WordWolf

Since it was obscure, I'm taking as a given it wasn't "Cagney and Lacey."

The "9/10 will go farther" was DEFINITELY a doctrine. That's why we can all quote the thing decades later, and so can you. "If God is really involved" is a very big IF- and switches "this is what God Almighty said to do, so He will back it up" - and He did NOT say to do this, therefore He will not back it up- with "If God is really involved", then He will back it up- which is the same mistake you keep making. God is REQUIRED to follow doctrines He never made but YOU assigned to Him. YOUR will be done. John: "Faith as a grain of mustard seed, remember? If God is really involved, everything is better." Luke 17:5-6 King James Version (KJV) 5 And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith. 6 And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you. This has nothing to do with a doctrine of giving 1/10 of your income, nor is this a promise that, if you do, the remaining 9/10 will prosper further than if you used all 10/10ths. That was a doctrine taught by vpw in twi, and nobody can find it in the Bible because it isn't there. But it was a required practice of twi, a mandatory practice set out by the doctrine. "This doesn't compute for you because you no longer believe in God." This doesn't compute for the devout Christians either, because A) this doesn't follow logically from the verses you mentioned- which is probably why you keep mentioning them BUT NOT POSTING THEM B) this was never mandated by God Almighty, but by vpw and enforced all through twi accordingly

Still doing it even after being called on it- in this case, by melding your comments with Raf's comments. Raf: "Anyone who gives out of free will, whether it's one percent or 50 percent or more or less, is Biblically justified in doing so. The standard for giving in the New Testament for Christians is not a percentage, but a personal consideration based on faith, speech, knowledge, diligence and love. (Read ii Corinthians 8 for the build up to and follow through on this instruction)." John: "*Agreed! VP said in 'Lifestyle of a believer' that there are 3 things which justify one person giving money to another person. 1) for merchandise, 2) for service, and 3) out of love, which can only be opened from the inside, as I said in my first post, not out of coercion." And we are all personally aware, by experience, that he often said ONE THING on paper in one place that looked pious, and ANOTHER THING in person or on tape that was self-serving. All of us who were in twi were all fully aware that the Tenth/Tithe/ABS was a REQUIRED 10%, required BY vpw, and "his" book that was used to enforce this was REQUIRED reading at pfal, often required as homework between Session 1 and 2 of pfal. vpw made it clear, and that was consistently carried through the rank and file, that it was mandatory. So, then, are you now REPUDIATING THAT TWI PRACTICE INSTITUTED BY VPW? Are you now saying that the MANDATORY Tenth/Tithe/ABS vpw REQUIRED while saying we should give out of love (but demanding we give no matter what) was ERROR? It's a simple yes-no question as to whether you're saying that. If you're NOT saying that, then it's hypocritical to claim this is all voluntary while signing off on vpw's "it's voluntary on paper but in practice it's mandatory" thing. But you're sending mixed signals and being unclear- possibly deliberately to fog the issues, possibly accidentally because you refuse to admit what we all knew THEN-that it was MANDATORY in twi and still is to this day no matter what rhetoric says it is not. Raf: "Using someone's level of giving as a basis for criticizing him or her for not believing enough or not loving enough is an intrusion on that person's privacy. The Bible never instructs Christians to evaluate someone else's practice of giving. Only your own." John: "*I'll dispute you a bit on this one. Jesus told his disciples that a poor woman who gave 2 mites gave more than the pharissees, because she gave all her living while they only gave of their abundance. Maybe he wasn't "criticizing" their giving, but he definitely made a distinction." *checks the account* He made a distinction, but that was hardly the institution of a doctrine. He did not "use her level of giving" or "use the rich's level of giving" "as a basis for criticizing" either her or the rich. There was no comment about how the rich didn't give enough, none about how the rich weren't believing enough which is why they gave less, no CONFRONTATION nor CRITICISM of ANY of the rich about what they didn't do. Mark 12:41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. 42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. 43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: 44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living. There was no intrusion into their privacy. There was no instruction by Jesus of "And you shall examine the rich and how much they give", no instruction of a procedure to evaluate the giving of the widow OR the rich. So, this account has nothing to do with what was said-and therefore is irrelevant when trying to dispute it. ================================== John: "ABS is between individuals and God. I never heard VP blur this." We did! vpw told the insiders-and thus, taped recordings of meetings for the Corps and so on mentioned it- and vpw set the policy which his rank-and-file were required to follow. Coordinators were instructed to address if ABS was absent or under 10% with the locals-and they did. Doing it that way insulated vpw from being the obvious face passing the orders. This made it a little less obvious- but most people were smart enough to know that orders were INSTITUTED by vpw so those policies were HIS. Under vpw, ABS was between individuals and twi. John: "LCM didn't just threaten people with catastrophe about ABS, he once ranted about people not renewing their way mag subscriptions after the free one year subscription after taking pfal. He says you have money for HBO and Cinemax, but not for the way mag. He was mad, too. It's almost comical to think about now. The only bad consequences I, personally, have ever heard about coming to people regarding ABS are leaders spending ABS money on personal stuff. Makes me wonder about the current state of twi." lcm took bad practices HE WAS TAUGHT BY VPW and made them more overt, more obvious, more obnoxious. vpw knew when to whisper something because he didn't want to get caught saying or doing it. vpw knew when he was doing something he should be embarrassed about, or would get criticism if caught doing- but lcm thought vpw's doctrines were Divine, so he had no problems with making ANY of them overt- which, in this case, made him TWICE the money-grubber vpw was. And hearing that anyone in twi was caught embezzling money really should come as no surprise by now. John: "In the fellowship I now attend, we got some financial help in 2006, when much of St. Louis was without power for 8 days, to cover the cost of staying in motels. I'm sure we weren't the only ones, too. Also, in twi, I'm told that 85% of ABS went to HQ and 15% stayed in the limb. Other way around in the current fellowship. Nothing wrong with using ABS money to help people who have a need." So, then, you're saying your current system is much better than the system whose use vpw MANDATED? I just want to be clear. You've endorsed both systems in the past, and by definition, both can't be "the best" since one must be better than the other, and in this case, one practice is VERY different than the other. This is NOT a hard question. John: "I like that you say, "Maybe I'm blessed for that, and maybe I'm not." In other words you trust God and you trust the people and organizations you give to and that's all you need to know and that's all anyone else needs to know. " There's something you might be on your own about. We learned-the hard way- that placing trust in the people and the organizations was a setup for abused trust. So, trusting the people-and making that "ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW" is a setup for making the same mistakes ad infinitum.

