WordWolf

Will someone with at least an 8th grade education explain to Mike the reason Mike's not getting blind obedience in his homework, nor cooperation in his endless riddles? Will they please follow up by reminding him of the much faster, more efficient method he could use, which would actually increase the chances someone might be reading his posts?

So, then, I ask you plainly: Do you believe posters with contrary opinions are allowed to post at the GSC?

Mark, You're confusing the Research Dept they had at ONE time- that DID go and get training in Koine Greek and Aramaic and so on, and were chased off between 1985 and 1990- and the staff they have NOW- who have NO formal training in either, or ANY academic discipline related to Bible research? They're in a fix on that, too. If they wanted to GET people some, A) It would take at least 5 years to raise up an initial crop of researchers B) They'd need a candidate group smart enough to keep up with the work of being trained at formal universities C) If they FOUND smart people and exposed them to outside ideas for that long, they'd wake up and leave! So, twi doesn't HAVE trained researchers at this time. Those they ONCE had were driven off. Those they might train up are unable to keep up, and twi is unable to expose them to free ideas or they'd lose the trainees. :)

Oakspear said Oldiesman replied And YOU'RE forgetting the things ALL groups should have in common. twi was supposedly a group that held for the accuracy of God's Word. (This was the stated goal, and most of us agree it was hardly the main purpose as the Powers-That-Be saw it.) IF there is a supposed search for excellence and truth, there is SUPPOSED to be a dialogue process, as all people (or most) are involved in an exchange of ideas as people seek to make what was good, better. (Many of us hit a brick wall when we tried to dialogue on those processes, MANY OF US.) Many people HOLDING THE STATED BELIEF OF TWI were MUZZLED in discussion. They were not ALLOWED to attempt to make improvements. So, it wasn't a matter of "if you don't beliefe the core tenet, leave". It was a matter of "if you don't accept EVERYTHING without question, leave- but know that if you do, your family is under a death sentence because God will turn His back on you and the devil will send his hit-squads to wipe them out, starting with your children." No, it's not an exaggeration, some were asked OUTRIGHT "Which of your children do you want to die because you're leaving?" So, you're misrepresenting life in twi at the moment. How bizarre. ==== Further, you're misrepresenting the GSC. This is a board that allows considerable latitude for freedom of expression, whose stated purpose-it HAS a stated purpose- is to present the OTHER SIDE of the story- the information twi ruthlessly suppressed and continues to attempt. It's not a "free-speech" forum. You can find those online if you want.

"I just can't see no humour About your way of life I think I can do more for you With this here fork and knife" "Believe in all the good things That money just can't buy, Then you won't get no bellyache From eatin' humble pie. I believe in rags to riches- Your inheritance won't last. So take your Gray Poupon my friend And shove it up your @$$!"

"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." This one MAY help. At least, for me, this would give it away.... "Thank you, but I prefer it my way." If you can recall the context of that line, you've got the movie. :) "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." I haven't posted the best quotes from this movie, which is a movie loaded with great quotes. Part of the reason is its narrated in the first-person.

You also couldn't name the musicians for "Pac-Man" on sight, nor would you consider them a cool band. THIS band, on the other hand, you might consider a big one.

I'd say late 80s-early 90s. If you liked video arcade games, you might be able to hum the song all the way through.

