WordWolf

Maybe not, but his "blessings" were at their "expense". Proverbs 10:22 "The blessing of the LORD, it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with it." The blessing of twi, it makes a few rich, and rains sorrow on others.

I'll skip the "bifurcation", aka "false dilemma", and run thru all the possibilities. You can pick your favourite. A) The Gospel is wrong. The Bible can't be trusted, don't be a Christian, twi AND all Christians are wrong, get a new hobby. B) The Epistle is wrong. The Bible can't be trusted, don't be a Christian, twi AND all Christians are wrong, get a new hobby. ======== C) Both verses are right; Jesus' words are misunderstood. Woodrow explained this one in detail in "Babylon Mystery Religion". This "Father" thing was with the connotations of a religious leader who must be followed without question, and had precedents in the Old Testament among people in error. Therefore, Jesus' words are correctly understood-and in this context, PRECISELY RELEVANT. Most twi people who had this book DID know this-but never applied it to the mog. D) Both verses are right; Paul's words are misunderstood. twi has taught that this meant Paul was to be followed off a cliff like lemmings or something, and beyond question. This is neither true of EARTHLY fathers nor any OTHER kind. It also contradicts the previous verse. In the case of Paul, he worked SPECIFICALLY with these people, and PERSONALLY educated them, and now, like any parent, he had to let them go and hope he educated them correctly. There is no verse that says a father is allowed to keep his children in indentured servitude until his own death, nor that he could transfer said indentured servitude in perpetuity to his successor. Please present it, if you disagree.

Then in that case, Jerry Maren was in the Wizard of Oz,with Billy Bardy. Billy Bardy was in Willow, (he played the old wizard at the beginning) and Willow Upgood was Warwick Davis' most visible role. I think that equates to a par-2.

If you like comedies, leaving out the Marx Brothers is just plain wrong. Their greatest film was "A Night at the Opera". Period. (It was excrutiatingly assembled, so that makes sense.) "A Day at the Races" was their next film, and appeals to general audiences like the previous film did. (Thank Irving Thalberg for that. He claimed adding production value at the cost of some of the zaniness would make the movies appeal to wider audiences. He was right with both movies.) "Horse Feathers" also appeals to a wider audience. Fans of oddball comedies love "Duck Soup", which didn't connect to its audience at the time, but later generations LOVED it. ======= So, "A Night at the Opera" IS a must-see. The others, it's up to you. I love the Marx Brothers, and have seen several MORE of their movies. However, I don't recommend anyone go out of their way to see the others. (Unless you're a fan, say, and want to see the "Cocoanuts" "Viaduct" scene or the auction, or the "He lost his shirt" song, or "At The Circus" and the "Lydia the Tattooed Lady" song.)

Please note that "making a profit" is not a requirement for plagiarism. Presenting it as your own work, period, is plagiarism. Making a profit is one reason to commit the crime of plagiarism, although hardly the SOLE reason. Some more are mentioned here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/pl...m-wierwille.htm

I'm not answering EVERYTHING in ONE post. If you'll arrange for a steady paycheck for me for posting on the GSC, then I'll see to responding to EVERYTHING much faster.

