WordWolf

How about reproof for wearing stuff with Christian slogans on it? Nobody had the guts to come up to my FACE and tell me, but they muttered behind my back about me not being "serious". Wearing a target 24/7 was not a sign of being "serious". You want to be "serious", you had to put on a suit and never smile. Fine. I'm STILL not "serious."

Wasn't that the latest Harry Potter flick?

You'll be missed. We'll try and keep the party going til you return.

I was going to make just 1989-1990 one thread, since so many people left in that "year". In April 1989, after all the leadership/corps were asked to swear an oath of allegiance to craig, a letter was sent out to EVERYONE. That letter was identical in every state, except the names were changed. Basically, it said that "some leaders in your state are evil and are abusing their offices as leaders, so we fired them. By name, they are (names)." The irony on that is that the people abusing their offices as leaders were the ones doing the firings. The bland, non-specific nature of the claims, and the flat addition of all these people-whom, locally, had EARNED respect- made the letter highly suspicious at best. It looked like a form letter but was claiming not to be. (Little did I know it was the same in structure as the letter that was presented to the bot by cg a few years earlier- vague accusations lacking specifics.) With that, believers in a lot of locations now had more confidence in the people being fired than in the people doing the firing. Some sent letters asking specifically what their leaders did. twi sent back form letters saying, in essence, "don't worry about that-just trust us without question." So, about 4 out of every 5 believers walked. twi themselves made this a LOT easier, by dismissing all the leaders at once, thus ensuring anyone who left had a ready-to-use support structure to utilize. I dropped in on Rock of Ages '89. My intentions were to see things for myself, and handle things for myself. If things went well, apologies would be issued and I'd be RIGHT THERE when they were. If things went badly, I would use this one last chance to buy out the bookstore. I had also attended ROA '88. Now, I had heard ROA's had been decreasing in quality steadily starting 1985. I had heard 87 was hardly worthy to be compared to 86. I attended ROA 88, and had a good time. I had nothing to compare it to, but it seemed to be worth attending. Events did not seem forced, and there were many joyful people showing spontaneous joy. ROA '89 was far short of that. ROA '89 was like someone trying to put on an ROA after a description of ROA '88. Everything seemed forced and mechanical. There were errors (obvious errors) in the keynote teachings, and EVERYTHING-I mean EVERYTHING-invoked either the current bot or the wierwille family. And the constant "stand for the leader" thing got SO blatant, overused and cliche, that at one point, Howard Allen himself signalled people not to stand for him. (It seemed like he thought he'd gotten ENOUGH forced adulation for one day or something.) In fact, that struck me as the LEAST-rehearsed, most spontaneous gesture all week. One consistent hallmark was that the keynote teaching was ALWAYS preceeded by a song where we were asked to stand for the song, and the keynote speaker came out during the song's closing while we were still singing. The net result was them basically "tricking" people into standing for the speaker. That struck me as plastic and rehearsed. ROA 89, actually, is worth several more posts. The amount of monitoring of conversations and groupthink was amazing. I met a complete stranger who was a new student on the last night, and explained a few things to him-not hitting him with everything. One of the first things I said was that conversations were being listened in on. We spoke and walked a bit, then one comment I made was rebutted by a monitoring resident corps person-who had no idea he just proved all my EARLIER points by showing he was listening in.

Just so I know-is this the song lyic line?

The problem I have with this is the problem with Byzantine text in general. Later text shows writers who, often, could not resist "jazzing up" the text. Similar issues to these guys having names is how the Magi became exactly 3 guys, who were also KINGS, (but not from Libya), and then having the names Gaspar, Melchior and Balthasar. History's first known "harmonies" can illustrate what is common beliefs of the time. If that's what you were hoping to illustrate-it does. At the time of Tatian's Diatessaron (was that the Old Syriac one?), the common belief was that there were two. So, that was not a "recent invention". Either it was the original belief, or it is a very old belief. Since we don't have the documents Tatian worked from, we can't prove more than that in this case, however.

You want to see spooky similarities, I once posted this: ======== "He said things were going to happen that didn't. Scandals and serious accusations of corruption dogged his 'ministry', especially sexual accusations. He lived with many luxuries, complete with planes. He plagiarized 'his' work, and claimed it was revealed to him by God. He claimed it was revealed to him ALONE in this century. He claimed 'his' ministry was the sole 'one true church' today. He promised that financial success and an 'ABUNDANT' life were there for people who followed his instructions. He died never having offered reparations or apologies to even SOME of the Christians whose lives he ruined. He died on January 16, 1986 at the age of 93." ========= http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/why_hwa.htm http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/perfect.htm http://ejm.tripod.com/nobody_held_a_gun.htm

