wof and living 120 years

tbeachhead

Well-known member
In other words..., an 80 year old wof from 40 years ago hasn't made it to 120? No examples of 120 year wof even though it's been popular to "confess" it since the late 1970's?

I thought Cho wasn't wof..., according to wof in the forum when he was brought up years ago. Just like Hinn. 😆
Besides Copeland, I haven't heard a lot of folks referring to that number as desirable.

As far as. Cho goes, if WoF criticism consists only of a list of geriatric targets and pure ad hom, Cho was not on the list. If WoF is based on principles of faith that can actually be examined and qualitatively critiqued, the principles he taught belong here.
 

Yodas_Prodigy

Well-known member
Besides Copeland, I haven't heard a lot of folks referring to that number as desirable.

As far as. Cho goes, if WoF criticism consists only of a list of geriatric targets and pure ad hom, Cho was not on the list. If WoF is based on principles of faith that can actually be examined and qualitatively critiqued, the principles he taught belong here.
There is some selective memory. Or perhaps revisionist history. Yes, numbers of WOF disciples who posted here believed that. One was Debtfree… I can’t remember one guy’s handle. I loved when he posted because he was the stereo typical WOF and didn’t hide it. Didn’t duck what he believed…
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
There is some selective memory.
On which point? I remember discussing Yonghi Cho. Was he "Paul" then, or "David?" I don't remember discussing the years. Collecting years is as pointless as collecting gold, when the streets are lined with it and the years ahead are endless. Steven's death was at a young age...That's a WoFer's death that is admirable.

When WoF or any believer goes into Afghanistan to take the gospel to the gates of hell, I don't care if he winds up under the altar with the beheaded, he knows the gates will not prevail. When someone is sitting in the US binging on Netflix, it really doesn't matter much what he says he is.

Or perhaps revisionist history. Yes, numbers of WOF disciples who posted here believed that. One was Debtfree… I can’t remember one guy’s handle. I loved when he posted because he was the stereo typical WOF and didn’t hide it. Didn’t duck what he believed…
You're talking about the extension of years, then. OK...My comment stands. I'll go with Paul as he finishes the race...to me, 120 and useless holds no attraction. Effective and fruitful to the end should be every Christian's goal.
 
Last edited:

tbeachhead

Well-known member
That ain't 120..., not even close.
I get that...and like I said to Joe...Collecting years is as pointless as collecting gold, when the streets are lined with it and the years ahead are endless. Steven's death was at a young age...That's a WoFer's death that is admirable.

Why would anyone want to increase years, unless they are well-spent taking the axe to the root of Islam...or doing something else of like value?
 

Tallen

Active member
I get that...and like I said to Joe...Collecting years is as pointless as collecting gold, when the streets are lined with it and the years ahead are endless. Steven's death was at a young age...That's a WoFer's death that is admirable.

Why would anyone want to increase years, unless they are well-spent taking the axe to the root of Islam...or doing something else of like value?
I don't know... I ain't wof and I ain't confessing 120. That's completely and utterly a wof misuse of scripture like the OP demonstrates. Regardless of how far you try to distance yourself from it.
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
I don't know... I ain't wof and I ain't confessing 120. That's completely and utterly a wof misuse of scripture like the OP demonstrates. Regardless of how far you try to distance yourself from it.
Especially if they're getting it from Genesis!

Cope's claiming he heard it from God...that's not scripture, but it sure is verifiable...in a few years. If he dies sooner, we won't need to come up with new ad homs...his claim will bury him.

Hinn claimed God told him the gay movement would end in the nineties. That broke his trumpet, as far as I'm concerned...Moses said I don't need to worry about him, so I don't.
 

BlessedAnomaly

Active member
How about: "Thank you for accusing me of equivocation, and suggesting that you're using a dictionary without clarifying what the definition says, when you answer my question equivocally." How's that?
No, that's an ad hom. Why don't you try what I said instead.

I should appreciate every ad hom from you guys. BTW...thank you so much for this suggestion. I'm sure Ted would gladly clarify.
Well, his response is up to him.

