Rocky

The only person I ever heard say it was Loy C Martindale. And he most definitely seemed outright malicious when he said it. Otherwise, I agree with your comment.

Btw, thanks for asking.

Well, for one, Hollywood isn't quite as closed of a society/subculture even though it may be reasonable to cite some strong common bonds between many people who would be considered part of Hollywood. In twi, I never saw or heard anyone voicing strong feelings about political views contrary to group norms. In Hollywood, while it may be commonly understood that most of "them" are politically liberal, you still have the James Woods and Jon Voights and (before he passed) Charleton Heston. Who speak/spoke out boldly and emphatically with starkly contrasting views and values. There's no question that the Branch Davidians were a cult. The Turpins (the 13 kids severely abused) are an extreme example of a closed social group and how tragic it can be. Also in contrast, the ISS (International Space Station) of course had/has the potential but it's not a closed social group. By virtue of the nature of "international" it has to have openness and communications norms (unwritten rules) and written rules to safeguard both the scientific work and the cooperation between nations. Back in the 1980s, when I was going to college, I learned in communications classes about group dynamics, specifically that groups small and large go through stages: Forming, storming, norming, performing. Groups start for a reason. There develops or exists common interests and goals. But before the group can accomplish its intended purpose, there will be conflict. Among those who stay in the group, they figure out what rules (written or not) that they can live with. Not everyone who's there at the beginning, stays through this stage, but for those who do, they then can accomplish their common objectives and goals. Unintended consequence comes in when there's no leadership that can wisely guide the group through those stages. Leadership in this context is an intangible concept, not necessarily always provided in the same way in all groups. Of course there's more to it, but that's the gist.

But tangible, undeniable consequence nevertheless... though I don't agree with all of the analogues you cited being legitimately comparable.

Excellent point.

Were they ever known to make wise decisions when it came to money?

Sin is sin. Yours is almost certainly not any worse than mine. There are only degrees in human perception thereof. From that perspective, Graham was a sinner, so are you and I.

Two very poignant questions.

Sound logic? Really?? It's not so easy to prove a negative. And I don't see where you did so.

Exactly.

Of course you must be right... because fundamentalism. That makes anyone right just because he says he is, despite paradoxes and ambiguities.

Time to Rise UP! ... oh, wait that's not it. Oh yeah, March 4th! It reminds me of someone I once knew... Then again, it's never the wrong day to Rise UP!

But then again, there's this... about Billy Graham.

Ouch! How gracious of you GS to offer to clarify like that.

It looks like you have overthought the topic. Didn't you (at least once) mention that you're aware of Occam's razor?

And as for Jesus, did he not spend time with those who hadn't heard of him, with those who didn't believe who he was, and with those who only knew vague whispers about a Messiah? Was not the Promise to Abraham, who'd never heard of Jesus? Does God not want all people to be saved? Unwise to lift Rom 10:9,10 out of context. Get a bigger vision than what TWI taught, especially about these verses. Get a bigger view of "saved" and salvation, too. And note, while you're about it, that BG [Billy Graham] didn't call people to his own cultic ministry. He referred people to local churches, places in their area, where they could be taught, mentored, guided, not by him but by people who knew the area and culture into which he was preaching. He didn't take all the glory to himself but acknowledged his fellow laborers (local churches) in their work for God. Thanks for that insight Twinky. I've thought for several years that it would be unjust for God to limit salvation/eternal life (if there really will be such a thing/experience) to only those who fulfill the requirements of Romans 10:9 and 10. Of course, I also have read those verses from Romans 2 before but don't remember having considered them from this perspective. This also sort of redeems BG in my mind, since I am torn regarding his outsized influence on American politics.

Those might be appropriate for this open forum. :)

Oh... how silly of me to read the underlying meaning.

Umm... not necessarily. It's YOUR fictive retelling (or at least interpretation) of things you want to be the history.

Mike, that's lazy conjecture, not analytical or anything approaching objective or rational.

Why are you afraid that someone might disagree with you? My answer to your hypothetical question of what God could possibly have told someone to do... is how would anyone know whether God would have done so? Put another way, you posted a good comment about civil society needing laws... why would God tell someone to plagiarize someone else's copyrighted work? Wouldn't it have made more sense for God to tell Wierwille to either ask permission or give proper credit to authors he borrowed from? That is, unless Wierwille was more interested in giving himself the glory as opposed to giving it to God.

Quite true. Carrying this idea further, Mike has not made any argument that would come close to suggesting Wierwille was obeying God by plagiarizing.

That sure sounds an awful lot like the logical fallacy, "appeal to authority."