WordWolf

Ok, this is spinning off of a different discussion. Here's what you missed so far..... When someone is doing a sermon/homily/teaching, it is not uncommon for them to use an illustration of a point they are trying to make. Sometimes the illustrations are actual-from historical accounts, eyewitness accounts, and so on. The account of George Mueller on-board the fogged-in vessel "the Sardian", for example, was told and vetted by the captain of the vessel himself. Using this as an illustration is not a problem to most people. I've told a story as if it has happened to me-but invariably end it by saying "ok, that never happened", and then explaining the illustration (as if it needed it), and I've told anyone who asked its origin. Sometimes, the speaker will preface the story by saying it's a story. Sometimes, it will seem obvious in the telling (to most people, but, I've discovered, not all.) So, this thread. Please discuss this subject from all angles. Do you like these stories? Why? Do you dislike these stories? Why? What's your favourite? Which one do you hate the most? Which ones fooled you at the time? Which ones surprised you that others were fooled?

Ok, I take it back-this is also worth discussing. There's a style of teaching called "homiletics". In homiletics, an illustration can be made up out of nowhere to make a point. Whether that is ethical or "right" is a matter of opinion. In the same school, Bible language researchers dug for the truth, and Bible historians dug for the truth, and homileticists learned to use made-up stories to make a point. I guess it's worth a separate discussion: 'does training in Homiletics condition a preacher to lie and make up stuff and hobble his ethics?' Of course, there is a big difference between using real examples, or making it clear an example is "apocryphal", and giving them all the same treatment. The only story I ever seriously tell where I use an apocryphal instance is the one about "The Bridge", and I always end that one by saying "Ok-that never happened," and then making my point. I usually didn't get too many made-up stories from leadership, and those few I got sounded like obvious made-up stories. (Like the house-builder who was preparing to retire.) However, I DID face someone who told a story as if he had seen it on TV, back in twi. He supposedly saw the tv show where one guy from Wendy's refused to comment when asked if the beef in their burgers was "stretched" by adding worms to the meat. Imagine my surprise, years later, when I realized he was lying thru his teeth. http://www.snopes.com/horrors/food/wormburg.asp (For the record, a pound of earthworms is much more expensive than a pound of beef.)

You know, for a moment, I thought you were actually going to add to a discussion without your OWN agenda. I don't know where my optimism springs from... [And what HE mentioned had NOTHING to do with what we were discussing. And we discussed THAT. We did "pay attention." We discussed it and determined the comments were inapplicable.] [Actually, he himself mentioned having difficulties in that dept.Not that I'm saying "vpw was racist", but-based purely on his OWN words, such discussions do not lack merit.] ["Very forcefully trounced it to pieces"? What-he used an earthmover or something? I've noticed that you accept HCW's accounts when they serve you, and IGNORE them the minute they don't...] [Ok, since you insist on bringing that up again,here's how THAT discussion went. HCW says he saw pictures of vpw in India. HCW says he saw crowds around a train. HCW says he saw a guy. HCW says he was told "this is the guy vpw healed" and "this crowd was here specifically to meet with vpw." He then accepted that this was EXACTLY what those single still images meant. However, they are not "proof". A picture of a guy is not proof vpw healed this man-or HURT this man. A picture of a crowd is not proof they were there to celebrate vpw. I used to joke of travelling to Mexico every May 5th, so that the locals of one community that deeply respected me could honour me with a parade every year. Those paying attention easily got the joke- they were ALREADY celebrating, and I just thought it was all about me. When I brought up that single still pics don't tell a whole story (as opposed to seeing film footage of vpw praying and an arm suddenly healing), HCW loudly and vociferously objected. I left the discussion-not because I disagreed-but because he wasn't listening, and I saw no benefit in remaining in a screaming match. I've mentioned that since, and HCW and I have had a number of discussions-quite civil-since then. You, of course, continue to rewrite that one to your satisfaction. Over a year later, long after all involved parties have moved on. Old news. ] [And we've proven it. You however, claim to be the sole voice of truth and fact here. It's fascinating and sad. ] *** [Ok, this was worth adding to the discussion.You couldn't JUST start down here, without tossing in innuendo, though...] [Actually, "the point Dr was making" was the one he said he was making. That was how "sadly ridiculous" some "so-called Christians" can get in their attempts to "stand approved of God". He said the clipping showed a trivial topic that produced factionalism so great the church split over it. He claimed there was a clipping, and the clipping indicated the existence of such a group. So, proof the group existed would vindicate him, as would the actual clipping. What does the testimony on this thread show? A) One pastor saying "I'm passing along this story without knowing if it's true or not." B) One old lady said "I was in this group." (I asked Johnny to follow up on his post.) C) One poster saying "I've seen articles that lacked merit before and were unchecked. Maybe it was just like them." (Well, maybe it WAS. That means such a clipping MAY have existed.) Which post, then, was "testimony on this thread that people actually do seriously think this way about navels"? Please be specific. There's only a few posts to choose from.] ["As Dr accurately reported". You came to this discussion already certain there was such a clipping. So far, no one's produced it nor seen it, and supposedly the discussion has proved it existed, and "Dr accurately reported." See, that's what anybody ELSE calls a "bias." I came into this discussion saying "I can't find any proof of this group existing anywhere online. There's no church in existence now using that title. There's no website using that name-or the word 'Navelite'- anywhere I can find. The only thing I CAN find is a few people saying they read such a church was started-and they can't agree on what state it happened in." I then asked outright "Have any of you seen proof of this church?" I also allowed for the other possibility "Or is this an urban legend, either passed along or originated by a homileticist..." Since you're a stranger to discussions of urban legends, I'll direct you to some reading material on the subject. http://www.snopes.com/info/ul-def.asp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_legend My bias? Let's see. Before I even involved anyone else, FIRST I checked if I could find the existence of such a church. If I found it, I wouldn't have ASKED, I would have announced I found it, as a matter of public interest. Having found no proof of its existence, rather than jump to a conclusion, Opened discussion on the subject. I asked if anyone could corroborate his story. Therefore, first, I checked if I could corroborate his story. Second, I checked if anyone ELSE could. You, on the other hand, automatically assumed it was corroborated. Then you claimed I was "biased." Most people would find that mildly ironic.]

