WordWolf

I'm having trouble finding quotes, and am forced to rely on memory. This limits the number of non-giveaway quotes. This set SHOULD do it. "I was waiting for the universe to dispense some justice but sometimes the universe is just too damn slow. The effects of putting Nair in someone's styling gel, however, only take a few minutes." "I haven't experienced life!" "I've experienced life, and I'm here to tell you it's overrated." "I am only a lowly cog in this woman's life. Pity me." "When will you learn, if it doesn't apply to me, it doesn't matter?" "I come in peace!" "..I take it you're going with 'I come in peace' again..." "My head is spinning..." "Of course it's spinning. It's revolted-your brain is probably trying to twist its way out of your head!" "C'mon guys, I'm missing '2 Stupid Dogs' for this." "...that bleeping little Dutch boy...." "We are in court-you will need to read that EXACTLY as you wrote it." "That IS the way I wrote it. Look." "'That bleeping little Dutch boy...'" "That means WE are the art!" "I want a Miles Silverberger!" "People don't name sandwiches after executive producers. Look, I know you like hot dogs-let me get you a Fontana Frank." "Oh, great! Now we know what they teach in the Louisiana school system in sophmore year instead of Spanish!" "...This is a gay bar." "A gay bar? Jim owns a gay bar? That means-oh my God- Jim is GAY?" "CORKY! Jim and Doris have been happily married for over TWENTY YEARS!" "Do you think she knows?" "And that's ALL'S I know about politics."

First, WTH tried to say any lives vpw ruined didn't matter, and are a non-issue, since WTH THINKS that vpw MIGHT have had some sort of "death-bed regret" which completely negated the harm he did in the lives of others. So, he raised the trick question, "what makes you think he DIDN'T repent?" I pointed out what repentence includes (the acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and attempts to make amends for it), and asked him when he saw any of that. You replied by ignoring both acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and attempts to make amends, and instead said "I saw him be a nice guy some of the time. That's repentance." Which, of course, it's nothing of the kind. Then YOU brought up the non-issue of "well, if he's born again, it doesn't matter if he ruined the lives of other people." I indulged the nonissue by pointing out a strong case could be made either way- as if it makes a difference in whether or not he ruined the lives of others. I know a "rank unbeliever" who's spent a lot of his life doing his best to help others. He's kept his life, for the most part, morally straight, even by Scriptural standards, and NOBODY can say he's ruined their lives. I know a guy-let's suppose he's a "born-again believer" who spent at least 1/2 his life using Christianity as a tool for money, comforts and sex, who put on a pious display in between PRIVATELY being a man who practiced-regularly-the works of the flesh. If God doesn't account for that in the SECOND case but "throws the book at" the unbeliever in the FIRST case, there's a LOT of people who are going to consider God "unjust". And they'll be able to cite verses to prove He is being unjust. This whole "define 'born-again for me' adds nothing to a discussion on FORGIVENESS, and, as I see it, is an attempt to needlessly overcomplicate whether or not someone did wrong in the first place, and needs to be forgiven. What I've been hearing is "he doesn't need any forgiving the rest of us don't need", which, to those of us who have refrained from the works of the flesh, rings hollow. I've been hearing "being born again is a free pass and there's no penalty for sinning after that and God doesn't have an accountability for it", which vpw taught, and doesn't that strike you as amazingly convenient that all the arguments that absolve this wrongdoer from DOING wrong all come from his own teachings, and are unique in Christianity? From Scripture, I see God telling me to live correctly and not sin. I've also been hearing "holding people responsible for wrongdoing is bad for them and comes from religion", which, considering people have been quoting Scripture to support their claims, was either poorly-considered, or intentionally false. Now someone wants to discuss definitions. I don't think this is an HONEST attempt to get closer to the truth in this. I'm reminded of attempts to debate the meaning of the word "is".

