WordWolf

He is not, and at least a few of those names are probably familiar to you, in a "THAT's the character's full name?" way.

The MSN link isn't working. However, it looks like a repost from the Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/02/21/divorce-drugs-drinking-billy-grahams-children-and-their-absent-father/?utm_term=.6e65c4c4e98f Let me know if that link stops working. There's some claims there about Graham being a bad Dad, and a single long-term affair during his marriage. I'm curious if there's some more documentation about the latter; the former seems to be rather solid-and a sad consequence of not enough priority on his family. (Understandable how it happened but it doesn't make it right.) Even the Washington Post couldn't find more than that, so that's probably (pending more information) as bad as it got. Considering some allusions, I expected to hear a lot worse than that (which, again, doesn't make it right.)

Skip Tarkenton Mark Kendall Walter Getz Johnny Squares Wiploc Joe Wenteworth Tony Moroni Bobby Todd Brad Peters Tim Carter Steven Russell Scott Riles Steve Gray Dave Williams Walter Sparrow Ebenezer Scrooge Dick Harper Joel Barish Bruce Nolan Peter Appleton Fletcher Reede

I know who it is, and I can name the last movie. George is ahead of me.

He was quoted in a non-political context, and that was all that was said. If the OP had posted more, I would have reminded him that he was getting political. (Personally, I wouldn't even have quoted him because of the rule, but I'm not the OP. I imagine the moderators would have let that much go without comment as well. Besides, he's been posting here a while and has heard the rule before. Your post was left completely alone, and you were advised political discussions aren't allowed here. No action was taken against you except being told that. Calling it a "chastisement" may be a bit of a stretch. As for the book you mentioned, there's plenty you can say without violating copyright. If someone you knew asked you about the book, what more would you tell them? If there's some horrible scandal of Graham's that it mentions, you could say something about it without extensive quoting. Even brief quoting is perfectly legal (providing you cite your source, which it's clear you would have done. What you did was like saying someone has to read this book by someone else, but you won't say why they should find it relevant. If I have to start getting into searches for the most vague information on the subject, I'll do what everyone else does and just scroll down. We're in a discussion forum. Please discuss. BTW, you're acting like you've been yelled at and gotten moderator warnings. You might want to calm down and stop deciding that any disagreement with you is hostility. We discuss lots of things and disagree all the time here. It's healthy.

"Dr. Carol Burns also has a well-researched and documented book "Billy Graham and His Friends: A Hidden Agenda?" that looks much deeper than just the goody-two-shoes facade of TV preachers' football stadium revivals... " That's what you said. If there's some point to the reference, please make it. Otherwise, instead of making a point, you're assigning homework. You're the one who had a point to make, something to say, so please say it. We've had plenty of people who've made vague comments and actually had nothing to add to discussions before. We'd prefer to see people add something to the discussions. "You can believe whatever you want. Don't do your homework. I don't care if you do or not. I have done mine. Please make your specifics about how you know Billy is squeaky clean." "Did you ever spend time with him in his motorcoach?" Well, if you've already done it, then it's a piece of cake to get specific about what you know, what you've seen, heard, read, etc. Graham's lived his life in the public eye. I've not heard of any story breaking of him caught doing something- yet stories have broken about lots of others- Swaggart, Baker, Roberts, etc. What I HAVE heard is all consistent with a man free of scandal. His standard policy was to never ride in an elevator alone with a woman not his wife. Sounds extreme to some ears, but I think it's a sensible precaution for someone who's taking extraordinary steps to avoid opportunities to sin. For the rest, proving a negative doesn't work- but the absence of scandals where many of his peers were caught says quite a bit. That's as specific as I can get. If there's anything more concrete than "he's a public minister, they have authority, they all abuse their authority", then this would be a good time to bring it up. "If you think 'The Way's' Preacher on a Pedestal had enough money to cover all their evil tracks, you can bet your bottom that Billy has many more millions to cover his. If you don't know that Power = Corruption in this world except in the case of the incorruptible man Jesus Christ, keep right on believing that. You're free to belive whatever you want." So, looks like nothing specific. BTW, vpw had enough of a system to keep from getting arrested and exposed publicly while alive- but plenty of people knew and have stepped forward. He died before it caught up with him. As for power corrupting, I think it amplifies what's there. Someone who's corrupt will abuse power, someone who is not will not. We've seen there were people in twi with authority who never considered abusing it; I've never abused any authority I've had nor have I wanted to. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" was from Lord Acton, not the Bible. I feel at liberty to disagree with Lord Acton and to cite counter-examples. "Don't know who you are, I don't want to have to do the homework to find out. But I'm sure if you're the head Preacher here, or owner of this site, or moderator, or whatever, that you may decide to Mark & Avoid me like I've read so many people on here were, or you may just delete my posts, or completely delete my profile, it's ok, life goes on. If that is your revenge, go right ahead, it'll be just like old times. And I've been thrown out of much better places anyway. Have at it. I've tangled with better. I don't see much difference between your attitude and the attitudes of the people who are criticized so much here for things they apparently did to innocent people years ago. It's ok though, because I read posts on this site for some time before deciding to post here also, knowing that it would not be long before the attacks came. Lovely." "Oh, and if you are the decision-maker on this site, please try to find it within yourself to give me a little notice if you are going to kick me off the site so that I can say 'bye to the people who have been nice to me here. Otherswise if you just kick me off without any notice, then that will give me the right to tell others how this website is a cult, just like many people here have stated that 'The Way' is a cult because they got booted out with no notice either." That's an awful lot to build up, all from a notice that politics are no longer allowed on the GSC after some bad history with it. Amazing how fast I'm accused of things I never even suggested. I'm not the head anything here, but I post, and sometimes people find something useful in them. After you put down the chair, you might find something as well. Or you may not-there's no rule about that either way, with my posts or anyone else's. The GSC is remarkably free-handed in that respect. "Oh and by the way, since you apparently don't know, Politics and Religion are the same thing, just two arms of the same body, and if you haven't figured that out by now, well, then you do need to do your homework. " Politics, and anything that allows authority over someone, can resemble each other, but none of them are the same thing. Political discussions in particular got really contentious on this site, and wasted the time of the moderators. The admin considered either shutting the entire site down, or shutting down the political section and political discussion in general. He chose to go with the latter. Anyone is welcome to make their own messageboard for politics or anything else- and in this case, someone made a political forum with the blessings of the admin. Eventually it wound down and I don't think it exists anymore. Anyone's welcome to make a new one. I could have sworn we were discussing the recent passing-away of Billy Graham....

