holy cowhhhheeeeeeewwww!
>
without the pictures ...........it didn't happen
clarity
Who are the REAL demons behind the Watchtower?
by Dogpatch 65 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Dogpatch
What confuses many of you about my beliefs is what I wrote in my doctrinal days merely represents mainstream
American orthodoxy, mostly Protestant but with some good Catholic stuff in there. Despite what you may think of the Catholic Church, they are generally far more honest and historical about maany things than Protestants. American protestants love to distort their 66 holy books, especially with "sola scritura" (which is like defining the universe without ever actually looking through a telescope- but on "logical" attempts to make it all fit together.It doesn't.
Remember this:
Jesus did not start any churches
Jesus was not for "organizations"
He was worshipped as Deity by the Christians at Pentecost (for the first time for most of them)
They thought he was dead! Why would they think he was God?
The Jews thought Christian were nuts for putting Jesus in the place of YHWH all over the scriptures, and so were considered a cult of Judaism.
The Christians were the ones who were embarrassed by the antics of YHWH and began a whole new paradigm (just like Jesus freaks dropped the manmade concept of buildings called "churches", wearing suits, acting pious on Sundays, not hobnobbing with the riff-raff, didn't care so much about money, disdained the media and "popularity" (except in music), shared resources, food (and drugs), went naked by the thousands to hot springs in the San Juan Capistrano mountains (I went there, too!), weren't worried about converting you but respected your religious beliefs, whether they felt they were wrong or not, and as soon as they found a pastor and a church that KINDA felt similar to them (except in actual theology), meaning Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel, a new movement began.
Jesus freaks did not conncern themselves with theology, didn't read the Bible much (didn't even exist in early Christian times as we know it), knew all along than church leaders made it say whatever they wanted it to without regard for proper interpretation and theology and hermeneutics.
Interpretation and Theology
Must We Have A System? by none other than Christian apologist Robert Morey, also author of "Death and the Afterlife" (see my critique of his most enlightening work, and that of his opposite opinion Edward W. Fudge in my crtitique:
Hell: Traditionalist vs. Conditionalist Views
INTRODUCTION
This study is designed as a comparison of two doctrinal views existing within Christian circles on the subject of life after death and eternal punishment. On one side of the issue are the conditionalists, who believe in the concept of "soul sleep" (apparently annihilation of existence that requires recreation) and temporary punishments meted out to the wicked (with eventual annihilation again), and on the other side we have the so-called "traditionalists" who believe in the continued existence of the soul after the death of the body, and that the wicked will be tormented forever in a place called Gehenna.
Though the conditionalists are clearly in the minority, they are gaining ground in theological circles today. Therefore it is important to understand fully both sides of the argument in order to make a clear evaluation of what the Bible really teaches about this subject. You will find very scholarly arguments on both sides of the controversy. Unlike dealing with cultic doctrine such as the annihilationism of the Jehovah's Witnesses, which can be easily refuted from a scholarly point of view, we are here dealing with the arguments of eminent scholars themselves, versed in the biblical languages and familiar with context and historical setting. We must become historians to an extent if we are to determine the full meaning of the scriptures, otherwise we get locked into battles over the meanings of words that end up in circular reasoning. If a passage can be disputed as to what the original language is trying to say, then we must go back in history to fill in the missing pieces. What does evidence show as to the Jews and early Christians' belief? That is a very important consideration, and can win or lose the whole argument. There are also other theological considerations, such as dispensational views and progressive revelation. Often truths are only given in very rudimentary form in the Old Testament, but much enlarged upon in the New Testament. Salvation is one of these issues. The Old Testament teaching on salvation, though having a shadow of the final picture, is but the groundwork for the teachings of Jesus and the doctrines that Paul lays out in Romans and Galatians. The book of Hebrews builds upon Old Testament types and develops antitypes that