Staying clear of danger and dangerous things can be difficult, and require CONSTANT VIGILANCE. We who forget the past may be more apt to repeat it. And "Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird." (Proverbs 1:17) twi prefers we just silence ourselves, and stop warning the birds, so they can ensnare them in their nets. No dice. Every day we speak out. Every day new people seek information on twi, and read us. Every day new people read us and steer clear of twi. Every day people who are IN get sick and tired of being sick and tired. Every day sick and tired people who are IN read us. Every day sick and tired people who are IN and read us realize God doesn't live in twi's little cage, and consider escaping into the sunlight. Even vpw might have known this expression was being incorrectly used. Living Victoriously, session 1, he explained how the term "Protestant" was incorrectly attributed to "protesting" something. "pro"-forward, forth "test"-as in "testament", "testimony". Thus, a "protestant" "speaks forth". (In case you're wondering, the "test" descends from the Latin word "testari", or "third", and from thence into the term for "witness", since a witness is a neutral third-party. A good collegiate dictionary should tell you that-it did for me.) You incorrectly quoted Hamlet, when the players were enacting "the Murder of Gonzago", aka "the Mousetrap." As the play's queen exclaims-in great detail-how she will not remarry, ending in "In second marriage let me be accursed! Let none wed the second but who killed the first!" And then CONTINUED for a time. Hamlet watched to see if Gertrude recoqnized the comment- it was a reference to his own father's death. Was she complicit in her husband's death-then marrying his killer? Hamlet then prompted her for a response. "Madam, how like you this play?" The innocent Gertrude didn't recognize this reference, and said "the lady doth protest too much, methinks." Hamlet's reply:"O, but she'll keep her word." The current king, feeling guilty, adds "Have you heard the 'argument'? Is there no offence in it?" So, the meaning of Gertrude's statement was "The lady runs on a lot, I think." (Review the scene-I think you'll agree.) Some people have INCORRECTLY attributed her comment to "protesting", but that changes NOT the meaning of the line. It's about as sensible as saying "Wherefore art thou Romeo?" means "Where are you, Romeo?" when it means "Why are you 'Romeo'?" i.e. "Why did you have to be one of those hated Montagues, of all people?"

Since you missed me, I'll try again. Here's your initial post. (I corrected spelling and grammar for you.) I won't speak on groups I'm not familiar with. In this case, that means I'll speak on Catholicism. You said they ONLY show you a defeated, crucified Christ. I gave an example of one parish that does NOT. Then you went off about RC history and how all the elements of the organization are for control. I'm not going into detail on how it's silly to repeat lcm's "the Pope wants to rule the world", "the Pope owns an aircraft carrier" rants, nor how there's no secret meetings on how to take over the world- neither on a parish, diocesis, archdiocis, nor Vatican level. I'll get back to the questions you asked. Now, as to whether the RC church requires membership in the RC church for a Christian to be saved, that is patently ridiculous. I was reviewing an entire article on "interchurch" marriages- marriages between RC and non-RC Christians, and how to make them work. Not ONCE in the article does it even SUGGEST the other Christian is unsaved, nor that they're not a "real" Christian until and unless they "come around" and become Catholics. Here's the article. http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0690.asp So, getting that from a CATHOLIC source, I would judge then that CATHOLICS tell other CATHOLICS that NON-CATHOLICS are SAVED. ===== On, then, to salvation.... What do Catholics say on salvation? Well, you'd need to know what they say about God's grace. http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac1000.asp Then here's some stuff on who will be saved. http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0494.asp Here's some general stuff they believe and teach- which sounds VERY different than what you were taught in twi. http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0888.asp Finally, can only Catholics be saved? http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/...003/Wiseman.asp After reading all that, it seems obvious to me that they're clear that salvation is thru Christ only.

Luke 10:25-37(NKJV) "And behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tested him, saying 'Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?' He said unto him, 'What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?' So he answered and said, 'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and 'your neighbor as yourself'. And he said to him, 'You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.' But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, 'And who is my neighbor?' Then Jesus answered and said: 'A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion. So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, 'take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.' So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?' And he said, 'He who showed mercy on him.' Then Jesus said to him, 'Go and do likewise.'" ========== Now then, two men who were EXPERTS in God's Word, who new its contents VERY well, or this schlub, from a despised group, who DID well and may have known few verses accurately? Who would I be more like? Who would JESUS bid me be more like? (These were HIS examples, remember.)