Wrong. Any honest attempt at reading would have said that. INTEGRITY is moral, and resides in the heart, is displayed in speech, and demonstrated in action. RELIGION is behavioural, and resides in the actions and words. Someone can speak religion, and CLAIM to be loving and compassionate, OR someone can have integrity, and HAVE love and compassion. It's the difference between hearing a sermon and SEEING a sermon. Someone once said that knowledge PUFFS up (like air in a balloon) and God's love BUILDS up (like concrete in a building). One is solid and consistent, and the other is a bunch of hot air. The difference is not that difficult to see. If one is TRYING. Congratulations!You completely missed-as in 180 degrees-the point! Since that's what you were trying to do, well done! It is not possible to have missed the mark in any greater way! We noticed. Exposing evil has NEVER been a popular concept, either. People have been killed for it. Or been lambasted in messageboards for it. Or things in between.

I know. The verse in question is in Genesis 3, in some edition in someone's mind. Oakspear has not seen this verse. Reread my post very slowly, and say the figure of speech name aloud once, and you'll get my point. I'm sure Oakspear got it (or will when he reads it..)

I should probably let this slide, but I won't. For those of you who have no need of medication, (and don't see "shielding lcm" as a requirement), this should be a piece of cake.

Oakspear, you've missed the verse where it says that you can tear any woman a new one, if she's not obeying you like a slave, or if she IS and you just feel like venting. It's not in the King James or anything. I wish you could see it in the original. As Bullinger noted, it's a legitimate utilization of the figure "fulashidamiy". There's a note on it in the Companion Bible.

Thing is, if you're pushing an agenda, you don't need an interesting story or "fairness" or "balance" or anything else, just so long as your agenda comes across with sledgehammer subtlety. Thus, a stack of nominations.

pg-38 of Born Again to Serve: "Rev. Wierwille visited the Higley Press frequently for fellowship with the people there. In later years he said 'If you want to improve in a sport, play with someone better than you,' so he also fellowshipped with people from whom he might learn. 'Robert Higley, having learned of my academic background and my ability of researching certain subjects, asked me to be a contributing editor for the Christian Action magazine (which the Higley Press published.) This opportunity I gladly accepted, and the venture proved fruitful.' It was also at this press that Rev. Wierwille met Rosalind Rinker, a former missionary to China and Korea, now devoting her time conducting Christian Action evangelistic meetings. Rev Wierwille brought Rosalind to our home near the end of the summer. We met with her privately, along with two high school girls who helped Rev Wierwille by cleaning his office and doing some typing for him after school every day. Rosalind taught us, among other things, that we needed to read the Bible rather than read around it. This idea seemed somewhat radical to a highly-read, highly-educated young man. She then further suggested, 'Why don't you search for the greatest of all things in life which would teach Christian believers the HOW of a really victorious life?' He took her advice and began studying the Word more diligently. The contacts we made at Higley Press and the Winona Lake Conference were central to our spiritual growth. There we heard dynamic speakers at the Christian Action Conferences, such as RG Le Torneau, a very progressive businessman who literally believed God's promises of prosperity in tithing, and Homer Rodeheaver, who had at one time been soloist for the famous evangelist Billy Sunday. Homer Rodeheaver was a great promoter of outstanding Christian music, singing with a great voice or playing a trumpet as he led tremendous audience singing. Another evangelist who had inspired Rev Wierwille with his great musical ability was Rev Charles Fuller. Rev Wierwille had stated, 'I listened to Charles Fuller's radio program, The Old-Fashioned Revival Hour, every Sunday morning before I went to church or to my office. He inspired me so with his music. He was an evangelist who had great charisma, great ability, and was one of the first preachers involved in radio. Rev. Fuller was such a humble man and wanted to bless people. Why WOULDN'T the spirit of God work within him? It did.' Rev Wierwille and I grew with our little congregation as we visited and became more personally acquainted with them: meeting their families, their children in college, understanding family relationships and backgrounds. Rev Wierwille always spoke of our church as 'The church with the open door and the open Bible.'"