As to WHY politics is not allowed on the GSC, the answer is long. Briefly stated, it's not allowed anymore. The GSC is not about politics, but allowing discussions of politics took over the board, monopolized the moderators, and almost doomed the board. No more politics, period. So, let's keep politics off this thread. As to whether Billy Graham had some issues, problems, etc, please make your specifics. If I have to do the homework, I won't bother and I'll at least suspect it's a bluff. The Billy Graham I've heard of was as free of corruption as you can get as a person- someone who did his best to avoid situations where he might consider sinning. (That really cuts the odds down.) I'm sorry to hear he went, but he had a long life- partially due to clean living (vpw died in his 60s after decades of chronic smoking and drinking.)

Skip Tarkenton Mark Kendall Walter Getz Johnny Squares Wiploc Joe Wenteworth Tony Moroni Bobby Todd Brad Peters Tim Carter Steven Russell Scott Riles Steve Gray Dave Williams Walter Sparrow

I'm going back to taking another drink when someone's the "best in their field" or "top of their field." I think the business of "confabulation" is relevant here- the real meaning. We're getting posts of CONFABULATED MEMORIES. We're getting "I wish I'd done this" conflated with "And here's what I did" and the conflater, like other conflaters, isn't even aware they're doing it. However, they've heard this before and remembered the TERM but not the meaning. Naturally, the rest of us aren't going to exactly swallow the sandwich that's being offered.

If you need me to explain this, you really aren't half as smart as you're advertising. I don't even have to expound- just post the verses, and the meaning of his fulfilling the law should be plain enough- for those not trying to be deliberately obtuse, that is. Hebrews 4:14-16 KJV "14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." Hebrews 5:1-12 KJV "1For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: 2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. 3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. 4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. 5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. 6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; 10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec. 11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. 12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat." Hebrews 7:23-28 KJV "23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. 26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. 28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore." Hebrews 9:24-28 KJV "24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."

My subconscious failed to connect the dots. That and I forgot the 3 sequels to Hamlet. *ducks* Having never sat down to watch Lethal Weapon 1 made the big clue harder to remember.

So, what, exactly, lined up "very nicely" with what?

Psalm 116:8-12 KJV "8 For thou hast delivered my soul from death, mine eyes from tears, and my feet from falling. 9 I will walk before the Lord in the land of the living. 10 I believed, therefore have I spoken: I was greatly afflicted: 11 I said in my haste, All men are liars. 12 What shall I render unto the Lord for all his benefits toward me?" Psalm 116:8-12 NASB "For You have rescued my soul from death, My eyes from tears, My feet from stumbling. 9 I shall walk before the Lord In the [e]land of the living. 10 I believed when I said, “I am greatly afflicted.” 11 I said in my alarm, “All men are liars.” 12 What shall I render to the Lord For all His benefits [f]toward me?" Psalm 116:8-12 CEV "You, Lord, have saved my life from death, my eyes from tears, my feet from stumbling. 9 Now I will walk at your side in this land of the living. 10 I was faithful to you when I was suffering, 11 though in my confusion I said, “I can’t trust anyone!” 12 What must I give you, Lord, for being so good to me?" =================================== When vpw/twi bases a docrrine on EXACTLY ONE VERSE (or less), I'm highly suspicious it may have meant nothing of the kind. I see no reason to think this verse is outlining a rule that says "All men are liars." Looks to me like that was the state of mind of the psalmist at the moment he said that, whether true or not.

If you say so. Meanwhile, we're trying to guess a song here. so.... *snicker* Human's turn.