I spent some time among the Roman Catholics I mentioned. I made it clear I was completely DISinterested in BECOMING one when the subject was broached. One guy was convinced I was GOING to become one- I disabused him of this unambiguously. After this, I was still quite welcome as before. NOBODY then said I couldnt join in any reindeer games, NOBODY then said I must conform or be cast out, NOBODY then said I must "come around" to their thinking or I couldn't "come around" to their meetings. From what I've heard, those pronouncements were common among the 90s and 00's in twi. Frankly, I think the only reason me and Roman Catholicism came up there was that I seemed to have a passion for Scripture and a passion for avoiding the "chief seats"- I knew stuff but made a point not to grab for the spotlight. So, a group where I could come and go as I wished, (where I disagreed with doctrine) or one where I had to conform (where I disagreed with doctrine). Which one demonstrates the love which Jesus said would be how the world would recognize his followers? === Further, when I was in college, I spent some time with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. That's where Christians of a variety of groups all interacted, WITHOUT busting on each other and playing games of one-upsmanship. Their advisor complemented me on knowing some Bible and never challenged me on having the storied twi arrogance. Comparing them with twi-even LOCAL, NICE twi in the best times I had, their attitudes were more accurate than twi.

I believe the answer was "both".

So, a teaching that said the opposite of what Jesus Christ said- Matthew 23:9 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." -and THAT's "benign"? THAT's "no big deal"? I notice that lcm and vpw seemed able to recite everything ELSE from "Babylon Mystery Religion", but THAT item seemed to elude them. Good book until I want to call myself something unBiblical? Strange targeting system in play....

I've a church local to me that would surprise themex. First of all, BRING YOUR BIBLE. They TEACH THE BIBLE. Second of all, they have a cross. They have Christ on it. However, he seems to be ascending directly in FRONT of it. "Messiah, dead on a cross?" No, "Trimphant Anointed One, Ascending to His Father". It's a Roman Catholic Church. ===== Will someone please pass a smelling salt under themex's nose?

You forgot an editorial on T*m M1tchell's death, http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/dr...-to-suicide.htm

I like those. You hit on an old complaint of that movie, which I wasn't thinking of. They're doing an astronomical survey, and didn't account for all the planets? Plus, entering the system, they didn't pull up any summary that said "Ceti Alpha 5 is a prison island." So, my shorter movie might have been... "Retrieving the system's data now. Holy Hannah! Check out the news on Ceti Alpha 5! Maybe we'd better skip the entire SYSTEM!" "No-let's just survey the system from space, and record the details. Hm-seems to be one planet MISSING. Send a message to Starfleet security with the data attached, and the notice on Ceti Alpha 5. They'll want to send someone to look into this."

"Take it away" meant "next poster can post the next song." So, rather than wait, here's one. "Trees went by Me and 'Del' were singing 'Little Runaway' I was flying." This was what I was thinking of when I put Del Shannon's "Little Runaway" as a song.

Well, twisting some Scriptures and completely disregarding others. The most obvious disregarded one, to me, is Matthew 23:9. "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

And what did he say about how he ripped off Bullinger's books to form pfal and RTHST? TW:LIL, pg-210. "She gave me my first copy of Bullinger's How to Enjoy the Bible. She said, when she first heard me teach, that I taught like he wrote, and I'd never met the man or even read his stuff."

What did he say directly about how he got the 1st edition of RTHST, which was Stiles' book plus some books by Bullinger, and ONLY what they contained? (Mostly Stiles.) (1954) TW:LIL, pg-209. "Somewhere in there I wrote the first holy spirit book. I can't remember exactly what year. I'd been working those 385 scriptures and they began to all fall into place." "We're having the sixth edition printed now of that book: Receiving the Holy Spirit Today. It's a great piece of research." And, after having lied so thoroughly (and throughly) about it, he makes the following "disclaimer": "Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it together so that it fit-that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped. Vale from Florida was the one who taught us about interpretation and prophecy. But he didn't understand the other manifestations. It took BG Leonard and others to teach us healing and believing. But in the holy spirit field, our piece of research is the most thorough and original coverage of the subject. And believe me, I've seen about everything in that field. No one really goes into it."

