perhaps you believe he was entitled to do so. However, it was illegal, and if he had been taken to court over it, he would have lost (unless his lawyers were brilliant enough to snow the judge like Johnnie Cochran.) he violated the LETTER of the law as well as its INTENT. That it seems sinister THAT he broke the law is less of a surprise when you realize he knew it was illegal, and broke the law, and just planned not to get caught. Of course, WHY he broke the law has nothing to do with DID he break the law, nor does it affect the contents of the book. However, it reflects on the character of the plagiarist. In all honesty, (I WAS NOT THERE AND CAN ONLY SPECULATE) I suspect he was not INTENTIONALLY a jerk, and missed all the glazed eyes. My thinking is that he DIDN'T CARE ABOUT YOU. If the story bored HIM, that would have been something else. I don't think he noticed the inattentiveness, because it didn't matter so much to him unless it was brought to his attention. Even if he kept you up late for no reason, he wanted to, so what you wanted or what was fair to you didn't matter. Similarly, I think when he plagiarized he DIDN'T CARE about the law, the authors, the readers. He cared that he got to use the writing, and that he got the credit, and that he got the profit from the book sales (although I think that came last). What he wanted is what mattered, not what others wanted or what was even fair to them. I can only say why it matters to me. I won't speculate why it doesn't matter quite so much to you. I'll take your word for whichever conclusions you draw for yourself.

I hope nobody will mind if I post the next one without waiting for confirmation... "The problem is, I feel responsible for her self-nullifying behavior." ""Turn it off, man! Turn it off! It's sucking my will to live!" "I mean, Led Zeppelin didn't write tunes that everyone liked. They left that to the Bee Gees." ""Guys! Wait up! I fell on my keys!" "I'd never done a crazy thing in my life before that night. Why is it that if a man kills another man in battle it's called heroic, yet if he kills a man in the heat of passion it's called murder?"

*howl* "What was that?" "Werewolf." "Werewolf?" 'THERE." "What?" THERE WOLF. THERE CASTLE." "Why are you talking like that?" "I thought you wanted me to." "No, I don't. Suit yourself. I'm easy." It's "Young Frankenstein." (Or Frahnkensteen.) The clothing comments were from when the Doctor left by train for Transylvania. His fiancee was very particular about his goodbye. (IMHO, Young Frankenstein and Blazing Saddles should be on the required list for viewing for all-time funniest comedies.) I had wanted to give a decent shot in case someone else checked in and recognized the quote.

No, just a trivia fan, and huge Star Wars fan back when the original trilogy was out. (Nowadays, not so much, but I still like the trivia.) ??? 3-D version?Nevermind, I don't want to know. Not exactly. Here's a breakdown on the Darth Vaders in the original trilogy. -James Earl Jones. He did the voice, and didn't wear the costume. -David Prowse. He wore the costume in almost all the scenes, and never did the voice. -Bob Anderson. He was the swordmaster on-set who taught lightsaber dueling, and wore the Darth Vader armor in the dueling scenes. (He was effectively a stunt/action double for Prowse in those scenes.) -Sebastian Shaw. He played the former-Darth Vader, Anakin Skywalker, at the very end of RotJ. Supposedly, Luke redeemed Anakin from the Dark Side, even though he died afterwards. At the very end of the movie, we see the Force ghosts of Obi-Wan, Yoda, and Anakin, proving this happened. He appears as an older gentleman not anything approaching Obi-Wan's age. The most recent change Lucas made was to swap an image of Hayden Christensen (exactly as he appears in Episode III:RotS) for Sebastian Shaw's image there. My main problem with that is that he obviously would look older in SOME way. If Lucas bothered to change it, he should have done a complete job and put some makeup on him to make him look older in some way. Come on, that's Hollywood. It's relatively EASY to age an actor with makeup and a wig. He even could have done it with digital manipulation and just alter the image. Instead, he made up excuses that said Anakin would look the same as when he became Darth Vader. Even the casual fans find that an insufficient excuse. Lucas has a bad habit of continually fiddling with movies that were already DONE.

Less than a year ago, I heard they were releasing the ORIGINAL original trilogy, with NONE of the changes that were made for the Special Editions. While some of the changes were cosmetic (Empire Strikes Back's Cloud City, in backgrounds while Lando, Han, Leia, Chewie walk, go from metal-walled corridors to some windows with vistas, a few seconds added to Star Wars' Tatooine with animals and Jawas, a musical number in Return of the Jedi with Jabba's house-band), some changed story elements (Greedo shoots and misses Han from about 3-5 feet away, and Greedo makes a living shooting things, "Blast it, Biggs, where are you?" becomes "Blast it, Wedge, where are you?", and a lot of changes at the close of Return of the Jedi) change the story, and some consider those negative changes. Some of the cosmetic changes strike fans similarly- I dislike the unnecessary changes to the Cantina in Star Wars, which just HAPPEN to excise the Shistavanen from virtually all his screen-time. Having said all of that, I haven't looked into getting the original unchanged versions. I know there was one advertised a year or so ago, but there seems to be some disagreement as to how much was completely original and how much wasn't. If I were looking for them, I'd probably look through Wookiepedia for links to follow up on the releases. Specifically, the links off of the article http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_cha...ars_re-releases might help. (Or they might not.)