There's a rephrasing of your False Dilemma. Nobody said they expected that. (And there's been more than the few hundred more recent posts.) Nobody HAD "that cartoon naivete" that exasperated you-needlessly. This "Pure Evil" model is just as cartoonish AND IMAGINARY as that IMAGINED expectation. But to you, comparing your thought processes with those imaginary ones sure makes you look less the fool by comparison...at least, that's the intention.

Ok, sincerely offered explanation, sincerely accepted. I'll do my best to make this brief, simple, and relevant. ========================== What's a rationalization? A rationalization is a MASK. Someone wants to do something, so they PRETEND they have a rational reason for wanting to do it. They construct a fake reason that SOUNDS rational, and says that's why they want to do it. It's NOT rational, but it's trying to fake it. The point of a rationalization is someone wanting to do something and looking for an excuse to do it even though they don't have a sensible reason. What's a False Dilemma? A False Dilemma is a type of rationalization. Someone wants to do something, so they construct 2 things- 1) a mask for what they WANT to do, to make it sound much better than it is; and 2) a grotesque parody of realty that represents what they want all the other possibilities to look like- in order to make their choice look better by comparison. The next step is to pretend that there are exactly two-and ONLY 2- possibilities- the one they want, and the hideous option they invented to make their choice look better by comparison. In this case, Mike, you're offering exactly 2 options: 1) believe what you want to believe- which you're claiming is fantastic and only a fool would give it up for any reason; or 2) completely discard everything you believe all at once to embrace this "Pure Evil" construct you've invented and named that bears no resemblance to what anyone is actually SAYING. The obvious thing about this, Mike, is that it's a giveaway. It's a basic strategy for someone who has SQUAT. Every person relies on what they have going for them in a discussion. "If you have the law on your side, hammer the law. If you have the facts on your side, hammer the facts." Someone relying on making something up to contrast with their position just to look good is like someone who goes out to singles bars-making sure to bring along an acquaintance who's incredibly ugly to sit next to in order to look like a better option. You keep speaking of this "Pure Evil" mockery you've invented, and expect people to take you seriously. I once said "I disagree" to someone, and they began making up all sorts of things they IMAGINED I agreed with or condemned, like condemning mixed marriages (Mrs Wolf was amused to hear me tell her that one.) Do you think that person was taken seriously as someone ready to have a discussion? If you really want to discuss what different people here believe about vpw, for example, we CAN explain it briefly and clearly- and NONE of it conforms to your "PURE EVIL" construct.

"Clean shirt, new shoes And I don't know where I am goin' to. Silk suit, black tie, I don't need a reason why."

Ok, next one. Skip Tarkenton Mark Kendall Walter Getz Johnny Squares Wiploc Joe Wenteworth

The US ones included both versions of "Battlebots" (on Comedy Central, then ABC as well as cable), and "Robot Combat League". (SyFy.) There were some more shows in the UK or Australia or something, but I'm blanking on their names. FREE POST!

Raf may want to post a round, since it's his turn.

I think we're saying the same thing using different reasons. His narcissism was the reason he expected to own them for life. To a narcissist, they're not people, they're THINGS. Once he acquired the THINGS (the Christians), he expected he owned them for life- and was angry they wanted to live lives of their own, sooner or later.

I think it would be a great victory-for your sake- to get past this same FALSE DILEMMA that blocks your growth, but you seem determined to cling to it. Really, my offer to explain it to you is still a sincere one.

That was the thing. There were genuine Christians doing things, young and naive. vpw went and convinced them he was some great one and turned them into his recruiting arm. After that, he expected them to be his property for life. Otherwise, he'd have expected they'd all have to take care of their families as time passed (it's in the Bible, folks!) His absence of such thinking indicated he expected them to subordinate their entire lives to twi and whatever he wanted.

Some actors were easy to spot. Dom de Luise is lost in the swamp. James Coburn, Paul Williams, Madeline Kahn, Telly Savalas and Carol Kane are ALL in the El Sleazo Cafe. Milton Berle runs the used-car lot. Mel Brooks plays the mad scientist who prepares the cerebrectomy (it turns the brain into guacamole.) Charles Durning was Doc Hopper. Cloris Leachman was Lew Lord's receptionist, and Orson Welles was Lew Lord. Jerry Nelson, Richard Hunt and Dave Goelz all operated Muppets- and snuck into the El Sleazo and the gunmen squad. Caroll Spinney was the actor for Big Bird for decades-who is hitchhiking to NYC to try to break into public television rather than go to Hollywood. Gonzo's dream was to move to Bombay, India and become a movie star. (But people go to Hollywood for that. Sure-if they want to do it the EASY WAY....) Kermit the Frog rode a Schwinn bicycle fairly early in the movie- a scene after the banjo scene. Fozzie drove the Studebaker. ("A bear in his natural habitat- a Studebaker.") Steve Martin sold ice cream- including some Dragonfly Ripple to Kermit. The soundtrack is fairly memorable- not terribly surprising considering Paul Williams worked on the songs. The most-remembered song, however, was "The Rainbow Connection" which deserves the recognition it gets. Some of us really like other songs as well-as named above.

True!