I apologize profusely. You "didn't say, 'He satisfied me.'" You said, "From where I'm sitting, you asked a question. Ted unequivocally answered: Yes. Then he expounded on that answer like you asked me to do in another post." I'm sorry that I saw in your response satisfaction with his answer. When you suggested that he answered "unequivocally", I really should have said, "Oh. I see. Yes...you're so much brighter than I, I shall rely on your view.
Well, until that last clause, you were doing good. Sorry i didn't see your tongue firmly planted in your cheek.

Ted said 'yes.' That's unequivocable. He answered the question, which requested a yes/no answer. And then he expounded. My satisfaction is not necessary in a conversation between you two. But you probably think I'm writing here to be part of the conversation. I'm not. I'm commenting on the unequivocal answer that Ted gave, since you said it was not.

Equivocation: "the use of ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself." I still have no idea what he meant...and neither do you...and he has avoided committing himself. Make up your own word for it...but do not by any means believe that I know English. I'm unqualified to speak it or know it. I need someone brighter than I to explain the language to me.
How is 'Yes' ambiguous? Go back and read my responses for understanding. But to read them, you have to first put down the sword and shield. You have to have clear sight to the words.

This is bizarre on the threshold of the Twilight Zone. What the fat is "my found definition?"
OK...What is your problem? How have you become incapable of civil discourse?
This is civil discourse. How does it seem that I've become incapable? You have your eyes closed and your mind shut down.

What is my problem, Pete? He said 'yes.' I said 'no.' He expounded. I said I have no satisfaction in his response. What comes of that?? You attack me. You're a peach.

Echo chamber here we come. You guys will like that.
Peachy.

This is not a "veiled ad hom." This is in response to your suggesting that you do not interpret scripture, but rely on brighter folks to do that for you.
So it's not a veiled ad hom when you call me dumb? Brighter chums than me??

You do interpret scripture, and you have done a reasonably good job...and you've taken to spewing nonsense with me for some reason that is baffling me.
And now I'm spewing nonsense.

OK....Cleo.
And as you did with Mik, you begin using phrases others are using. Not because they fit, but simply because you are the mirror in a schoolyard tit-for-tat.

Pete, that is not a Cleo mindreading statement. It is a statement of observation. No Cleo needed. It's already clearly on the table.

So, do you want to argue about observation and what is clear. Or are you here to talk about scripture? I'm really beginning to wonder.

And you, on the other hand, have turned this board into an ad hominem attack on a select group of hated televangelists, so that anyone who is not them should not be mentioned on this board.
When have I ever coddled up to Copeland here? I was the first to speak against him causing one Maestroh to almost have a brain aneurism because someone on the WoF side actually spoke against it's leader. Have I ever coddled up to Hinn? No, I wouldn't even let him under the WoF umbrella, he was so icky. Who else? Dollar with his two headed dog to redefine existence if God so thought to do so? Laughable.

Pete, let me clue you in just in case you haven't noticed. This is not Christian Forums. This site is not WoF friendly, as you know. So if you come here you are coming for the fight, because most people here won't like your doctrines.

This is not an ad hom . This is likewise an observation...I have never "dismissed the major teachers of the message". I've dismissed their jets and focused on the message. For you it's solely them and their jets. The message will outlast them...and it will certainly outlast their jets. Focus on it, and we can still the echoes.
No?
  • ...if WoF is officially redefined as only that which Hagin and Copeland spew...
  • I've seen Copeland close up...He's not guiding my opinions...ever.
These are your words, Pete. So you include spewing in your teaching? You don't dismiss what is not guiding your opinions? I'm being overly pedantic here. admittedly. But your inconsistencies will outlast their jets as well.

This is getting bi-polar for me...All of this can be purged of acrimony and become enjoyable. The issues are more important daily, as the Day approaches.
They have meds for that. ;)
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
Ted said 'yes.' That's unequivocable. He answered the question, which requested a yes/no answer. And then he expounded. My satisfaction is not necessary in a conversation between you two. But you probably think I'm writing here to be part of the conversation. I'm not. I'm commenting on the unequivocal answer that Ted gave, since you said it was not.

How is 'Yes' ambiguous? Go back and read my responses for understanding.
"Yes" is not ambiguous. That's not ALL he said, and your gaslighting. Go back. Read it again. You admitted his ambiguity in an accidental burst of candor.
But to read them, you have to first put down the sword and shield. You have to have clear sight to the words.
To read them you need sunglasses. The gaslighting is too intense...
[snip]
They have meds for that. ;)
This strand needs them quickly. How do you get a prescription for a thread on a CARM forum?
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
Echo Chamber?