In the interests of putting this all together in as easy-to-find a package as possible, I'm adding some quotes here. These are from the thread "Outreach beyond vpw's congregation..." by skyrider. It's got quotes from Mrs W's book "Born Again to Serve", and that book offers a THIRD view of events we're looking at here. Thus, it will help us form a complete picture of vpw and his group's early years. ========== pg-36-37. "After our move into the new parsonage, Rev Wierwille found a room a block away from the church, formerly a dentist's office, which he rented and made into his office/study. Not a particularly patient young minister, he got pretty discouraged by not knowing how to handle various challenges within the congregation. At one time he told me that he was ready to quit the ministry if he didn't learn how to handle these seemingly helpless situations. Something seemed to be lacking in answer to prayers." "I'd had the best education money could buy; but with all that I knew, I just could not help people. I was discouraged the first year in the ministry, 1941-42. I thought, 'Had my dad spent all that money to educate a fool?' I prayed a great deal about it. Even then I was discouraged with my life. The principles of the ministry bothered me. The shallowness bothered me." "The annual Paulding County Sunday School Convention was held Friday evening, September 5, and Sunday afternoon and evening, September 7, 1941, at our church in Payne. These three meetings were set 'to worship, receive inspiration for daily living, and acquire information about the unique place religious education holds in the proper training for your son or daughter and its importance for your own spiritual growth." "At this same time Rev Wierwille introduced a Bible study and teacher-training course which he taught. The purpose was to 'bring to hand every element required to build up knowledge, acquaint you with methods, and supply inspiration for dealing with the problems that confront teachers and workers." "Rev Wierwille's outreach beyond the congregation then began on July 23, 1942, with a column called 'Religion in the Weekly' in the local weekly newspaper, The Payne Reflector. He wrote, 'The aim in this is a column written for your enjoyment, edification and growth in matters pertaining to the spiritual adancement of your personality.' He expected to see some results, so he closed his first article with this statement: 'We are anxious to hear from you and your response will help to determine the value of this column to your own life and the well-being of your community.' "

Get out! She said this? And she was serious and everything-she wasn't messing with you??

Clicking this up so I can find it more easily....

Sadly, the Bible warns against false prophets, but does not include an explicit warning like "And if a man cometh to you, claiming the writings of other are his own, and that he brings teachings from Me greater than all those that come before him, and he taketh the daughters of the people and practices evil upon them, and teaches the men and women to sin in like manner as he himself commits, but nevertheless does NOT call himself a prophet, I have not sent him to you, and he has spoken presumptuously. Thou shalt stone him with stones, till he die, and then thou shalt REALLY get rough with him." It DOES warn against those that claim to speak for God, and those who deal dishonestly, and those who seek to lead while sinning, and the like. Therefore, vpw would have avoided stoning on the basis of being a "false prophet" or a plagiarist, but STILL could have been stoned in Israel for some of the other stuff.

Feel free to submit it.

I'd also like to point out that this is a private messageboard. Nobody has a Constitutional right to the GSC. Nobody has a Constitutional right to POST on the GSC. Nobody has a Constitutional right to be ACCEPTED on the GSC. Don't like your treatment on the GSC? LEAVE! The internet is a huge, huge place. You can find a board you like, or you can make your OWN board. In fact, I'd bet Paw would let you advertise it on a thread here so those who WANT your board can find it. Of course, you can't MAKE people post on your board, either....

"Believe in all the good things That money just can't buy, Then you won't get no bellyache From eatin' humble pie. I believe in rags to riches- Your inheritance won't last. So take your Gray Poupon my friend And shove it up your @$$!"

Nice article! Almost looks like it's taken word-for-word from another source. Did you pull this from the wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredrich_Nietzsche without attribution- or another source without attribution? It looks like it's word-for-word from the answers.com listing for him, from the "Place in Contemporary Ethical theory" section, the last few paragraphs before "Political Views" begins. (From that page) "While in popular belief it is Neitzshce himself who blatantly made this declaration, it was actually placed into the mouth of a character, a 'madman', in 'the Gay Science'. It was also later proclaimed by Nietzsche's 'Zarathustra'. This largely misunderstood statement does not proclaim a physical death, but a natural end to the belief in God being the foundation of the western mind. It is also widely misunderstood as a kind of gloating declaration, when it is actually described as a tragic lament by the character Zarathustra." http://www.answers.com/topic/friedrich-nietzsche?method=22 Well done! You've absorbed the lesson of your teacher, vpw! "Always use the sentences and ideas of others to attempt to make yourself look clever, and NEVER give them the credit for it!" Sadly, this method FAILS in the dawn of the Silicon Age...