Good morning, strawman! See, having studied and analyzed what vpw HIMSELF said about his personal history, and then using a few outside references as addendum, it never seemed to me what you're suggesting here. I imagine that SOMEONE might hold that position, but I imagine ALL positions are held by SOMEONE. The vast majority HERE, however, holds a more "reasonable", logical view. See, history doesn't happen all at once. People can plan ahead, but they make their plans, and execute their plans, and they must face reality interfering with those plans all the time. Sometimes it moves things along, sometimes it hinders them, sometimes it stops them dead in their tracks. (Do you think lcm would have continued his mad steering if he'd known the internet was going to come along any make him unable to make information- and PEOPLE-vanish?) In the earliest of years, vpw slacked out on all attempts to work (ditched on chores and so on.) His only connection to holiness was-supposedly-one time he told an out-of-town visiting minister (who got treated well and respected) that vpw wanted to be a man of God like him. (He NEVER followed up in the church in ANY capacity.) As a teenager, he showed off for attention, and lacked integrity. He earned a reputation as a bully and a showoff. When it came to college, he'd considered business, and entertainment, and the seminary,(etc.) and selected the seminary out of the possible "professions"-hardly a "calling of God". When he went to the seminary, he chose the SOFTEST option-"Homiletics" rather than "Bible Languages" or another subject requiring dedicated study. When he entered into his first pastorate, he established himself as a bully and a control freak. Was that "his plan" all along- be a control freak? No, but we must struggle against our "natures" if we are to overcome them- and he did no such struggling. What he wanted, ultimately, was: A) I want attention. I want respect. I want lots of both. B) I want an "easy" job where I can bs. C) I want a job where I am in CHARGE and not accountable. D) I want money and things. Supposedly, he kept getting ready to quit a lot in the first few years. (No commitment.) Other than being entertaining, and keeping the teenagers involved, he was unremarkable as a minister. He did a radio show from 1942 thru sometime past 1947, while "earning" his "Doctorate" from Pike's Peak Seminary, by mail correspondence. In 1951, he meets Stiles, who ministers to him, and walks him thru speaking in tongues for the first time (which takes a few hours.) This marks the first time his conduct improves at all. However, by 1953, he's able to completely rip off Leonard's CTC Gifts of the Spirit class and call its entire contents "his own". In 1953, he also completely rips off the contents of Stiles' "Gifts of the Spirit" book and call its entire contents "his own". (He later added to both, but NEVER claimed they weren't "his own".) 5 years later, vpw leaves the denomination that had supported him up until this time, forms a church corporation (tax-exempt), and put the family farm in its name (exempting it from taxes.) In 1962, he has Lamsa teaching at his farm. (Lamsa claims special knowledge of the Bible, and special status as a man of God.) In 1963, he films "the Teacher." In 1967 or 1968 (twi's own sources conflict on this), vpw visits the Christians in Haight-Ashbury. What does he tell them? Well, from Lamsa, he learned to claim he has special knowledge of the Bible, and special status as a man of God. From Kenyon, Bullinger, Stiles and Leonard, he got knowledge the average Christian didn't have. He claimed this wasn't due to authors or other Christians-but from his own special connection to God, which he NOW attributed to an incident in 1942-over 20 year ago, which now involves the voice of God and a miraculous snowstorm. (Later, he also added a miraculous snowstorm to the 1953 account of the Stiles incident.) He convinces them he knows special things (which he does to a degree- but he lied about the reason.) He's an interesting teacher with a unique doctrine. He takes the class he got from Leonard and charges them for it. He takes the holy spirit experience and training from Stiles, and adds it to the class, thus using it as a method of social control and making a normative experience of it, also taking credit for THAT. So, when did the "snowstorm" come in? Sometime between 1951 (Tulsa and Stiles) and 1967/1968 (meeting the hippies in Haight-Ashbury at the House of Acts). He used that story with them. Most likely, it was invented at least a few years after 1953 (steals Leonard's class), since the story supposedly explains-and is supported by-the special knowledge he used in "the class". By 1967, he's released "Are the Dead Alive Now?" (a rewrite of a few of Bullinger's books), so I'd say the LATEST he began to claim this was 1967, after the release of ADAN and before the Haight-Ashbury trip. WHY did he go? Well, he'd always been good with youngsters, and taught interestingly. He now had special doctrines, and claim to a title of specialness (a class and books). What he lacked was NUMBERS-numbers of easy-to-convince zealots. That means they had to lack experience, and lack the coolness acquired by age. Both of those mean he needed YOUNG people. If I were to connect the dots, I'd say that he was looking for these young people from the time he left his denomination in 1957, if not earlier. As soon as he hears about large numbers of young, zealous Christians, he heads right over there. BEFORE this, there's some matter of his involvement with his secretaries in a FEW places, and other infidelities. When he was there, he noted how free they were with affection. He also asked someone for the DETAILS of what an orgy was like-pressing the questions. Did he hijack the hippies with the specific intention of getting the horizontal mambo on with some of them? I don't think that was the MAIN reason-but I could be wrong. If it was not the #2 reason, though, I'd be shocked. I think that, having NO opportunity, he would have MADE one again, and being presented with one, he made the most of it. After all, he also had no problem showing pornography to teenagers. (Including stuff I as an ADULT have never actually seen-and I've seen a few things, especially since I hang out in Manhattan.) ======== [snip]

Is that from the "Highlander" movie? (Movie 1.) It reminds me of Connor MacLeod over his lost love's grave.