I had one or two, but I was a lot quicker to walk than most of you. Also, I was even quicker to make that one comment that will get me in trouble. Two spring to mind. One was when we were discussing a passage in Revelation. I'm a fast reader. There's 2 verses where the phrase in the KJV "who say the are Jews, but are not" appear. They're separated by about a chapter. Per the rules, you can skip a parenthetical comment when trying to make sense of a sentence. The rest of the group-almost all Advanced Class Grads, and 1/2 of them corps grads- were still working over the one convoluted verse, when I innocently gave my explanation. Once you skipped the parenthetical phrase, it made perfect sense, of course. (Still does.) Oh, you would have thought I suggested the verse supported Naziism. 1/2 the room was scandalized. (As in "would you please pass the jelly?" scandalized.) Later, one of them 'confronted' me on the evils of my statement. As I prepared to explain-since, obviously, I solved it too fast for them to see the step-by-step as actual steps-a thought about the REAL problem hit me. So I asked "If vpw had said it was, and didn't explain it, would you just accept that it was?" When they immediately answered "Yes", I went off on THEM. And this was back when I believed most of his press releases. I thought he actually had wanted all his stuff cross-checked. For the record, at least one guy there-from Colorado- was NOT scandalized by me, and never jumped to conclusions. I'd mention his name if I had his permission, but he was possibly the most well-adjusted grad there-out of some 50 or 60. ======= Different incident. I was visiting hq. A resident corps guy was about college age, a few years-at most-older than me. I made a comment that he didn't WANT to hear, but was true nonetheless. (It was a personal comment I'm not sharing now.) Out of reflex, he blamed me for telling him, going off at length about how it was going to interfere with his believing. At the beginning, I was going to explain, but, as with the other incident, I saw that this had little to do with my actual comment or presence, in fact. So, I let him go until he was finished, and cooly asked "Been waiting to give that speech all week, haven't you?" Oddly enough, after I said that and didn't stand on any kind of ceremony, he was able to remove the stick and have a pleasant conversation with me. (I hope he came away from that having learned something. I know I did.)

Fine, WD. You've NEVER felt put-upon for having an unpopular opinion here. You've NEVER felt persecuted here nor unhappy. You've never complained about that sort of thing. You're not complaining about it now. Anything that looked like textbook examples of any of the above were obviously mass hallucinations on the part of all the people who saw them. I think we've covered everything. Now will you stop "not-complaining-simply-stating-an-opinion-about-bias-that-didn't-surprise-me", please?

"I sell guns to every army but the Salvation Army." CORRECT! That movie has SO many quotable quotes. "Back then, I didn't sell to Osama bin Laden. Not because of moral reasons, but because he was always bouncing checks."

Doesn't it strike anyone as mildly ironic that we can go on for pages and pages about how some people feel persecuted, without a censor's hand coming in and editing posts? Seems to me that almost all of us can post WITHOUT "persecuting" people, and the exceptions can quickly be brought to the attention of a moderator, who can act pretty quickly and rein in anyone acting like a troll (whether they are one or not). The difference between "most people disagree with you" and "you're being persecuted" seems pretty clear to most. As for persecution online, the GSC is small potatoes in that category. I've been persecuted by EXPERT trolls ELSEWHERE.