the Jews in Moses' day would probably find heretical at first glance. Also, while the Old Testament gives shadows of the nature and identity of the Messiah, such as in Isaiah 9:6, the final revelation of the true identity and nature of the Messiah, as well as the real work and nature of the Holy Spirit, was too shocking to the Pharisees and scribes to be considered merely Old Testament concepts retaught. The unenlightened Jews sought to kill Jesus for his claims to Godship (John 5:18).Only when we take all things into consideration and lay them side-by-side are we ready to make an intelligent decision. It is important not to be influenced by our preconceived notions of what we think God should do or not do. It is our duty to determine what God has said and to accept it on faith, allowing him to reveal it to us as time goes on. Since the "traditionalist" view is in the majority, we will allow them to answer the bold claims of the conditionalists. The two works I have chosen to stand side by side are "The Fire That Consumes," by Edward W. Fudge (Conditionalist; pub. in 1982) and "Death and The Afterlife" by Robert Morey (Traditionalist; pub. in 1984). These represent the best of both sides, and are the most recent scholarly works available on this subject. Each incorporates the works of those who have gone before, and enlarges on them. On the left hand side of each page, I will comment on and present the Conditionalist argument (which is challenging the "traditionalist" view), and on the right side I will publish the "traditionalist" comments or refutation of this view. We trust this study will prove enlightening to you, as we feel that there are excellent points made on both sides.
All page number references to Fudge's comments will be taken from "The Fire That Consumes," and all page references from Morey's comments will be taken from "Death and The Afterlife," to avoid repetition.Fudge defines the real issue in the controversy thusly:
The real issue between traditionalists and conditionalists is nothing other than this: Does Scripture teach that the wicked will be made immortal for the purpose of suffering endless pain; or does it teach that the wicked following whatever degree and duration of pain God may justly inflict, will finally and truly die, perish and become extinct forever and ever? p. 425
The objections raised by the traditionalist to this statement would no doubt be: It is a poor choice of words to say that the wicked will be made immortal, as Adam was made to live forever without being immortal. He was given a body that was designed to function forever in its environment. Immortality is a gift only to the redeemed, and the term is applied to the resurrection body, not the soul.
In most of my articles I wrote as a third person explorer/student rather than give my opinion. My job the the 80s was to reveal the truth about what the "Bible" was saying, so as to see the cowardly lies of the Watchtower.
When I became a pastor of Hope Chapel West Manhattan (Beach) in the late 80s, we used to take field trips to other churches to observe the various phenomena of various churches. We specialized in churches who did exorcisms to Christians (fake), the various gifts of the Spirit (I can still speak in tongues), and our greatest delight would be to study the human ego and the shadow side of people. It all started when the girl I was dating (the stunt woman for Farrah Fawcett) started attending a black church in downtown LA where she tithed hundreds of dollars a month, to see if it was legit. It was a real circus. I have told the story somewhere but I forget where.
I used to watch all the fake faith healers on TV. Also Gene Scott, Peter Popoff, learned to speak in toungue from Randy Broadhagen in Beaumont, calif. who took me to an exorcism that actually appeared to be real, loved to listen to Katherine Kuhlman - I was saved at a Billy Graham Crusade when I was 8 years old (we were raised Baptists), went to visit Chuck Smith's seminal Calvary Chapel (the mother of all modern protestant churches in America) and saw him write out a check for $1000 out of his own money to a fellow who was about to be kicked out of his house because he was broke, went on The Trinity Broadcating nettwork with Jan Crouch (she didn't like Walter Martin but asked me to come speak), then started a series on cults on TBN's Morning Show or whatever it was called for several weeks. I was a regular on rich Bueller's radio station (biggest Christian following in So. Cal. at the time for radio) several times, and spoke in tons of churches. My mother volunteered to help edit Robert Shuller's first book in his "Power of Tower" in Garden Grove, Calif., which was also the first and olnly drive-in churcdh, complete with speakers that fit in your car window and passing the collection plate from car to car.
