Oakspear

The example "letting dogs loose upon the game" was not a definition, but an illustration. It was correct as far as the "letting loose" part, but the emphasis should have been on the act of releasing the dogs, not the dogs' actions once loose. Vic got itb from Bullinger, who got it from a non-biblical Greek writer, but Vic didn't really understand Bullinger, or intentionally misrepresented him.

Goey: Your second comment is largely answered by your first. If something is not dangerous, why would their need to be any double blind studies? ummm...to see if it works --> Anecdotal isn't a slur word. It just means that it's merely unsupported, not that it's necessarily wrong. --> Telling us that you drank oxy water and felt better is anecdotal evidense. Maybe it was the water that made you feel better, maybe not. In this case we don't know for sure without more information. The only thing that it's evidense of is that people will buy it. If something is merchandised correctly, it will sell. Hell, we have a saying in the grocery business: "If you put a 'closeout - 50% off' sign on a sack of dang, it will be sold out by the end of the day"

Nope, not surprised here. What about you, Oak? You surprised? Nope :D-->

Promoting homosexuality? Animosity? I thought that all of us who posted did so in a respectful manner. Between Abigail, Laleo, Mike and myself, GSers were over there a lot. Simple questions were quickly deleted.

I don't know, the word of Song is perfect and he says what he means and means what he says. So technically you did not complete the assignment :D-->

For about a year my oldest son lived with the BC and his wife. My son worked several part time jobs rather than one full time job. One of the downfalls of this is that if you are single, working several low income jobs, the tax tables that employers use to figure withholding show that the income at each of the jobs is too low for there to be a tax liability, so there is little or no withholding, even though when you add them together there is. Due to this, my son owed a few hundred at tax time, rather than getting a refund. The BC confronted him for being in debt to the IRS. (Despite the fact that Howard Allen taught that the ideal situation was to break even, or owe a small amount, so that you had full use of your money, and the gov't wasn't holding it interest-free)

First, I got to be the "note taker guy" because the BC got a look at the notes I took at a class one time. It was the original live version of Defeating the Adversary that was the first half of an Advanced Class Special in (I think) 1992. The notes were considerably more detailed than the syllabus and contained notes on charts that for one reason or another didn't make it into the filmed class. (I'm still kind of an obsessive note taker. Ask some of the Weenies about my little black notebook at the 2nd Weenie Roast :D-->) The first time I got called was after a twig coordinators' meeting one night. The BC, remembering my compulsive (yet detailed & accurate) note taking, took me aside and asked me to come with him and take notes at a confrontation that was brewing. Apparently I was such a sucessful little non-Corps Nazi that I was kept on as a regular member of the Gestapo. It helped that I was easy to get ahold of. I worked out of my home and didn't keep regular hours, we also home-schooled the kids, so both me & the former Mrs. Oak were at home most of the time. Of course, they didn't consider that just because we were HOME didn't mean that we were AVAILABLE. Yeah, sometimes I'd get a call out of the blue - "I'm coming over to pick you up - we have to confront socks about his wise-foot comments" ;)-->

Is rank idolatry worse than regular idolatry?

where's the three adjectives, knucklehead?

Somehow, during the mid- to late nineties, I was called upon to sit in on most of the "before the church" confrontations that took place in our branch. (Anyone here who was the subject of those - I'm really, really, sorry about that :(-->) I was called at all hours of the day, missed work (I worked at home), missed sleep, and even got called when I had another couple over for dinner. The BC figured out that I could take detailed, accurate notes, and had a good memory for what was being discussed and could spot contradictions. Usually the whole thing was a kangaroo court to expel someone who the BC just didn't like. Because of that, verbal traps were set up, no-win situations, and rhetorical ambushes. All in an effort to get the poor confrontee to hang himself. Here's one of the more memorable for me: Confrontee does something stupid (I forget what it was) and is being grilled by the BC. BC asks him if he thinks God is happy with his actions. Confrontee says that no, God is not happy with his actions. BC then asks how he pictures God expressing his disapproval. Confrontee says that he pictures an old man in a white beard frowning at him. BC goes ballistic! "That's idolatry! God doesn't have a beard, he's not an old man! You've reverted to your Roman Catholic upbringing! We can't have idolatry in the household!"

This is another example of different people experiencing "different TWI's". I was "in" from 1978-2001. I saw just as many classes run by non-Corps as by Corps, possibly more, especially in the late seventies, early eighties. I ran one myself in 1982 while living with an 8th Corps grad and with several other Corps grads living nearby. It wasn't until the WayAP class came out and PFAL was canned that they insisted that Corps grads had to coordinate a class. And as far as I knew the military guys at Offut AFB always coordinated well with the Limb.

...in oxygenated mud?

wanna mud-wrestle?

And you are operating on the idea that there is some reason why Wierwille had to be right in all that he wrote. There is not. :D-->While it is true that words have definitions that are sometimes flexible to an extent, it seems that if what you say is true, Wierwille flexed the meaning pretty far. Maybe God shouldn't have bowed so much. Maybe then somebody other than you would have understood what "Doctor" *gag* really meant, since he was apparently incapable of expressing himself clearly in such an "important revelation".Keep in mind that Wierwille made the point that the David's sin was killing off Uriah, not the adultery with Bathsheba. David was sinning because of his having sexual relations with Bathsheba because the torah said so. Wierwille brought up his view that "technically" all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king to illustrate how the sexual relations between David & Bathsheba were not a sin. If he was referring merely to custom, or prevailing "devilish" mentality, how would that make their act not sinful? Ya? We're talking about the word technically, not technicality.