Luke 19:8.And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord: Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold. I notice how you changed the subject from "this is what repentance is" and "when did you see repentance" to "did you ever see vpw act like a nice guy?" A) Whether he had a "40+ years teaching ministry" is a matter of opinion. It could also be called a decades long embezzling, defrauding, raping ministry. That tends to discount calling his actions IN BETWEEN them a "teaching ministry." At least, to anyone except vpw fans, it does. B) You weren't in among his intimates for 15 years. You saw him ON STAGE, and you saw him as MANAGED in the corps. Anyone could put on a good show for all of that time. According to lcm's own account, when the cameras were off, he was loud and petty. C) You DID spent about a month with him June 1984. At that point, he was aware he was going to die. He was also older, and may have learned some things about conduct. Small surprise his act was cleaner. He also lacked the energy to rape women at that point. He wasn't "a different man" one day raping one woman, then "a different man" the next day at the pulpit talking about the love of God. He wasn't "one man" when he said he loved people, and "a different man" the next MINUTE when he screamed because they didn't put the plywood the way he wanted. He was ONE man who, some of the time, evidenced the works of the flesh in LARGE amounts. Hey-most of the time, JOHN WAYNE GACY was a pillar of his community. He only OCCASIONALLY molested and killed young boys. That's about the same standard you're pushing- most of the time, he was a nice guy, and when people saw him, he was nice. That's not a "contradiction", that's just doing LESS evil. D) "He may have seen the error of his ways and asked God for forgiveness and moved on." I saw this when discussing Jimmy Swaggart embezzling money. "God has forgiven me-why can't you?" "Makes sense. Send him Billy's college fund money." Seems the whole "making amends if you actually MEAN you're sorry" thing is outside your paradigm. Without that, anyone can put on a convincing show of SUPPOSED repentance or being a nice guy. E) If he taught the truth, his character is a non-issue there. HOWEVER, if a man with an ulterior motive teaches something, his teaching is suspect. A sensible person is careful reviewing vpw's work-since there's pitfalls to harm the unwary. (Documentable ERRORS, too.) F) As for whether or not he's a Christian, I've seen arguments for and against. I started out thinking he WAS, but as the discussions have rolled on, I think a stronger case can be made that he was a fraud from Day One. I'm not CERTAIN either way. But inheriting the kingdom of God, whatever that means, appears to be outside what he'll get, according to Galatians 5. So, in conclusion, you have seen nothing where he attempted to clean up the corruption he sowed in twi with the lockbox and casual sex doctrines, or anything else, and you never saw him approach victims to offer amends or blood money. So, you saw no REPENTANCE. What you saw was some occasional "being a nice guy." Which can be faked. Thanks for playing.

Actually, most Christians I know manage just fine refraining from: "adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like." And those that have ANY problems with ANY of those at least have the honesty to admit God doesn't approve, and they're going against His will whenever they approach it. So, HER interpretation of Scriptures mandates a minimum of conduct- don't make a policy of anything on that list. Anyone COULD live up to that, and EXCEED it. When someone REPENTS of something, it means they acknowledge what they did was wrong, and they seek to make amends for it, to redress the greivances they incurred. IF vpw repented, THEN he acknowledged what he did and sought to make amends. We've asked throughout the years. Not ONE person has come forth claiming they were wronged by vpw in any of the ways on that list, and he even APOLOGIZED, let alone attempted to make amends. There was no "we will need to clean the morals of the ministry, starting right here" attempt from vpw. All he would have needed to do is say it any time he was at the microphone. People would have IMMEDIATELY taken it as a dire warning needing IMMEDIATE action. There was no finding any of his personal victims and asking forgiveness, or offering of amends. There was no sign of ANYTHING that accompanies actually REPENTING of something. What makes you suspect he MIGHT have repented them? The closest he got was, in his final few days, claiming he was trying to figure out where he missed it-where his believing was off. That's nowhere near even admitting he did ANY of the things any NEUTRAL observer would object to. Who are we to judge him? We are Christians who believe the Bible- and therefore, we exercise our senses to discern good and evil. If a man performs evil-and makes a POLICY of it- the man is evil, and we can discern that. If a man claims to be "in Christ", and also claims to be a proud member in good standing of NAMBLA, the organization of child molesters, then that man is evil, and we can discern THAT. Or would you say that it is NOT fair to claim that a man who claims to be a practicing Christian, and a practicing child molester is evil? Please be honest-if you HONESTLY believe we are in no position to call such a man "evil", then say so. How much internal consistency do your beliefs have? ========== A) The only reason anyone says Romans is "foundational" compared to Galatians is that vpw said it. You have failed to establish his credibility on this. Therefore, your claim Romans is more "foundational" is unsupported. B) I believe that we SHOULD spend some time in Romans. Romans 6: 1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. 12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. 13Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. 14For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. 15What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 17But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. 19I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. 20For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 21What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. Romans 8: 12Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. 13For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. According to Romans, we have the grace of God. AND CONDUCT COUNTS. WE ARE TO AVOID SIN. AND WHEN WE DON'T, IT IS WRONG. WORKS of the flesh, please. If WTH does everything he can to hide that God wants us to do right actions, can you forgive him for that? I can. It doesn't make that any less WRONG, but I can forgive him for it.