Then he later created the Crystal Catheral. No doubt that is why they are now broke - too ostentatious.
That was too much. His was the last church I went to (13 yrs old) before becoming a JW at 20 yrs old. I almost became a Seventh-Day Adventist before that, then I read the mighty "truth" book and that started the whole Watchtower/Disneyland ride to nowhere. My gilrfriend and I both embraced the WT at the same time, we looked up a kingdom hall, and got baptised, and converted most of our families.
I have met more pastors all over the world than you can shake a stick at. I love most all of them. Pastors are usually the most underrated and overworked substitue fathers in the world. THAT's why I know Christ, because I have not yet seen or felt anything like the Shekinah of God as among real Christians. I just take a lot of their quirky private beliefs as inventions of their mind. People buy into Jesus and then want to customize him, like he was a car.
Now back to watching the most poignant movie (at least if you're a Christian/Catholic/believer), written by none other than William Peter Blatty, author of
The Exorcist. Actually his greatest work to me is "The Ninth Configuration," and that is the DVD I'm talking about. I cry every time I watch it. I won't spoil it for you... just realize you won't really understand it until the last 15-20 minutes. It is an unbelievably powerful work for a Christian to read. It is all about hiding from our real selves and the weirdness it creates in us just to survive this life and feel that God has not abandoned you.
Do you know that Blatty was a ghost-writer for Dear Abbey at times?? LOL. Wikipedia says,
In 1959, Blatty ghost-wrote "Dear Abby's" (Abigail van Buren's) bestselling book "Dear Teenager," for which she was praised for her "matronly wit and wisdom"and for which she was named "Mother of the Year," twin honors that the author "to this day" has professed he still isn't sure "how to feel about," and then in 1960 he published Which Way to Mecca, Jack?, which dealt humorously with both his early life and his work at the United States Information Agency in Lebanon. He then published the comic novels John Goldfarb, Please Come Home (1963), I, Billy Shakespeare (1965), and Twinkle, Twinkle, "Killer" Kane (1966). Though he achieved great critical success with these books — Marvin Levin in the New York Times, for example, led off a review with "Nobody can write funnier lines than William Peter Blatty, a gifted virtuoso who writes like (S.J.) Perelman", sales and commercial acceptance were lacking.
It was at this point that Blatty began a fruitful collaboration with director Blake Edwards, writing scripts for comedy films such as A Shot in the Dark (1964), What Did You Do in the War, Daddy? (1966), Gunn (1967), and Darling Lili (1970), a musical starring Julie Andrews and Rock Hudson. Without Edwards, Blatty also worked on comedy screenplays as "Bill Blatty", two such credits being the Danny Kaye film The Man from the Diner's Club (1963) and the Warren Beatty-Leslie Caron film "Promise Her Anything" (1965). Others were the film adaptation of John Goldfarb, Please Come Home! (1965), and The Great Bank Robbery (1969).
Later Blatty resumed novel writing. Allegedly retiring to a remote and rented chalet in woodland off Lake Tahoe, Blatty wrote The Exorcist, a story about a twelve-year-old girl being possessed by a powerful demon, that remained on the New York Times bestseller list for 57 straight weeks and at the Number One spot for 17 of them. It would eventually be translated by himself and director William Friedkin into one of the most famous and controversial mainstream horror movies of all time. According to Blatty, Friedkin edited the film in a New York Fifth Avenue office building with the number 666. [citation needed] Blatty would go on to win an Academy Award for his Exorcist screenplay, as well as Golden Globes for Best Picture (he produced the film) and Best Writing. He has made the claim that in its first weeks of publication, The Exorcist novel, despite excellent reviews and much advertising by the publisher, Harper and Row, was deemed a failure and was being returned by bookstores by "the carload" until what he calls "an extraordinary intervention by Fate" which he refuses to describe.