Your point was correct, but you made a factual error in your post. You confused the "primary choice in England"-the supposedly advantageous location- with "the final Way Corps location" in Scotland- which lacked all the advantages cited for the "primary choice" and offered a beautiful location. Geer claimed that the reason they didn't get the "primary choice in England" was "We had lost the original location in England that we had selected because our own Way Corps graduates were not capable of handling things involved in getting a location. They just collapsed under the pressure." It's a typical, vague excuse for an explanation just like vpw used to do. When the first way corps refused to fully worship and kow-tow to vpw, he kicked them all out and claimed they didn't get it together, either. Getting back to the main point, it was very poor planning, and bad business, for vpw or geer to sign off on a location with even HALF the liabilities this one was said to offer, without any easy method to correct them. It's obvious that business went on as usual from their previous location, while geer went off by himself, to a remote location, with a need for complete refurbishment of the infrastructure and upgrades for insufficient systems- for water, for heating, for telephone service. He proceeded to try to do it all with insufficient support, insufficient personnel, and insufficient time, and had the nerve to try to use the UNFINISHED, UNDERSTAFFED facility for all sorts of events, and was stressed because he had to do it all himself. "When we lost our initial location, time was short, so it required extreme effort to locate and evaluate other available properties. Even though we needed to move quickly, careful evaluation was required so that we would not find ourselves in a bind legally or caught in a bad business deal. This meant learning the legal considerations which differed from England to Scotland after having recently learned the English. Once acquisition was made, there was a voluminous amount of work to do in stocking the location so that we could begin to operate." All of that was POOR PLANNING. Would the entire ministry collapse if they'd done things as they'd been doing them for another year or so while they actually found a satisfactory location and worked on THAT with sufficient numbers of people? I suspect it might have been fully ready much sooner despite being acquired later. They WANTED to move quickly, and CHOSE to move quickly rather than act when the time was right and not just because they wanted to act NOW. It's obvious that rushing into this meant roadblock after roadblock, and, frankly, it was his own fault that it went that way. "Once we had done that, we had another problem, that of the platemaker. The platemaker that we had been using in Altrincham had broken just prior to our coming to Scotland. It was, in fact, an old, very slow platemaker that we had gotten secondhand, so we took in a photocopier that was meant to make direct-image offset masters. This deal on the photocopier which we entered into very shortly after the New Year's period turned out to be the one that taught us how difficult it is to trade in Scotland, and especially how difficult it is being an American. The issue of the photocopier/platemaker never really did get resolved and in the end we had to buy an Addressograph Multigraph platemaker which worked very well. " twi's poor business practices are on display here. Rush into things, and-especially- get the least expensive, second-hand version you can find of things, because it's smarter business to try to keep it running and save money on the purchase than to buy something new and maintain it when in use. Again, the problem of rushing into a location-in this case, in Scotland where all the rules were different and they'd prepared for one in England- makes things difficult again. It was AVOIDABLE. "One of the additional disadvantages to having to have a Corps location in Scotland as opposed to England was the need to re-establish business contacts. Every time you have to start over in business it takes time and work to develop good business relations. We had had quite a good reputation among the firms that we traded with regularly in England. When we started over in Scotland, it seemed to be a very challenging adventure because we seemed to be besieged by business "cowboys' out to take advantage of us, and we still had to rely quite heavily on our English contacts to fulfill our needs. " Need I say it again? They rushed into a bad business decision so they could brag about having MADE a business decision, and the results made problem after problem. Geer never had the intellectual honesty to admit he invited these problems by rushing into selecting a location that failed to meet their needs, then exacerbated the problem by rushing everything rather than having all the work done at a reasonable pace and declaring the place "under construction" until it was truly ready for use. " However, during the course of the class it became more and more evident that the quality of the translated works was dubious. The French was clearly deficient and in places quite misleading. The Spanish was not laid out at all in the way that I had seen Dr. Wierwille lay classes out with the attention to detail that he paid. We discovered linguistic problems in both classes as well as inconsistencies in the class layouts, and it took an enormous amount of work to try to keep the classes as a whole on an even keel." "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Why weren't the translations gone over in great detail years before this class, and corrected as needed long before this setup was being prepared. If it was really 100% ready, they could have had each language's primary sessions taped ahead of time, and corrected and re-taped as necessary until each session was satisfactory, then host those sessions and have live teachers for the small groups? Too much rushing, too little planning, and small wonder it became an ordeal to run rather than something that went fairly smoothly. The advance planning was woefully deficient, and that meant DAMAGE CONTROL at the last minute to cover for it. That meant a lot of work, and it was the fault of those at the top who failed to plan sufficiently. What's worse is that this was all predictable- this was for a group whose primary function is to RUN CLASSES. That they failed to plan these classes correctly is a serious indictment of people who think they know how to RUN CLASSES. [quote name='skyrider' date='16 November 2014 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1416174453' post='563025'Read this paragraph from Geer's writings..... (snip) In other words, where was that super-duper believing by geer and vpw? .....far removed from accessible transportation [sTUPID DECISION] .....difficult to facilitate business needs [sTUPID DECISION] .....isolated from any large groups of believers [sTUPID DECISION] (snip) It seemed they lacked both sufficient Divine Revelation to avoid making monumentally-bad decisions, and capped that with poor business experience and poor decision-making skills. That all caught up to them in spades with the Gartmore acquisition and attempts to make the location work. It was a beautiful location, but one very poorly-suited for the tasks for which it was intended.

