WhiteDove

No it's equal both arrived at the truth , I just did not need to be there to arrive at it. My point exactly.

Either it is true or it it not period , since I have yet to see anyone prove different information I have posted on events ,I'd say the record speaks for itself. By the way here is something else to chew on I've read more than a few posts here where those in residence have stated that they did not have a clue what was going on. So what did I miss obviously their experiance did not help them one bit? It seems I did know what was going on, Yep you guessed it All the way in Kansas. I'd submit being geographically present (actual experiential knowledge) apperantly did not get the job done....... I often knew things going on at Emporia before those who were there did, when visiting I'd ask about so and so , they had no clue.....

My factual information tells me the buildings are no longer there where they once were. I believe that is correct, Case closed......I did not need to be there to know that. People posting of their experiences, are no different than people telling me their's. One is no more credible than the other. Lots of talk but no substance ...I'm guessing because you have none to offer. Other than 1st grade name calling. Gee what A big boy we are..... I'll be waiting for proof of your claims , Oh by the way you can find the quote in the book as well ...Happy looking......

I guess you were never known as one who could read either...... I think I pretty much did, factual information the same kind that is available on any subject. One does not need to be present to be in the know, one only has to access information that is factual.

If geographical presence is the standard for which one is credible to speak then it should remain the same for all pro or con. Like or dislike for the person ,event ,organization ect. should not be a factor. You asked if I agreed with that I did , IF that is the standard. Personally I think that is a flawed standard. And most likely would decrease the posts here dramatically. While personal presence is certainly advantageous ,it is not the only means to know what is factual. Case in point I was not present in NY when the towers fell ,but there is a vast amount of video, newspaper articles, magazines ,TV, internet, and so forth to give one a factual picture of what occurred. Personal accounts coupled with hard evidence when compiled makes one qualified to speak with accuracy even all the way from Kansas. Remind me again how you know what Mrs. Wierwille said at a funeral that YOU were not at?

No that was the topic... Read it DWBH made a claim, I simply asked for him to do that which is required of everyone else substantiate his claim. I guess if it's anti way the rules change ,how is it not attacking a poster when the shoe is on the other foot? We are required to prove claims made, the standard should be the same for all. Do we get the luxury of of replying PT no, we are challenged, and generally by a pack, on the thread. Why do you think the rules should change for some? As to your other claim I believe that a poster was told by someone else that occurred. Another fact that is not substantiated firsthand as you like to claim. By the way you were not there so you have no right to claim what Mrs. Wierwille said ,you don't know, isn't that your story , if you were not there you are not qualified to speak? or does that blow with the wind of BS like everything else? It's a simple question Yes or No is it there in print?

I made no claim that you were wrong in everything that you posted. I simply asked for documentation regarding the quote you stated as true. I made it as simple as I could for you...Either it is or it is not there. You can respond or not, your choice it's your integrity and honesty that is at stake ,you made the claim not me. The print will tell who was correct. Yes? You may be correct , let's see......

We - those with common sense,Oh and can read, to look at a book and see the absence/or proof of such a claim. Pretty simple either it exists or not!

Not my claim, as I remember it is the burden of the claimer here to prove their claims othewise we will assume it for what it is fabricated BS. The question stands DWBH I seemed to have missed that part in her book, I'd like to read it could you provide documentation of quote? page number? chapter? .

DWBH I seemed to have missed that part in her book, I'd like to read it could you provide documentation of quote? page number? chapter?

Actually you are incorrect in your assumptions.

What? was the running busines slow and you broke into the case today?

I hear just fine actually the question you asked was ......... to which my response was....... Obviously ,that was the point if one applies then so should the same from the other side of the argument. If geographical presence is the standard for which one is credible to speak then it should remain the same for all pro or con. Like or dislike for the person ,event ,organization ect. should not be a factor. You asked if I agreed with that I did , IF that is the standard. Personally I think that is a flawed standard. And most likely would decrease the posts here dramatically. While personal presence is certainly advantageous ,it is not the only means to know what is factual. Case in point I was not present in NY when the towers fell ,but there is a vast amount of video, newspaper articles, magazines ,TV, internet, and so forth to give one a factual picture of what occurred. Personal accounts coupled with hard evidence when compiled makes one qualified to speak with accuracy even all the way from Kansas.