In 1978, Blatty adapted his novel Twinkle, Twinkle, "Killer" Kane! into the retitled The Ninth Configuration; and in 1980 he wrote, directed, and produced a film version. A meditation on God's existence described by one critic as "The Marx Brothers Meets Spellbound" and greeted as a "masterpiece" by The Cincinnati Post and "the finest large-scale American surrealist film ever made" by Peter Travers in People magazine, the film, nevertheless, was a commercial flop. It has since acquired a rather sizable cult following. In 1981 it was nominated for three Golden Globes, among them Best Picture, and won the Best Writing Award against competition that included The Elephant Man (1980), Ordinary People (1980), and Raging Bull (1980).
I think he was a lot like
Dante Alighieri
who wrote "The Divine Comedy," a tour of the mythical hell of the monks of his day, but people later actually BELIEVED it, in spite of it being a comedy and a poke at the Catholic Church! What a guy.
I used to hypnotize chickens - it's pretty easy, just as it's easy to hypnotize ourselves.
-
Dogpatch
Arboles,
My life has been full of joy and full of pain.
I was practically an autistic child.
I never felt like I fit into this world - I was even two weeks late coming out of the womb, which almost killed my dear mother.
I was ripe for the Hippie Generation - I wanted nothing to do with the social pretenses of this world, and the cruelty and rejection of others.
I will live as a "shield wolf" and I will die alone someday. But the Shekinah won't leave me.
The name "Randolph" is supposed to mean "shield wolf". "Randolf" and "Randall" and "Randal" are variants.
-
Dogpatch
Sorry, I didn't get time to spell check the above, here is a corrected version.
What confuses many of you about my beliefs is what I wrote in my doctrinal days merely represents mainstream
American orthodoxy, mostly Protestant but with some good Catholic stuff in there.Despite what you may think of the Catholic Church, they are generally far more honest and historical about many things than Protestants. American protestants love to distort their 66 holy books, especially with "sola scritura" (which is like defining the universe without ever actually looking through a telescope- but on "logical" attempts to make it all fit together).
It doesn't.
Remember this:
Jesus did not start any churches
Jesus was not for "organizations"
He was worshipped as Deity by the Christians at Pentecost (for the first time for most of them)
They thought he was dead! Why would they think he was God?
The Jews thought Christian were nuts for putting Jesus in the place of YHWH all over the scriptures, and so were considered a cult of Judaism.
The Bible as we know it wasn't officially "complete" until the fourth century, and large segments of the church don't just "accept" the list as valid, adding or subtracting which ones are too koo-koo. Why are you worshipping the Bible? Don't JWs realize they accept the decisions of the early church fathers, and just accept their list? What hypocrites. JWs think they know more than the ones who wrote to letters and chapters. Pure arrogance. Then they topped it off with putting the name "Jehovah" into their trademark, while the early Christians took it OUT of the Bible (YHWH) on purpose!
Of course, that was Rutherford's publicity stunt. Make themselves different. I'll bet you Freddy came up with the idea, the old bastard. Hebrews 1-3 tells us we can DROP THE NAME... the old guy is officially on vacation for good! Embrace the Son as God, or YHWH won't even give you the time of day... besides he's on permanent vacation in this world. Read Romans and Galatians! Don't look at ME like a heretic, and don't blame me if you are ignorant of the NT writings. Besides, we don't even know who actually wrote a lot of the 66 books. Any seminarian can tell you that.
The Christians were the ones who were embarrassed by the antics of YHWH and began a whole new paradigm (just like Jesus freaks dropped the manmade concept of buildings called "churches", wearing suits, acting pious on Sundays, not hobnobbing with the riff-raff, didn't care so much about money, disdained the media and "popularity" (except in music), shared resources, food (and drugs), and (locally) went naked by the thousands to hot springs in the San Juan Capistrano mountains (I went there, too!), weren't worried about converting you but respected your religious beliefs, whether they felt they were wrong or not, and as soon as they found a pastor and a church that KINDA felt similar to them (except in actual theology), meaning Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel, a new movement began.