Emerson, Lake and Palmer's "Karn Evil 9, First Impression, Part II." Part I is technically a different song with the exact same subject and the same melody. Second and Third Impression are completely different songs.

They share a name with some people who work for politicians. (You can hear it, but can you hear the harmonica?) Me, I wish I'd thought of this one.

OK. I know 2 movies he was in. One was loaded with actors I know entirely from television shows (in some case, many TV shows.) So, I have to go with the other one. A Knight's Tale Heath Ledger The Dark Knight (I know Ledger from a few movies with the same known actress in them, and one nobody here has seen, and "The Dark Knight.")

George is getting back at me for commenting about Kenneth Branagh (famous guy) by ending a link with Alan Turing or somebody, since it serves me right. That's my guess.

I just looked it up. Your latest post rang a bell. I have HEARD this song before. I could not name it, and I didn't know it was Kid Rock.

"I'll have what she's having!"

It helps confirm we don't know the song. I know exactly one Kid Rock song, and this definitely isn't it.

No, wrong band (this song is not done by the Beatles.)

"2001: A Space Odyssey."

"I'm in the hi-fidelity first class traveling set And I think I need a Lear jet." "Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash. New car, caviar, four star daydream, Think I'll buy me a football team." "I'm all right Jack keep your hands off my stack." "so they say Is the root of all evil today. But if you ask for a rise it's no surprise that they're giving none away."