Which means that it sprang from the pen of Nietzche-twice. Which means-guess what?-he wrote it. A) Your quote failed to accomplish this. B) Nice work aping vpw's style! I shall elaborate in a moment.

moony, I found the second and third, but not the first. Of course, I'm VERY curious how you found the first. :) In other news, none of that says anything we didn't already say. (Not to say it shouldn't be posted at least once, just that it wasn't new to the discussion.) ==== The first quote is a guy making fun of beliefs and heretics. There's no guarantee he's picked a real group to mock. In fact, given the fictions people usually mock (like radical Muslims decrying the blood libel, and Jack Chick decrying the satanic rpgs, and vpw and lcm attacking pagan gods in the RCC), my SUSPICION is that this supports the idea it's imaginary. ====== The second quote is about "a church in Ohio in the 50's." Frankly, I think vpw is DIRECTLY to blame for this one. Who else was going around in the ealy 70s in Ohio claiming there was a church some time ago that did exactly that? Then again, maybe they drew from a common source as vpw, as if they both read the same issue of Weekly World News or something. ========== The third quote illustrates my point. It's started in Ohio-no, wait, it started in California. (California's more believable as a source of weird fringe-groups.) I've noticed nobody NAMES this paper, and it's impossible to follow up on, as written.

No. "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."

I missed when we stopped talking about a church and started talking about a MILITARY ORGANIZATION. Supposing you're right, BEFORE that, there's a need for open dialogue. If there's a confidence problem with an officer in the military and the men under his command, discussion DOES begin. Then again, since this was not a MILITARY ORGANIZATION, but a CHURCH, dialogue would be MORE expected. If you're unable to picture how honest dialogue would go- meaning "I want to hear what's on your mind"- I can produce samples. And if there's problems, there are avenues for communication and dialogue that resolve them so that it doesn't come to "declare your loyalty or you are fired". That twi was woefully deficient in such processes was the deliberate plan of vpw- who DISSOLVED his advisory body because he didn't want dialogues- and shows that an education of twi-ONLY crippled lcm in his ability to function as a leader. lcm probably had no idea how inadequate his abilities in this area were in comparison to the AVERAGE Christian leader in a SMALL LOCAL congregation, let alone a higher-up. When it comes down to cold organizations, true. Even there, it is understood the employer will deal honestly and fairly with the employees, or face CRIMINAL CHARGES. Ask the Enron guys how they're enjoying the results of treating their employees as disposable... Let me know what the food in prison is like, while you're at it.

Many people remember vpw in pfal class talking about Christians and their loyalties to their doctrines. He spoke about a congregation that got into a heated argument as to whether or not Adam and Eve had navels. He said that the arguments got so heated that one side left the church, and opened up a new church down the road, calling it "the First Church of the Navelites." I can't find any proof of this group existing anyhere 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. So, then, I ask you: Have any of you seen proof of this church? Or Is this an urban legend, either passed along or originated by a homileticist who was comfortable inventing people to use as illustrations for his homilies?