Jesus freaks did not conncern themselves with theology, didn't read the Bible much (it didn't even exist in early Christian times as we know it), knew all along that many church leaders made it say whatever they wanted it to without regard for proper interpretation and theology and hermeneutics.
Interpretation and Theology
Must We Have A System? by none other than Christian apologist Robert Morey, also author of "Death and the Afterlife" (see my critique of his most enlightening work, and that of his opposite and respected colleague Edward W. Fudge in my critique:
Hell: Traditionalist vs. Conditionalist Views
INTRODUCTION
This study is designed as a comparison of two doctrinal views existing within Christian circles on the subject of life after death and eternal punishment. On one side of the issue are the conditionalists, who believe in the concept of "soul sleep" (apparently annihilation of existence that requires recreation) and temporary punishments meted out to the wicked (with eventual annihilation again), and on the other side we have the so-called "traditionalists" who believe in the continued existence of the soul after the death of the body, and that the wicked will be tormented forever in a place called Gehenna.
Though the conditionalists are clearly in the minority, they are gaining ground in theological circles today. Therefore it is important to understand fully both sides of the argument in order to make a clear evaluation of what the Bible really teaches about this subject. You will find very scholarly arguments on both sides of the controversy. Unlike dealing with cultic doctrine such as the annihilationism of the Jehovah's Witnesses, which can be easily refuted from a scholarly point of view, we are here dealing with the arguments of eminent scholars themselves, versed in the biblical languages and familiar with context and historical setting. We must become historians to an extent if we are to determine the full meaning of the scriptures, otherwise we get locked into battles over the meanings of words that end up in circular reasoning. If a passage can be disputed as to what the original language is trying to say, then we must go back in history to fill in the missing pieces. What does evidence show as to the Jews and early Christians' belief? That is a very important consideration, and can win or lose the whole argument. There are also other theological considerations, such as dispensational views and progressive revelation. Often truths are only given in very rudimentary form in the Old Testament, but much enlarged upon in the New Testament. Salvation is one of these issues. The Old Testament teaching on salvation, though having a shadow of the final picture, is but the groundwork for the teachings of Jesus and the doctrines that Paul lays out in Romans and Galatians. The book of Hebrews builds upon Old Testament types and develops antitypes that the Jews in Moses' day would probably find heretical at first glance. Also, while the Old Testament gives shadows of the nature and identity of the Messiah, such as in Isaiah 9:6, the final revelation of the true identity and nature of the Messiah, as well as the real work and nature of the Holy Spirit, was too shocking to the Pharisees and scribes to be considered merely Old Testament concepts retaught. The unenlightened Jews sought to kill Jesus for his claims to Godship (John 5:18).Only when we take all things into consideration and lay them side-by-side are we ready to make an intelligent decision. It is important not to be influenced by our preconceived notions of what we think God should do or not do. It is our duty to determine what God has said and to accept it on faith, allowing him to reveal it to us as time goes on. Since the "traditionalist" view is in the majority, we will allow them to answer the bold claims of the conditionalists. The two works I have chosen to stand side by side are "The Fire That Consumes," by Edward W. Fudge (Conditionalist; pub. in 1982) and "Death and The Afterlife" by Robert Morey (Traditionalist; pub. in 1984). These represent the best of both sides, and are the most recent scholarly works available on this subject. Each incorporates the works of those who have gone before, and enlarges on them. On the left hand side of each page, I will comment on and present the Conditionalist argument (which is challenging the "traditionalist" view), and on the right side I will publish the "traditionalist" comments or refutation of this view. We trust this study will prove enlightening to you, as we feel that there are excellent points made on both sides.