Like Mount Sinai?

Please continue on that last point.

[WordWolf in boldface and brackets.] [Meanwhile, we were discussing a few Greek words and the crucifixion.]

Now that we're really spending time on this "numerical" thing, I've looked close enough to see there's no way it CAN be correct. Now, supposedly, "heteros" (different other) is used when referring to ONLY TWO and "allos" (other of the same kind) is used when referring to MORE THAN TWO. ========== John 19:32 "Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other (ALLO) which was crucified with him." ===== Ok, there were either 2 people crucified with Jesus, or there were 4 people crucified with Jesus. Two of them had their legs broken before Jesus was approached. They broke the legs of the first, and the "other" ("allo".) Now, that either means the "other" was "of the same kind", or he was "another of more than two." Supposedly, if there were EXACTLY two on that side, the word would have been "heteros", or "your whole Bible would fall to pieces." However, it is the other of the SAME KIND, which means they were not of DIFFERENT KINDS- which would be "heteros" again. So, "heteros" doesn't mean "exactly two" AND both criminals in this account were of the SAME KIND. If one committed Crime A ("robbery") and the other committed Crime B ("malefacting"), then they would be of DIFFERENT KINDS- which is one of vpw's major points to attempt to prove there were 4 criminals. So, the criminals approached before they came to Jesus-using vpw's premises- are both of the SAME KIND- both "robbers" or both "malefactors". Therefore: A) "heteros" never means "other when there's exactly two" B) Jesus was approached after the legs of 2 criminals of the same type were broken. Under vpw's construct, there was one "robber" and one "malefactor" on each side of Jesus, but this is impossible if John 19:32 is correct. (And John 19:32 is correct.) ========== I would never have noticed this if WTH hadn't been so insistent on this point. I don't think this is the definitive "smoking gun" that there were exactly 2 criminals, but it strengthens that case at the expense of the 4 criminals case.

skyrider, comparing the "kinder, gentler twi" and churches: Xena,quoting a twi innie's comments about the Utah landscape....

Bet that had no effect on his salary checks arriving on time, however...

Correct! Technically, I'm not sure their cover included the "now" quote, but that's the same song the Smiths did. And most people know it as the theme to that show. Morrisey's trademark whine is pretty distinct. I was getting ready for the other lyrics they use for the show- "I am human and I need to be loved Just like everybody else does." "See, I've already waited too long And all my hope is gone." I figured by THAT time, SOMEBODY'd know it. (Or at least I hoped.) ======= So, Belle, correct, and your turn.

Mark, up to you, but I think WTH's latest post-although incorrect-is of a better caliber than he normally posted, which I think is a good thing. I pointed out where I think it was wrong, but I think that the digression-at least for ONE post-was worth taking. After all, it illustrated the circular logic. Actually, Oakspear figured it out long ago and posted why, at least my main reason. I also find that this exposure to flaws in reasoning and pointing them out is good practice for those times I actually need the skills. How else am I supposed to practice finding examples of ad hominem attacks and so on? Finally, the audience loves the bread and circuses. If he's supplying so much grist for the mill, how can I refrain from grinding? Pm me if you want to discuss my main reason.

[WordWolf in boldface and brackets.]

Fine. And those of us who, in accordance with standard practices all over the internet, challenge false, error-ridden, or foolish doctrines or posts, we'll meet you there as well. Whatever cheap pot-shots you were referring to can keep company with insightful valuable insights. :)

rascal, reminiscing on the "younger days, longer nights" thread....

Well, what I said was true- That it's easy to require meaningless, obsessive-compulsive tasks be performed when someone ELSE has to do them and not YOU. The example I gave-sorting 'M & M's by colour-was one I came up with to illustrate the kind of mindless, senseless, STUPID tasks these so-called "leaders" told people to do. (I was thinking of the old story about touring rock groups and the riders that show up in their contracts.)

I am the son and the heir of a shyness that is criminally vulgar I am the son and heir of nothing in particular When you say it's gonna happen "now", Well, when exactly do you mean?

[WordWolf in brackets and boldface again.]

That was the Ministry of Silly WALKS. Shame on you! It was unrelated to the Ministry of 'Running up a Flight of Stairs Two at a Time, Throwing Open a Door and Shouting Ha-ha, Caught You Mildred".' How they determined the winner on that was worth the whole skit... ====== Remember that strange job interview? "Gooood Ni-ight, ding-ding-ding." *rings bell*