And you had your opportunity to do just that , and I have mine, to point out my opinion that 1. you don't know if he has or has not repented ,because you don't know what he is doing by your own admission. and 2. you were not there, the mantra you demand from me needs to apply to you as well in your observations, if that is the standard for logic you are going to throw out there. and 3. Jesus did not do what you are doing he knew of that which he spoke, a large difference, He did not ask a Trinitarian who most likely in the interest of disclosure has a problem with a organization and it's followers that printed a book on Jesus Christ is not God for a fair assessment of what they are is doing. Nor a former MOG that was fired from his cush job and relies on his 20 year old memory of how things are. No Jesus knew the state of affairs before he opened his mouth. This has not a thing to do with you personally just clearing up the record of facts.

Well that is certainly one possibility , I can think of a few others. Of course you would think there is credibility to one's posts that agree with a one sided agenda. If your criteria is it agrees with what I like to hear, some people will believe anything.

Nice try, but actually the topics and context was the same VF. your words ,you don't know the man yet you seem to want to pontificate on what he is ,does ,or stands for. You were not there you don't know.

Obviously ,that was the point if one applies then so should the same from the other side of the argument.

Actually your conclusion is incorrect. But none the less the standard should remain the same for all. These who have invested no time in VF ministry really have nothing to speak of. It's a guess based on a Trinitarians view of the the Way.

Makes perfect sense You invoke Jesus as some proof you know what you are speaking of yet you admit you don't. Exactly how many hours or years have you followed what VF is doing? And yet unlike Jesus who you seem to wanna hold up as like you , you aren't you have no idea what he is doing. And were you personally involved ? Were you there? By your own admission no. So what gives you the right to speak with any authority? Isn't that your argument or does in only apply one way?

Probably for the same reason that you post here time and again your personal rants about..... Gee just about everyone. And how you, who somehow escaped and have become the poster boy for how to do it. Yeah we get it you are the man with all the answers, you can enlighten us on how everyone else is doing, all from your keyboard and your 20 year old memories. What's you purpose for burdening us with yet another of your self righteous lectures? Does it still sting that you did not make it in the religious circle and they did?

Indeed ....and that If is a big difference I'll just add right about here a small fact, Jesus knew the truth about the Pharisees and Sadducees before he opened his mouth and spoke . Let me bring to memory your own admissions........ And yet you ,unlike Jesus admittedly don't know of what you speak and yet you feel inclined to offer such gossip or back biting from your lack of knowledge. So let me get this straight now not only is he to apologize to your satisfaction and terms here ,for his own self ,but also now for someone else as well. Do you hold yourself to the same standard ? Have you come here and listed everyone you have ever wronged ,every sin are they listed? and do you apologize for others as well?

Really ? Exactly how many facts have you personally discussed. Or do you just believe what you hear. How much time have you invested in actually looking at what he does or does not do? Doctrine aside how familiar are you with what he does day to day for others? How many of their materials have you read or heard where he discusses what he thinks? No you took your facts from a person not even involved ,who has an obvious agenda with the Way and any of it's people and accepted his sideline comments as facts. Oh and then there is DWBH who based his comments on what he knew some 20 years ago, so I'll ask you, are you the same person that you were 20 years ago? Do you feel the same about the Way as you did? I'd guess not, so why would you accept as facts someone's recollection of what someone was 20 years ago as factual as to what they are today?

Naw I don't have to I can just read it ......... Your we is getting smaller by the minute. Perhaps you might want to rethink your claim, or you could keep telling yourself that the obvious is not true.

Well, and a few others...... Faulty logic It's Christ in me does that make me a lord? These statements are independant of each other.