Why would one want that?
Every time I channel surf the news, and find that every report is using the same copy word for word, I'm asking myself that.

The propagandist would have it that you're comfortable hearing exactly the same thing day after day...you begin to think they're cleverer than you are, and they will do all the processing!

"Why, look! After all, they're all standing in front of the same bookshelves! Look at all those books. They must be more clever than I."
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
Every time I channel surf the news, and find that every report is using the same copy word for word, I'm asking myself that.

The propagandist would have it that you're comfortable hearing exactly the same thing day after day...you begin to think they're cleverer than you are, and they will do all the processing!

"Why, look! After all, they're all standing in front of the same bookshelves! Look at all those books. They must be more clever than I."

Noticed that ......

'This is the way to think, believe be'.


Or ...... perhaps this is more like what they are saying.

'This is the way to think, believe; to not be.
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
Noticed that ......

'This is the way to think, believe be'.


Or ...... perhaps this is more like what they are saying.

'This is the way to think, believe; to not be.
Except, you begin to notice there is an increasingly alarming, and less veiled threat each time they say, "Believe this way..." in the echo chamber itself there is a resonant "...or else!" after every echo.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
Except, you begin to notice there is an increasingly alarming, and less veiled threat each time they say, "Believe this way..." in the echo chamber itself there is a resonant "...or else!" after every echo.,


I noticed this in a movie a once watched. ,

Tried to google it but couldn't find it. (classic)


Any way to paraphrase; Hello .....hello....... helllo ..... hello ....... hello .... hello

The guy does it again ........ Hello .....hello....... helllo ..... hello ....... hello .... hello

But get's a different reply, at the end of the echo.

I just scratched my head on that one.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
I tried to google echo chamber bible.

But did not find a reference.

Seems like I read it before.

Does anyone have a reference?
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
Hosea,

“Then the Lord said to me, ‘Go and love your wife again, even though she commits adultery with another lover. This will illustrate that the Lord still loves Israel, even though the people have turned to other gods and love to worship them.’” - Hosea 3:1

Not Hosea ...... but my reply would be something like; deal with your own problems.

I got my own.......


NOT WoF either ...... or a little god,

But when I first read that text, circa 30 yrs ago ...... that was what I was thinking. (what a jerk)

Then ...... the matter of course kicked in; this is bible, it is true.

so I went along with it.

Circa again ........ I still think the same thing I thought about this .... the first time I read it.
 
Last edited:

BlessedAnomaly

Active member
"Yes" is not ambiguous. That's not ALL he said, and your gaslighting. Go back. Read it again. You admitted his ambiguity in an accidental burst of candor.
And this is exactly what I said.

I separated his statement into two parts. One: "Yes." That is not ambiguous or equivocating in the least. It is a direct answer.

Then the second part of his statement, I said did not satisfy me. But I was not there to be satisfied. It was your conversation. I didn't care. There is no "burst of candor" if I said it openly, honestly and clearly.

To read them you need sunglasses. The gaslighting is too intense...
[snip]
So do you teach grade school? I thought you taught high school where kids were more.....mature. Your penchant for these accusations is quite juvenile. Why don't you just deal with the subject matter and quit being so didactic on the word choice.

This strand needs them quickly. How do you get a prescription for a thread on a CARM forum?
.
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
And this is exactly what I said.

I separated his statement into two parts. One: "Yes." That is not ambiguous or equivocating in the least. It is a direct answer.

Then the second part of his statement, I said did not satisfy me. But I was not there to be satisfied. It was your conversation. I didn't care. There is no "burst of candor" if I said it openly, honestly and clearly.


So do you teach grade school? I thought you taught high school where kids were more.....mature. Your penchant for these accusations is quite juvenile. Why don't you just deal with the subject matter and quit being so didactic on the word choice.
.
Ted equivocated. This is gaslighting. Look it up. You don't have to be in school to know the term. But you have to be ignorant of the tactic for it to affect you. This is another post about the evils of being me.

Sorry, Bob. Wrong bait. Wrong fish. Not biting.
 
Top