"I was waiting for the universe to dispense some justice but sometimes the universe is just too damn slow. The effects of putting Nair in someone's styling gel, however, only take a few minutes." "I haven't experienced life!" "I've experienced life, and I'm here to tell you it's overrated." "I am only a lowly cog in this woman's life. Pity me." "When will you learn, if it doesn't apply to me, it doesn't matter?" "I come in peace!" "..I take it you're going with 'I come in peace' again..." "My head is spinning..." "Of course it's spinning. It's revolted-your brain is probably trying to twist its way out of your head!" "C'mon guys, I'm missing '2 Stupid Dogs' for this." "...that bleeping little Dutch boy...." "We are in court-you will need to read that EXACTLY as you wrote it." "That IS the way I wrote it. Look." "That bleeping little Dutch boy..." "That means WE are the art!"

Here is what WTH SAID: I said this in reply: WTH said originally, "If people's opinion of him didn't mean a d*** thing to him back when he was alive" In plain English, that means WTH said that vpw didn't care what people thought of him. Now WTH claimed that he never said that-that coming away with this is failing to read what's written, or having a low reading comprehension. Sadly, WTH is unable to reconcile WHAT HE MEANT TO SAY with WHAT HE SAID AND I REPLIED TO. And his frustration with being unable to do so results in his tantrum and insulting me. It's sad, really, but what can you do? I can't educate the man. He could easily have responded "What I MEANT was..." and then been correct.