It is obvious, IMHO, that Wierwille believed that God gave "holy men of God" the revelation to write the bible "in olden times"; that errors crept in (both intentional and unintentional) over the years and that no modern written bible can be properly called "THE Word of God". However, I believe it is equally obvious that he believed that through using "the keys" one could determine what that original word of God said. Did he believe that his PFAL book replaced the bible? No; but he did believe that his translations and his interpretation were superior to any and all that came before him. Not only did he believe that his handling of the "original" texts was superior to all, but lacking textual evidense his insights were to be given more credence than any written evidense. In effect whatever he said was "The Word of God" was "the Word of God". For all practical purposes, on some levels the words of Wierwille were the words of God. Not technically though :D--> The so-called keys were a distraction, a way to make us think that we could "work the Word" on our own and be free from popes and theologians and priests and ministers. They were a hook to draw us in to Wierwille's world.

Mike: Your explanation of what Wierwille was actually saying when he declared that "technically" the King owned, or had a right to, every woman in the kingdom is wrong. When "technically" is used the way Wierwille used it, it carries the meaning of "according to the law, or rules". It is often used in the sense of something that is legally true, but not carried out in practice. For example, if I buy a car and then give it to my son, expecting him to pay for insurance and registration costs, take care of all upkeep, and allow him exclusive use of the car, the car is technically mine, but for all practical purposes the car is my son's. In effect the car is my son's, but technically it is mine. While I agree that David, as the King, could have for all practical purposes had any woman in the kingdom due to his influence and possibily charisma, and maybe fear of consequenses, it is incorrect to state that it was "technically" true. By stating that "technically" David, as King, had a right to any woman in the kingdom, he was communicating that there was either a biblical or legal right that no one could argue with. Since there was no such right, Nathan was right in confronting David. The fact that you thought he was saying "that IN HUMAN NATURE (which is devil sculpted or modified from Adam) the king technically (or according to the techniques that predominate in man's fallen nature) has his "pick of the litter" or has the last say, or has the upper hand, or "owns" all the women. " only shows that you don't understand how the word "technically" is used. IF Wierwille meant what you thought he meant, then he should have said something like "In effect, the King could have any woman in the kingdom" or "For all practical purposes, the king could have any woman in the kingdom". That would match your perception. Wierwille either Purposely taught it the way he did to biblically justify his own behavior or Didn't understand the proper use of the word "technically" in this context You stated that anyone who thought that Wierwille was saying that all women in the kingdom should belong to the king was crazy (in your opinion). I have yet to see anyone actually claim that Wierwille was teaching that, only that he taught that they did. Put that strawman to bed.

The initial response to an a registration is automatic. Roy-Year2027 questioned the contradiction between the "welcome" in the original response and the rejection in the follow-up. He was told that he was accusing a machine of lying. Surly and arrogant? While the initial response that I got from Brown when I emailed him back when we first discovered FT was polite, subsequent communications could easily be characterized as "surly and arrogant". Responses to other GSers were about the same. I guess when you are part of "the one, true household" and are standing in the crap, I mean gap, and "backing down the adversary", you can be nasty to devil spirits or those posessed with 'em. As I'm sure they believe we are.

"The Truth Needs No Defense" - remember that one? It was used regularly to shut off questions and debate.

One of the things that is, for most people, a healthy outlet is "venting". You're p.o.'d about something, and you yell or fume about it to someone who cares to get it off your chest. Venting "wasn't available" in TWI. At work I was recently passed over for a promotion. The way in which it was handled was less than professional, and exposed some double-talk by upper management. I was furious about the situation, and talked about it to people I trusted. I'll get over it, I'll move on, I'll do my job in a professional manner, but I needed to "vent". Blowing off some steam was, for me, the way that I could get over it and move on. In TWI that would have never been allowed to go on. I would have been "confessing negative" or some such b.s. So when things came up, they were bottled up inside with no real outlet.

In 1979 three carloads of us drove from NYC to New Knoxville for the weekend; attended a Sunday service in the BRC, slept in the cabin. One of the guys claimed that he was receiving revelation on where the cops were so we could safely exceed the speed limit. Until we got that speeding ticket on the way home :D-->

well, there always was quite a bit of "shoveling" going on :D-->

less filling!

I knew it! You're a vampire!I went to an all boys' high-school. No prom for me, although I think that they did have one.

Johniam: The big difference between God and Karma, as I see it, is that believers in the Christian God believe that he wrote a book with plenty of information about himself. It says in the book that God is their sufficiency. I guess you have to figure out what that means :D-->. With karma, there is no supreme being who told anyone "there is such a thing as karma and here's how it works", rather some folks have come up with the idea based on their perceptions of how things work. But I do agree with you that people can and do become overly concerned about how they can get God or karma or whatever to work in their favor, or tip the odds their way.

Cathy: Please excuse me if I don't spell the Greek words just right, but I'm winging it here! One of the countless theological debates "back in the day" was whether Mary should be called christotokos (bearer of Christ) or theotokos (bearer of God). Since the debate was between two factions that both believed that Jesus was God, any consideration that Jesus maybe wasn't God did not enter into the discussion. The translation of "-tokos as "mother" somewhat muddies the watwers regarding the position of the theotokos fans, who wanted to honor Mary for being one who bore God in her womb. The term in no way suggested that Mary was literally God's mother, insofar as she predated him, but merely that she gave birth to God in human form. I am by no means a trinitarian, but suggesting that trinitarians believe that Mary was the mother of the eternal God, rather than the human aspect of God, misrepresents their actual belief.