He's referring to when Han shot Greedo. The lengthier answer to that is here... http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Han_shot_first That's the Wookiepedia entry on the subject.

Nothing to say about the taffeta?

I'm going to take a shot and guess this is from "Reunion", since that's when both Duras and Ambassador Keyleyr (however it's spelled) died.

*draws knife and stabs Bolshevik*

That would have been true in SOME of my posts. Extrapolating that to ALL my posts is jumping to a conclusion. If you review SOME of my posts to you with a cold, clinical eye, you'd see some of them have been devoid of "disagree" or "god-like attitude." I've disagreed with some people here quite verbosely on some threads, and at some times (and sometimes just on some pages), only to agree with them on other pages, even to the point of posting specifically to agree with them. If I thought you were incapable of mature discussion, I would just avoid you. However, I think I can hold you to the exact same standard to which I hold MYSELF. (I've mentioned that, perhaps you missed it.) Personally, I think that indicates treating you as an equal even when we disagree. Perhaps you see it differently. I'd rather give this a little time to play out. If you just can't view my posts without flying into a rage afterwards, then perhaps we can work something out. I'm thinking it won't have to come to that. (Which is my opinion, and I hope not to be proven wrong.)

Gee, that doesn't sound like the "posting with kindness" that at least is the GOAL of posting here. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/main2/forums.html "These forums are meant to be a place of discussion, where ideas and debates are encouraged. We welcome your opinion. In that light, please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal. A lively discussions of ideas is both more polite and more relevant. Our forums cover many topics from religious to political. While we are not a religious site, we do embrace discussions in this area. All are welcome here. However, harassing behavior will result in being banned from the forums. There is no need for personal attacks...." I gave a short opinion. Why you perceived some sort of less-than-polite action from it is beyond me. I perceive you have intelligence and maturity, which you may choose to exercise as you see fit. I would ask you to so choose. Thank you and have a nice day. Raf said That's what Larry's looking for. He thinks he may have found it, I disagree and think Raf meant something else.

Philippians 4:13 from the Stephens Text, as printed in the Gordon Ricker-Berry Interlinear Greek English New Testament: (transliterated using English letters) "Panta______ischuoo_________en too_____endunamounti___me____christoo." "All things___I am strong for___in the_____who empowers___me____Christ." Sure LOOKS like it appeared. Perhaps George is reading from the Nestle Text, I've misplaced my Marshall's Interlinear.

At a guess, I think he'd remember if that was it, since we've posted that here before and discussed it. But he'll have to say for sure if it was.

Actually, the story that goes around is that the original performance was M**phy and H3yw**d Ch@p3311 doing a single routine. They matched for height and so on. After lcm watched "Staying Alive"-or to be specific, the "Satan's Alley" sequence, he announced they were expanding it to a full-length production. (It coincidentally resembled "Satan's Alley" in many ways.) Early in the production, lcm declared that it was SUGGESTED to him that he play the lead. I believe that someone may have uttered those words. HOWEVER, I believe he hinted around until someone uttered those words, then seized on them as a mandate to grab the limelight, his lack of talent notwithstanding. The production would have been less painful to watch-although no more sound doctrinally- if he'd limited himself to the coach-narrator role that explained things between dance numbers. I'm in paradise. She has the right to her privacy. After all, she has NOT elected to participate in the online ex-twi community- or to do so under her own name. I respect her decision.

When writing a person's name here, please do not type out their FULL name. Substitute some characters, so that if they want a little privacy, they won't spend the rest of their life getting search engines pointing to this. The exception, of course, if the person has chosen to post their full name HERE. For example, if I took pfal with Clark Kent, I might write something like "Back when I took pfal, I sat next to C1@rk K**t. I wonder how he's doing." We also except people who are on twi's Board of Directors. Sometimes we forget, sometimes we don't, but sometimes we go back and edit a name out like that. If I thought you were old and senile, I might expect to tell you this a lot. I don't anticipate that, and would prefer not to be proven wrong.

No. Obviously, the name "Christ" was replaced with a pronoun. (This is the version that made it into the song by Acts 29.) Why take "Christ" and swap it OUT, to replace it with "him", leaving a question of who the "him" IS? I see no reason to have done so when explaining this verse. Supposedly, things are added to and stretched out- but they felt the need to trim it down by swapping the name "Christ" (or TITLE "Christ" if you're going to object that I called it a "name") and switching it for "him." Why? Was there something OBJECTIONABLE about the word "Christ"?

No, Don Henley OF the Eagles, in his solo career, off his "End of the Innocence" album.