Wild Wild West Will Smith Men in Black

After over a decade of using the GSC, you know how to correctly use the "quote" system by now, but it's obvious you refuse to do so CORRECTLY. You melded your comments into mine, which makes it hard for people to see what it is I said, and what comments you're interspersing. That isn't fair to the person you're quoting, and it's not fair to those who try to read later what you OR they wrote. Laziness, or intent to confuse the issues? It's one or the other. I show you AND them more courtesy by making the effort to distinguish between what I wrote and what you wrote. You're continuing to make the assertion that your tithe/tenth/"ABS" is something determined by God Almighty, and not, as was shown, something taught by a man who had a vested interest in you handing over 10% (and more) of your income to him. When you elevate what any man said-yourself or any other man- and treat THAT as a commandment from GOD ALMIGHTY, then you inflict a standard on God Almighty that He never stipulated to and expect Him to conform to it. As I said, that's "YOUR will be done" and not "HIS will be done." You're confusing a God who will do what HE promised He will do with a God who will do what YOU promised He will do. And you're determined to keep confusing the two. Me:"God Almighty CAN do that whenever He wants." You: "And He wants to back up His word if people will believe it." But it wasn't HIS word that mandated a tithe/tenth/ABS, it was yours and vpw's. God Almighty will back up HIS word, but he is under no requirement to back up YOURS. me: "WHY SHOULD HE?" The context was God Almighty being expected to do literally anything for any justification. You're claiming God Almighty WILL do all sorts of things simply because He CAN do those things. Nobody works that way. You CAN burn down your house today. Doesn't mean you WILL just because you CAN. you: " *Why shouldn't He?" That blithe ducking of this issues is dismissive and betrays even a basic lack of undersanding of the very fundamental questions being MANGLED here. Why shouldn't God Almghty just do whatever with no specific reason to do so? God Almighty CAN turn your automobile into a herring while you're trying to go to work. By your "logic", the question isn't "Why should He turn a car into a herring?" but "Why shouldn't he turn a car into a herring?" It underlies an arbitary universe with a moody, capricious God who changes things and overturns expectations about even the most foundational laws of physics just because He can. I'm sure that you never considered that's the logical destination for your conjecture, nor even that it had one, just that you had some blithe comment to toss out THOUGHTLESSLY so you had SOMETHING to reply. When I pointed out clearly the same problem, I did it this way: "God Almighty CAN do that whenever He wants. WHY SHOULD HE?" The "that" was the temptation Jesus faced on the roof. you:"*He shouldn't, for the above stated reason." So, the blithe comment above that you made was contradicted by the one you made a few lines lower- 'Why shouldn't God do whatever, whenever' became 'of course He shouldn't have in this instance.' But was there a "stated reason" above? Let's see. Me:"Why even believe in God at all if He can't protect someone who jumps off the pinnacle of the temple and trusts God to protect him from a fall?" As I later said, "So, to ask why God Almighty doesn't give you the results you specified on an action you specified He had to give results on- whether it's a tithe or anything else- is no different in substance than a foolish Jesus falling to his death from the top of the temple because he would EXPECT God to do whatever, whenever. " you: "*Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. ABS is not tempting God, it's proving now herewith." Come, come! If you're trying to claim that the Tenth/Tithe/ "ABS" is required of the Christians, and God Almighty promises results on this supposed remaining 90% after He gets His cut, let's get some actual verses so we can see what you're misunderstanding so obviously. The account of Jesus on the roof was specific enough-and famous enough- that there was no misunderstanding here all around, but it's your position on the Tenth/Tithe/"ABS" that is in question here- and specifically the verses that you claim specify a Christian is bound by it. "You're asking the wrong questions because you're looking at the wrong thing." you: "*Already addressed." No, ducked again. Me: "First of all, it's clear you're talking about a TITHE of 10%." *Not exclusively; I said 9/10 with God's blessing on it will go farther than 10/10ths without. You said God can do whatever He wants. Couldn't He bless more than 10%?" I think, once again, you're not even clear what you're saying. You're quoting a man on fractions and paying God Almighty His cut. That amount, as is obvious from