That's an assumption on your part, and was easily testable.You didn't call lcm and ask him "Exactly what did you mean by this?" As it happened, someone did exactly this. "When I asked if this letter was a call to BLINDLY FOLLOW HIM, he said I had been doing this ALL ALONG." So, lcm didn't send some reasoned discourse asking people to search their consciences. If he did, people would have wondered who ghost-wrote it. lcm was known for yelling whenever he wanted to- not appealing to reason. And that was in the 80s. (In the 90s, he REALLY got to cursing and screaming.) What lcm did was DEMAND BLIND OBEDIENCE, and he EXPECTED BLIND OBEDIENCE. At least, THAT'S WHAT LCM SAID HE MEANT. Now, you or I could interpret that further, but disregarding what he HIMSELF said he meant is just silly. There's no rationale for discarding his own explanation. That makes a lot of sense, and is very instructive. When demanded to choose which MAN to give their blind obedience to, many Christians said they refused to choose to give any man blind obedience. Did they CENSURE lcm for making such a contraBiblical demand? No-but it WAS an indication they disagreed with the question being posed. Had he just gone about his business, he would have retained their freely given loyalties to twi-but not himself. What they did NOT say is as instructive as what they DID say. Did they get fed up and leave? NO. They stayed right where they were, but expressed discontent with the contraBiblical demand. If they wanted to insult him, there were many, many ways to do it. They could have insulted him by mail, by phone, or to his face, to name 3. A) It was not insulting. "I stand with God, you microcephalic babboon!" would have been insulting. B) It was not "NONRESPONSIVE." It addressed his demand directly. lcm offered two options only. They rejected both options and offered a THIRD option. Not every question can be answered with only 2 options- especially when both answers are WRONG. ("Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no only, please.") Therefore, their answers told him as much-or more-than a simple choice between men. C) It was not a "REQUEST", it was a DEMAND. Technically, it was not illegal to make such a demand of those directly on twi payroll-although it's Biblically QUESTIONABLE. Demanding this from all the non-payrolled twi'ers he demanded this of- like the entire corps- was morally wrong and there's not even a legal rationale for it. Technically true-although being FORCED to choose is wrong, and the sign of an immature Christian pretending to lead. HE may have considered it so, but that didn't change the reality of things. Just like some people thought that lcm was sane and rational then, but the reality was that he was a tipped turbolaser ready to fire in any direction. The response "I stand with God" was actually true, honest, and from the heart. It was A response, albeit not the response he wanted, and was a way to avoid insulting someone they disagreed with but still attempted to show respect towards. That he interpreted any or all of it as some plot against him is a measure of how unstable and irrational he was tracking- thus demonstrating picking HIM, at least, was a bad answer. Knowing then what we know now, only the most obstinate could say "If I knew then what I know now, I would have stayed, because he wasn't going insane at the time." Well, it's a strange thing to answer in a COMPANY. In a RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION, a CHURCH, with the loyalty of believer/zealot/martyr, the power dynamics are VERY different from a company, office, business. Most people can see that they're different in practice and application, and muddying the differences between the two does not change that. Well, to give a religious answer to a secular company is to pretty much invite sanctions. At that point, you're not serving the secular company. (Although I HAVE been requested to pray by secular employers, more than once, more than one, and one requester was not a Christian.) "Don't push this issue." That's not the answer lcm wanted, but it WAS an answer. It would have been more honest if he HAD just said "where do you stand with me?" However, the asked Christians saw it that way-which was what he meant. He expected them to "BLINDLY FOLLOW" him. They refused to do so, but still showed him the respect of his office. A smart man could easily see he was driving himself to the edge of a cliff, and dropped the subject, knowing that to do otherwise would be to shove away those who still respected him.

How does twi interpret these Rules? Here's a few guesses. ======== Rule 052. "Never ask when you can take." TWI: "Never ask for 10% when you can demand 15%." Rule 059. "Free advice is seldom cheap." TWI: "Free advice is mandatory." Rule 060. "Keep your lies consistent." TWI: No need to adjust this rule-correct as stated. Rule 062. "The riskier the road, the greater the profit." Rule 074. "Knowledge equals profit." Rule 075. "Home is where the heart is, but the stars are made of latiunum." Rule 082. "The flimsier the product, the higher the price." TWI: "Always charge more when redoing the Foundational class." Rule 097. "Enough...is never enough." TWI: "If the people accept sending in 15%, push for 20%." Rule 098. "Every man has his price." TWI: "Make the peons pay for every man's price." Rule 099. "Trust is the biggest liability of all." TWI: No need to change-correct as stated. Rule 106. "There is no honor in poverty." Rule 109. "Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack." TWI: "Financial comfort is good, financial wealth is better!" Rule 111. "Treat people in your debt like family...exploit them." Rule 121. "Everything is for sale, even friendship." TWI: "Everyone's disposable, eventually." Rule 144. "There's nothing wrong with charity...as long as it winds up in your pocket." TWI: "Give us your money-it's the most noble way to spend it!"