How about BG Leonard? vpw took the ENTIRE contents of pfal class 1.0 from Leonard's class, UNALTERED. What did he say about Leonard? TW:LIL, pg-207. "He loved me, and I learned some stuff from him. He had tremendous believing. That's why I love the guy." "The summer of 1953, our whole ministry went up-Dotsie and Donnie and some of the others from Van Wert. We took his whole trip- really learned a lot about the other manifestations of the holy spirit. But he worked from personal experiences. I worked what he taught from the accuracy of the Scriptures. When I came home, I made up my mind that I was going to tie the whole thing together from Genesis to Revelation. So I did, and in October, I had the very first 'Power for Abundant Living' class. At that time, the Foundational Class and Advanced Class were together-the whole thing in two weeks. But the syllabus today is basically the same. The basic principles from the Word are the same. The class has filled out. But I knew the greatness of our age-the age of holy spirit and that every truth must fit in the framework of the manifestations. I just had to teach it to somebody." "I taught without a syllabus, but the class was the same. You could throw the syllabus away now and I could still teach it. It's a burning reality in my soul."

TW:LIL, pg-179. "The Word is buried today. If there's no one around to teach it, God has to teach it Himself. You see, I am a product of my times. God knew me before the foundations of the world, just like He knew you and everyone else. We were all in God's foreknowledge from the beginnings. God knew I would believe His Word. And every day I am more and more deeply convinced of this ministry which teaches people the accuracy and integrity of God's Word." pg-181, reminscing after the 1942 promise... "That's where I was sitting when I prayed to God to teach me the Word and show me how." (Mind you, page 178, he said "I told Father outright that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on." So, this watershed experience in his life, the details seem flexible. He even asked at least 2 different things...) pg-190. "If no one is around to teach you the Word, and you are hungry, then God has to teach you in the framework of your knowledgeable experience. For example, if you're an athlete, He'll do it through athletics. If you're a farmer, He'll teach you through farming." pg-201. "You see, learning is a process. You don't learn overnight. The holy spirit field-that's the field God raised me up for. There's not a question that cannot be answered biblically. And there's no one I can't lead into speaking in tongues if they are Christian and want to do it. No matter how much knowledge you have of God, God seldom allows you to teach more than people are able to receive. Some things God taught me that night in Tulsa, I've never taught- no one would have been able to receive them." Go ahead, stop implying and suggesting, come right out and say it instead... "Everything I learned, God taught me. That's what I teach you."

There's some good stuff on this subject, including some side-by-side between Stiles and vpw, on http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/tw_founder.htm

It is interesting to compare the Preface to the White Book, 7th Edition, which I already quoted, with the Preface in the 2nd edition. ===== Here's how one paragraph ORIGINALLY read in the 2nd edition, (pg-8): "The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all I had been taught and start anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook. It took me seven years to find a man of God schooled in the Holy Spirit, a man who knew the Scripture on the Holy Spirit, and could fit it together so that I dod not have to omit, deny or change any one passage. He made the Scripture fit like a hand fits into a glove, and when you can do that, you can be assured of having truth." ======== Here's the corresponding paragraph in the 7th Edition, the one most of us got to read: ====== "The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all that I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook. I did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for, the Word of God being the will of God, the Scripture must fit like a hand in a glove." ====== Interesting how the other man just VANISHES from the picture, no? It's as if vpw later wants to take exclusive credit ("I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook") for something that was exclusively the result of Stiles-the UNNAMED Christian-working for God ("...He made the Scripture fit like a hand fits into a glove...")

I keep hearing that he supposedly gave "proper credit" in his books, and I thought it was worth the time as a refresher, and to make it handy for the next time someone makes this ridiculous claim. The Way:Living in Love, pg-174. (Same page as the basketball team.) "I don't remember much of the past. I'll have to renew my mind. Oh, yes, did I tell you I taught at Gordon Divinity School? Homiletics was my specialty- that's preaching. I took everything I could take at the Moody's Bible Institute, too, through their correspondence courses." I'm guessing he counted both of these. We know for a fact the Moody thing was a boldfaced lie, since Moody has NO record of him at ALL.