what you just said, is 10%. You're disagreeing more to disagree, then claiming you're disagreeing to go over a mandatory 10%. But your system starts with a mandatory 10% (and can go up from there all the way to "hand everything over except what you need to live on", aka vpw's "Plurality Giving." And God CAN bless 100%, 90%, 11%, 10%, 1%, and -10%, if He wants to- that's a non-issue. You're saying He takes His mandatory cut, and THEN you get a blessing on the rest- but that He can take more than 10% and bless on the rest. You're fogging the issue-which is that you're specifying a mandatory cut where He did not. me: "Christians have NEVER been required to tithe, or even REQUESTED to do so." you: "Show me in my first post where I said ABS was required." Now you're just fooling around. If your current position, despite everything you've posted so far, is that any kind of Tithe/Tenth/ABS is neither mandatory (required) to be done, nor mandatory to be 10%-at minimum- say so outright and cut this "you didn't catch me say outright that it IS required to give at least 10%" silliness. This is disrespectful to those communicating with you and those who come after and try to make sense of these discussions. you:"*Jesus said give and it shall be given unto you. You think this doesn't include money? Why should God bless this or back it up? Because He has integrity. Because God is not a wrathful God. He wants to bless people." Let's see what he actually said. "Luke 6:27-38 KJV 27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, 28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. 29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also. 30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. 31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. 32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. 33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. 34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. 35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. 36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. 37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: 38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again. In context, it's obvious this is no promise about anyone-including God Almighty- paying you back if you give. In fact, Jesus said the OPPOSITE in verses 34 and 35. It was clear your understanding HAD to be flawed-and it was- because otherwise, you could have just given almost all the cash that ever passed through your hands, and according to your misunderstanding of the verse, God Almighty-or "men"- would have multiplied the amounts and made you a wealthy man FINANCIALLY. Hasn't happened in all the decades you're believed it is supposed to. Therefore, you didn't understand it. And, once again, a SINGLE VERSE DOCTRINE falls down when read in its context- which said the OPPOSITE. You: "Why should God bless this or back it up? Because He has integrity. Because God is not a wrathful God. He wants to bless people." You're imposing something for God to "back up" that God never promised. "Integrity" would mean consistency with what He has promised- and what He has NOT promised. Since He did not promise that you giving out money means you get more back (which you claim he did), it would violate His integrity to do it just because YOU said He would. And He doesn't. As proof, I present your standard of living- which would be that of a millionaire or a multi-millionaire if your system worked as you claim it would. You've taken "God wants to bless people" and turned it into "God will prosper people if He gets His cut" and you refuse to see it. me: "There's requests for donations to help other Christians on a one-time basis. There's a warning AGAINST required monies. There's no required tithe. So, to ask why God Almighty doesn't give you the results you specified on an action you specified He had to give results on- whether it's a tithe or anything else- is no different in substance than a foolish Jesus falling to his death from the top of the temple because he would EXPECT God to do whatever, whenever." you:"Just because YOU expect God to do whatever whenever doesn't mean He will, just to satisfy your narrow minded opinion of Him." Faulty reading skills suit you poorly. I keep pointing out that God will NOT do whatever, whenever. It's you that said that He WOULD do something with no other justification than that He COULD do it. YOU are the one that requires Him to act in accordance with your specifications. YOUR will be done. And then you turned around and claimed I did that. It's obvious who did it. you: "*If my God was as big of a jerk as yours, I'd think of getting me a new one." Really, the insults? If you had something of substance to offer, the pithy sayings to beguile people wouldn't be coming out. It's that simple. And it's STILL getting lost- for those determined to lose it.