Here's what Paul said in Romans 7:16-25, so neither I nor WTH have to be trusted on it. 16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. Is this Paul saying he was fornication, engaging in lascivious acts, idolizing something other than God, being a drunkard, revelling, etc? Obviously NOT-because then Galatians 5 would have excluded him. To those whose conscience is asleep, this will come as news. To many of you, this will be a "no duh" type of incident. When I was younger, I pondered an action I had taken, and was wracked with guilt over it. A total stranger asked me why I was upset, and I told them as much. Having only known me for a few minutes, they said it probably wasn't something most people would freak out about. They were 100% correct. If someone ELSE had done it, I would have forgiven them easily. It was MYSELF I was the harshest critic on. Someone once started a thread where they wanted to discuss things WE had done wrong. So, they volunteered a "wrong action" of their own- they had taught the Bible, and "run long" on time. Now, most people would not make that an issue. If you're a harsh critic on yourself and have very high expectations, this will bother you. I've recently been adding to my skill-sets. An instructor reminded me recently to remember to HAVE FUN. I was focusing so hard on trying to get perfect that I was losing sight of the entertainment value of learning fun things. But, I'm my own harshest critic, generally. Some of you would say the same of yourselves. ("It's no surprise to me, I am my own worst enemy...") Now, Paul was raking himself over the coals about not being PRISTINE, about not being completely ABOVE IT ALL. Was it serious? If it was, it would have been in the other categories. To an outsider, it was probably incidental at most. To Paul HIMSELF, it was a big deal. ======= Now then, did Paul do "bad things" after getting born again? If one's going by the harshest scales, yes. If one is allowing for humans to occasionally be short-tempered at a bad moment (as opposed to much of the time), or less-than-perfect (but still civil) conduct to pass muster, then NO, Paul wasn't PERFECT, but what he did wasn't THAT BAD. Someone cuts someone else off on the freeway. Someone rams his car into another on the freeway, then shoots the driver. Did both do something "bad"? Yes, technically. Would you send both to jail? For the benefit of those who don't get it, NO, you send the FELON to jail, and you caution the other driver, "Sin no more." (Or equivalent.) And these imaginary "self-righteous hypocrite preachers" WTH invented don't even have to enter the discussion. We aren't talking about removing grace. We are talking about people using the freedom God gave them RESPONSIBLY, CHOOSING to do right, and-when they choose to do wrong, facing consequences, whether that be losing respect, or going to jail for committing a felony. I certainly don't trust (NOW that I've seen that they exist) Christians who blow off responsibility and consequences. If they have no conscience, I don't even want to be in the same ROOM with them. If I were to encounter Christians who match WTH's claim of those sort of Christians, I wouldn't want to be in the same room with THEM, EITHER. Actually, we're discussing those who do THE WORKS OF THE FLESH.Galatians 5:19-21. 19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. My terminology's just fine. I'm talking about people who are making it their POLICY to do stuff God said is bad to do. If someone's saying they're "in the flesh" because they are referring to those who do "works of the flesh", well, unless we're refining doctrinal points, I consider criticizing it SPLITTING HAIRS, since we both know EXACTLY what is being meant: the people who make it their PRACTICE, their POLICY, to do really bad things. Funny how you swapped "HATE"-which is a strong emotion- for "DISLIKE"- which is the absence of an emotion that's not so strong. I dislike being caught in traffic. I do not spend emotion on the subject. I dislike being caught in the rain. I do not spend emotion on the subject. I dislike like Karl Rove. I do not spend emotion on him. In dislike posters who lack the wit to understand the difference between HATING and DISLIKING. I don't get emotional about them. Now, darkness or confusion is a more pressing problem, say, if someone wants to say acts of evil are good, or someone who chronically did evil was a good guy. It's also bad to take someone who, say, only pointed out evil, and claim that by doing so, THEY are doing evil. Proverbs 17 13Whoso rewardeth evil for good, evil shall not depart from his house. 15He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD. Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Swing and a miss.

Here's how the quotes went. My diagnosis is that you're overworked and suffering from extreme stress and borderline exhaustion. As for my prescription... come with me." "Karvino juice... Lorvan crackers... a holosuite program... a jumja stick... and gambling tokens." "Now, at least two of these items must be used and fully enjoyed before you can leave this facility." Kira was seriously overworked and overstressed. Dr Bashir ORDERED her to relax. The second speaker was Quark. (As we know from a later episode, she never used the holosuite, so she must have finished 2 of the food-items, since Quark promised he'd give Bashir a report, and Bashir said they'd do that EVERY night if Kira didn't do it then. Ok, remember, Thomas Riker was masquerading as Will Riker. He wants to get the Defiant, and avoid the people who know Will Riker WELL. "Is there anything I can do for you while you're here? A look around the station... maybe a tour of the Defiant? Chief O'Brien's working on her polaron deflector this morning... I'm sure he'd love to show you around." "Thanks... but to be honest, the last thing I want to do on my vacation is look at polaron deflectors." He refused an offer for Chief O'Brien to give him a tour of the ship, and made it sound to Sisko like he DIDN'T want to see the ship in the process. "I have nothing to say to you, Chief. And I think you know why." "Maybe we should come back another time." "What was that all about?" "It's a long story. And I'd rather not get into it right now." It is a SHORT story. Thomas just said that to get rid of O'Brien FAST-and it worked. O'Brien left, wondering what he could have done to upset Will, which kept him OCCUPIED and FAR AWAY. And he didn't explain because he HAD no story to tell Kira. "I hope you're not here for another loan. Don't tell me you've forgotten who staked you three strips of latinum when your winning streak ran dry?" "Oh, my God... of course. Sorry... most of that night is still a blur." Dax was there the last time Will was on DS9. Thomas had to improvise and pretend he remembered the encounter. "You think we'll have a chance to take a look at that new starship of yours?" Thomas scamming Kira, small-talking her until he could make a CASUAL request to see the ship. Your turn, George!