[You've said that "where it came from is not of importance" to you. You've been posting for a while. Where it comes from matters to you if it came from vpw. Are you really unaware of this? It's in your posts...] [unless it "came" from vpw-then it must be fought for fiercely. It strikes me as odd that you're reluctant to admit this. Frankly, I'd respect you more if you could avoid artifice in this, and just say "this is my position, period. All my posts will reflect this." Despite claims otherwise, do you really think most posters would agree with your appraisal of your own posts, or do you think they'd consider it non-representative of them?] You've made that claim WHILE demonstrating thatanything supposedly from vpw is a special case, without typing the WORDS "anything supposedly from vpw is a special case." It's a lot like claiming you never taught on money because you were teaching on tithing, which someone once claimed was a "BIG DIFFERENCE." I know the words you typed. And I know the meaning of them.] [i know what you've posted, which, in itself, is indicative of what you believe. There's a "disconnect" between content and labelling, apparently, but I just skip to the content most of the time.] [You cared enough to post about it.... But you, of course, can make whatever claims you wish, and readers are free to read your posts and come to whatever conclusions they wish. It strikes me as a little sad that this would be such a hurdle to scale, but that's your decision.]

"That would have messed up 'Einstein'- he's got it wrong TWICE in his NAME!" Gallagher.

Eagle, on the "ministry" he struggled thru in the early 90s, versus the famous "greasespot by midnight" threat lcm threw around...

Thanks for playing friendly, pawnbroker. :) Ok, enough for the obscure quotes, now getting into the ones that will ring a bell... "Tell me I'm everything you despise. That I'm the personification of evil. That I'm what-responsible for the breakdown of the fabric of society and world order. I'm a one-man genocide. Say everything you want to say to me now. Because you don't have long." "You call me evil, but, unfortunately for you, I'm a NECESSARY evil." "Her name really is Angel! Let's put her on the Christmas tree!" "I sell to leftists, and rightists. I sell to pacifists, but they're not the most regular customers." "Is this how you want to be remembered?" "I don't want to be remembered at all. That means I'm dead." "There are two types of tragedies in life: One is not getting what you want, the other is getting it." "Thank you, but I prefer it my way." "I would tell you to go to hell, but I think you're already there." "Some of the most successful relationships are based on lies and deceit. Since that's where they usually end up anyway, it's a logical place to start."

Yes, it's Aerosmith's "Eat the Rich." Those of you who walked into video arcades in the right era saw Aerosmith's video game, "Revolution X." The opening section-which ends with Aerosmith being kidnapped by NON- uses this song, among others. And Aerosmith's album which was effectively "Aerosmith's Greatest Hits Volume 2" was titled "Big Ones."

Please forgive me, I HAVE to put in some spaces or I'll be unable to read this. (And some punctuation.) ============== rickyg: I have no idea what the new department is working on now, so I have to plead ignorance. Again- I am have just returned to fellowhip, since my parents chose to leave in the late 90's. I did take Martindale's class in and I did enjoy some of it very much. Other parts I found harsh or hard to swallow. Like I had said before, I'm a college student and I cannot put myself into the shoes of others whose experiences with TWI have been different. And I will never try to downplay others experiences. All I can tell is what I know and what I am experiencing. I am happy to say that-since my return- all my experiences have been great. And yes, my FC knows that I do log on here and have posted. This is only my 11 post yet I have spent many a night surfing the memories of others. When I told him he didn't seem to care. I asked, "Don't you think I will go online and tell everybody what is going on in the ministry?" He responded, "What in the world would you have to tell them? That we're running a successful college fellowship, and presenting the Word to those who want it?" If anything else was going on I would be more than happy to share it, and the first time I encounter something that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. you better believe that I will let you know. I was never pressured into retaking the class at all. I was actually a little suprised I am allowed to take it, being that I only recently came back and that they do know that I have been in the cafe. I was suprised, because their acceptance didn't seem to fit with the stuff I read about. Or maybe I am just working with some really loving people. I don't know and again I don't want to downplay others' experiences. I would really like to know what type of research is being done too. I am a classics major majoring in Greek and I think I might study some materials to learn how to really work the Word. Does anybody have any suggestions on how to really start? (Beyond the biblical truths you must adhere to) haha. But That leads me to another topic. Does anybody really need to have a PHD in theology or a MDiv to work the Word? No, I dont think that you do. You just have to have good teachers and a desire to get to the truth rather than making the Word fit an already preconceived theology. That is where researchs went wrong in the past (people using the allegorical method to make the Word fit the church.) Any suggestions? And I will let you know any developments. Rick"

It wasn't a serious question. The ":)" was because I was being cheeky.

Not lately. His current readership rating's plummeted. He USED to get a lot of strangers wandering in to look at the sideshow/ ten-in-one, but not lately. And, apparently, he just illustrated again why someone with at least an 8th grade reading level-or better- needs to give him a few tips. I mean, he was unable to understand even a SHORT, STRAIGHTFORWARD post without missing 1/2 the content...

No. This movie will never be formatted on Beta. Or VHS, I expect.

I agree with you. Seems we meant 2 different things by "freedom of speech" forum. BTW, if that's what you think, what are you doing on this thread? :)