A fair question. In my case, it's not hard to answer fairly. I didn't even give Christianity the same chance as other religions, once upon a time. I dismissed it from consideration without even a chance to prove it was worth discussing. It took a lot to get me to reconsider whether or not to even CONSIDER it. So, providing I had the same information and experience that I did decades ago, whether or not I add what I've learned over the decades since, the overall result remains the same.

Few here would begrudge you for talking about getting a blessing from God. We agree with you that the giving isn't MANDATORY. We resent the policies requiring MANDATORY giving.

But Terry Gilliam directed "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas". I thought you were a Terry Gilliam fan.

You're making another mistake by skipping something important, and elevating something minor while skipping something critical. I showed exactly WHAT and HOW. You're welcome. I noticed you completely skipped over it. Actually, twi WAS that controlling, because questioning the twi system was so verboten, some people can't do it DECADES LATER. Lots of questions were encouraged- all about everyone else's belief systems. I didn't tell you that you COULDN'T look at anything-just that the emphasis was wrong and you skipped something important in the process, and that led to the mistake I pointed out...which you skipped over. Anybody can make a mistake of focusing on the wrong thing. Many, if they figure it out, or someone points it out, can correct their thinking and practices. Others, apparently, resent the idea of growing and getting wiser if it doesn't agree with their previous belief system. A) As vpw himself pointed out (didn't you do the required reading in "Christians Should Be Prosperous"?) , the tithe wasn't introduced during the law. The ONE time it was done, it was done during "the Patriarch Administration." B) The Mosaic Law doesn't specify a tithe. C) If you're going to say something should be done because it was in The Law, then you are required to follow THE WHOLE LAW, and I KNOW you'd never even consider that. 5 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. 7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? 8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. 9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. 10 I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be. 11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. 12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you. 13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Have you even READ the Bible in the past few decades, or has it all just been vpw's commentaries and teachings? Galatians 2:11ff 11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Galatians 3:1-25 3 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. 19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. MUCH OF THE ENTIRE EPISTLE explains why Christians aren't under the Law. So, it wouldn't apply to us, IF THE TITHE HAD BEEN UNDER THE LAW, which it doesn't even have that justification. I noticed you turned "the Law was nice" into "we should pay a tithe" without quoting any verse about a tithe, and with no other connection between them other than "I say the tithe was part of the law". And you're saying "we should keep THIS ONE PART of the law but skip all the parts I don't like." Don't even pretend you're keeping THE WHOLE LAW.

I noticed you completely avoided everything I actually said. You asked specific questions. I pointed out BIBLICAL problems with both the questions and the assumptions behind them. Your response? No "thank you", no "I hadn't thought of that." You ducked the issues raised by your flawed system, and dashed off a glib insult and a label, which certainly is a neat excuse that allows you to think there WERE no issues you just avoided. I have noticed, over the decades, that a hallmark of "being loyal to anything associated with twi" (really, being loyal to THEIR SYSTEM as a whole and not just "ANYTHING" because technically I can be accused of being loyal to some things of twi and technically it would stick) has been to COMPLETELY SKIP OVER THE REAL ISSUES AND ERRORS with their system and just slap a label on anyone who points out ERRORS AND CONTRADICTIONS TO THE BIBLE in the twi/vpw system. Hey- if you want to go to your grave determined to be loyal to a system or a man AT THE EXPENSE OF BETRAYING GOD ALMIGHTY AND THE BIBLE, then that's your business. I will, however, call you on it.

That's it. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101540/?ref_=nv_sr_1 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120669/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120434/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 Cape Fear, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Vegas Vacation.

The first movie is well-known, at least the remake was. Mrs Wolf rattled off the name from the description. The phrase "gonzo journalism" and "gonzo journalist" points to exactly one person, which means it points to exactly 1 movie ABOUT that person. He wrote a famous book with the same name the movie was later given, so the name is particularly famous in a number of contexts. You are correct about movie #3.

Come on, Branagh? Even if you skip his Shakespeare movies (with lots of celebrities in the casts) and his chick flicks, there's at least one action-comedy where he plays a particularly loveless villain alongside at least 2 prominent male actors (and 1 known female).

That's it. That's another movie that should be seen by those who haven't seen it yet. The 80s one with Billy Crystal and Gregory Hines, that is.