All page number references to Fudge's comments will be taken from "The Fire That Consumes," and all page references from Morey's comments will be taken from "Death and The Afterlife," to avoid repetition.Fudge defines the real issue in the controversy thusly:
The real issue between traditionalists and conditionalists is nothing other than this: Does Scripture teach that the wicked will be made immortal for the purpose of suffering endless pain; or does it teach that the wicked following whatever degree and duration of pain God may justly inflict, will finally and truly die, perish and become extinct forever and ever? p. 425
The objections raised by the traditionalist to this statement would no doubt be: It is a poor choice of words to say that the wicked will be made immortal, as Adam was made to live forever without being immortal. He was given a body that was designed to function forever in its environment. Immortality is a gift only to the redeemed, and the term is applied to the resurrection body, not the soul.
In most of my doctrinal articles I wrote as a third person explorer/student rather than give my opinion. My job in the 80s was to reveal the truth about what the "Bible" was saying, so as to expose the decptions of the Watchtower.
When I became a pastor of Hope Chapel West Manhattan (Beach) in the late 80s, we used to take field trips to other churches to observe the various phenomena of various churches. We specialized in churches who did exorcisms to Christians (fake), the various gifts of the Spirit (I can still speak in tongues), and our greatest delight would be to study the human ego and the shadow side of people. It all started when the girl I was dating (the stunt woman for Farrah Fawcett) started attending a black church in downtown LA where she tithed hundreds of dollars a month, to see if it was legit. It was a real circus. I have told the story somewhere but I forget where.
I used to watch all the fake faith healers on TV. Also Gene Scott, Peter Popoff, learned to speak in toungue from Randy Broadhagen in Beaumont, calif. who took me to an exorcism that actually appeared to be real, loved to listen to Katherine Kuhlman - I was saved at a Billy Graham Crusade when I was 8 years old (we were raised Baptists), went to visit Chuck Smith's seminal Calvary Chapel (the mother of all modern protestant churches in America) and saw him write out a check for $1000 out of his own money to a fellow who was about to be kicked out of his house because he was broke, went on The Trinity Broadcasting Network with Paul and Jan Crouch (she didn't like Walter Martin but asked me to come speak), then started a series on cults on TBN's Morning Show or whatever it was called for several weeks. I was a regular on Rich Bueller's radio station (biggest Christian following in So. Cal. at the time for radio) several times, and spoke in tons of churches. My mother volunteered to help edit Robert Shuller's first book in his "Power of Tower" in Garden Grove, Calif., which was also the first and only drive-in church, complete with speakers that fit in your car window and passing the collection plate from car to car.
Then he later created the Crystal Catheral. No doubt that is why they are now broke - too ostentatious.
That was too much. His was the last church I went to (13 yrs old) before becoming a JW at 20 yrs old. I almost became a Seventh-Day Adventist before that, then I read the mighty "truth" book and that started the whole Watchtower/Disneyland ride to nowhere. My gilrfriend and I both embraced the WT at the same time, we looked up a kingdom hall, and got baptised, and converted most of our families.
I have met more pastors all over the world than you can shake a stick at. I love most all of them. Pastors are usually the most underrated and overworked substitue fathers in the world. THAT's why I know Christ, because I have not yet seen or felt anything like the Shekinah of God as among real Christians, especially good pastors. I just take a lot of their quirky private beliefs as inventions of their mind. People buy into Jesus and then want to customize him, like he was a car.
Now back to watching the most poignant movie (at least if you're a Christian/Catholic/believer), written by none other than William Peter Blatty, author of
The Exorcist. Actually his greatest work to me is "The Ninth Configuration," and that is the DVD I'm talking about. I cry every time I watch it. I won't spoil it for you... just realize you won't really understand it until the last 15-20 minutes. It is an unbelievably powerful work for a Christian to read. It is all about hiding from our real selves and the weirdness it creates in us just to survive this life and feel that God has not abandoned you.
Do you know that Blatty was a ghost-writer for Dear Abbey at times?? LOL. Wikipedia says,
In 1959, Blatty ghost-wrote "Dear Abby's" (Abigail van Buren's) bestselling book "Dear Teenager," for which she was praised for her "matronly wit and wisdom"and for which she was named "Mother of the Year," twin honors that the author "to this day" has professed he still isn't sure "how to feel about," and then in 1960 he published Which Way to Mecca, Jack?, which dealt humorously with both his early life and his work at the United States Information Agency in Lebanon. He then published the comic novels John Goldfarb, Please Come Home (1963), I, Billy Shakespeare (1965), and Twinkle, Twinkle, "Killer" Kane (1966). Though he achieved great critical success with these books — Marvin Levin in the New York Times, for example, led off a review with "Nobody can write funnier lines than William Peter Blatty, a gifted virtuoso who writes like (S.J.) Perelman", sales and commercial acceptance were lacking.
It was at this point that Blatty began a fruitful collaboration with director Blake Edwards, writing scripts for comedy films such as A Shot in the Dark (1964), What Did You Do in the War, Daddy? (1966), Gunn (1967), and Darling Lili (1970), a musical starring Julie Andrews and Rock Hudson. Without Edwards, Blatty also worked on comedy screenplays as "Bill Blatty", two such credits being the Danny Kaye film The Man from the Diner's Club (1963) and the Warren Beatty-Leslie Caron film "Promise Her Anything" (1965). Others were the film adaptation of John Goldfarb, Please Come Home! (1965), and The Great Bank Robbery (1969).
Later Blatty resumed novel writing. Allegedly retiring to a remote and rented chalet in woodland off Lake Tahoe, Blatty wrote The Exorcist, a story about a twelve-year-old girl being possessed by a powerful demon, that remained on the New York Times bestseller list for 57 straight weeks and at the Number One spot for 17 of them. It would eventually be translated by himself and director William Friedkin into one of the most famous and controversial mainstream horror movies of all time. According to Blatty, Friedkin edited the film in a New York Fifth Avenue office building with the number 666. [citation needed] Blatty would go on to win an Academy Award for his Exorcist screenplay, as well as Golden Globes for Best Picture (he produced the film) and Best Writing. He has made the claim that in its first weeks of publication, The Exorcist novel, despite excellent reviews and much advertising by the publisher, Harper and Row, was deemed a failure and was being returned by bookstores by "the carload" until what he calls "an extraordinary intervention by Fate" which he refuses to describe.
In 1978, Blatty adapted his novel Twinkle, Twinkle, "Killer" Kane! into the retitled The Ninth Configuration; and in 1980 he wrote, directed, and produced a film version. A meditation on God's existence described by one critic as "The Marx Brothers Meets Spellbound" and greeted as a "masterpiece" by The Cincinnati Post and "the finest large-scale American surrealist film ever made" by Peter Travers in People magazine, the film, nevertheless, was a commercial flop. It has since acquired a rather sizable cult following. In 1981 it was nominated for three Golden Globes, among them Best Picture, and won the Best Writing Award against competition that included The Elephant Man (1980), Ordinary People (1980), and Raging Bull (1980).
I think he was a lot like
Dante Alighieri
who wrote "The Divine Comedy," a tour of the mythical hell of the monks of his day, but people later actually BELIEVED it, in spite of it being a comedy and a poke at the Catholic Church! What a guy.
I used to hypnotize chickens - it's pretty easy, just as it's easy to hypnotize ourselves.
-
ÁrbolesdeArabia
How are you healing up from your accident? I know you were suffering after you were hit by that car do you have the pain under control? I will check out that dvd you are speaking about and try not to cry.
Randy did you ever engage with Greg Stafford over the Trinity and other issues? How was he to engage with over various doctrinal sharing of the good news and topics of discussion? I like how he has been mellowing out over the years, I think he is learning humility like Moses was taught in the wilderness for forty years. It's hard to defend many of the teachings, some stuck in our heads from the men of Bethel.
I think you and Greg are really cool guys, you both do your homework and the beauty is we all can share. I don't like the JW "I have the truth and if you don't believe, I am out of here mentality! If the Governing Body was willing to put their beliefs before a conference like you or brother Greg Stafford, maybe people would not think they were cult leaders! It's cowardly to say you have the Truth but are not willing to step forward into the public and engage the religious system. Instead the WTS sends out their pawns into the war-zone while they sit back in their Ivory Towers in Bethel.
-
Dogpatch
Arboles,
I have known Greg for many years. He's even been over to my house to trade old WT books.
I actually had/have him arranged to come over and have a video discussion... but then 2013 set me back a ways. Hopefully we will do it soon. But he won't get away with scripting it. :-))
I only speak spontaneously, and never use notes. That way I can extract the truth from him. :-0
Debate is man's game. I just want y'all to meet him! He's a good guy actually.
But we are not slated to discuss doctrine.... I'd rather you meet him on personal terms in a friendly discussion. I'm way over discussing abstract doctrinal questions that in reality we really know very little about.
Randy
-
Pterist
Thanks Randy for sharing your experiences and inside information from the Tower. Your became historic in Ireland, during the exodus of many in Dublin, following the aftermath of Ray Franz's disfellowshiping.
Does John May and Martin Merryman ring a bell ?
Shalom
-
Dogpatch
Hi Pterist,
I have both an audo interview with John Mays and Martin Merriman, and also a video interview with John and Martin's brother Derrick.
(updated 7/11/2011)
The following are historical audio and video clips culled from the world of Jehovah's Witnesses
You should have latest version of the RealVideo player installed, free of charge by visiting here.
(Find the free software, no need to pay for the deluxe.) Some files will be in Windows Media format. (free download)NEW 7/11/2011) TEST For Jehovah's Witnesses by Floyd Kite, Circuit/District Overseer (article) (audio) (discussion). Jehovah sure is testy and has no trust of his servants.
NEWLY RESTORED VIDEO 5/29/2011 Interview with Derek May and Martin Merriman in 1980 - Derek May and Martin Merriman were elders in Jehovah's Witnesses in Ireland. When they heard of the expulsion of Raymond Franz, high-level member of their elite Governing Body in 1979, John May and Martin flew out to ask the Governing Body, "Why?" Governing Body member Lyman Swingle insults all the Jehovah's Witnesses in Ireland by refusing to even meet with them. Not the same as the taped interview with John May and Martin Merriman.
Interview on mp3 format with John May and Martin Merriman coinciding with above interview (1980)
Barbara Anderson's Tour of Beth-Sarim and Rutherford's secret grave (7/9/08)
Executive Director WT Robert Wallen on the dangers of "apostasy" from 2001 KM School (8/13/08)
Edward Dunlap, former Watchtower Gilead Instructor on the Franz Incident (mp3 format, 28 meg)
Phone Interview with Tom Cabeen 5/16/08, former Jehovah's Witness, now Roman Catholic in faith
Cris and Norma Sanchez, former Bethel Spanish translators testimony of how they were treated at Watchtower headquarters in 1979.
MP3 format | Real Media part 1 part 2 (RealMedia format, free player)Randall Watters and Robert Sullivan, What Happened at the Watchtower Headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses in the Spring of 1980? MP3 format | REAL MEDIA format: part 1 part 2
Sam Herd, Governing Body member, gives Sunutko-type talk in 2005! (audio only, mp3 format, 9 minute CLIP from talk)
Jehovah's Witnesses and Mental Illness with Dr. Jerry Bergman on YouTube
NBC Jehovah's Witnesses child sexual abuse on YouTube (11/23/07)
Barbara Anderson on JWs and Pedophiles with WSMV.com (11/22/07)
-
Scott77
marked
-
Pterist
Wow, brings back great memories of these good friends....thank you so much For sharing.