It is. The episode is simply called "the Defiant." (Silly name, but there you go.) My one complaint was that, as soon as the deception was no longer needed (he removed the fake beard-sides, revealing he had a goattee), he didn't change out of Will Riker's uniform. He was trying to distinguish himself, so I thought he'd have a problem maintaining the disguise longer than he HAD to.

That song was, what, 7:15 or something? I thought some of the lyrics were great for twi survivors to listen and consider. "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss." No names, but I said that back when I left, and it reminds me of some "new bosses" in some places. dooj, please pass us another! :)

So, I shall address oldiesman's comments, which I provided the relevant posts for, in the interests of clarity, and added the verses in Galatians for good measure. I think it really is not a big jump to think that Galatians 5's list of the works of the flesh, and the people having no inheritance in the kingdom of God, SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES PAUL, and rascal didn't need to say it. Apparently, some of us are unable to see it, so I will spell it out for those of us who need the help-files enabled. Galatians 1:1-3. 1Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) 2And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: 3Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,. God's giving the warnings of Galatians by WHOSE hand? Everyone see it? PAUL. Is God Almighty going to give THE warning about people who will not inherit the kingdom of God DIRECTLY THROUGH someone who is not going to inherit the kingdom of God? Well, I suppose some of you may have difficulty seeing what's apparent to most, so I'll answer my own question. God Almighty did not entrust His Word to incompetents, and it was neither written nor delivered by the hand of the unbeliever, the faithless, the men or women of the flesh. Did Paul's actions before his new birth displease God? Yes. Did God Almighty exclude him from the kingdom of God on that basis? Obviously NOT- Jesus Christ HIMSELF showed up and Paul got the chance to show that he was not all about the works of the flesh. Paul repented of his past deeds, and spent the rest of his life serving God, and NOT serving himself, and pouring out his own life for the brethren. For him, that's no exaggeration. Paul exhibited "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance". He "crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." Therefore, he "was Christ's." On the other hand, Paul COULD have taken his chance and committed adultery, fornication, lasciviousness, unclean acts, worshipped and served HIMSELF, spewed hatred at times and exhibited wrath, envied the rich and been a drunkard. As Galatians 5 tells us, they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. The apostle Paul did not do that. If you want an account of a man who did all that, you will have to look at a DIFFERENT man.

Galatians 5: 16-24 (KJV) 16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. Oldies had to pull this from several months ago on another thread, but here it is. What rascal said on THIS thread, in THIS discussion, THIS week, was: oldiesman felt the need, rather than continue THIS discussion, to go here: rascal, still having THIS discussion, replied: As we see, that IS what she had said.

"I was waiting for the universe to dispense some justice but sometimes the universe is just too damn slow. The effects of putting Nair in someone's styling gel, however, only take a few minutes." "I haven't experienced life!" "I've experienced life, and I'm here to tell you it's overrated." "I am only a lowly cog in this woman's life. Pity me." "When will you learn, if it doesn't apply to me, it doesn't matter?"

My diagnosis is that you're overworked and suffering from extreme stress and borderline exhaustion. As for my prescription... come with me." "Karvino juice... Lorvan crackers... a holosuite program... a jumja stick... and gambling tokens." "Now, at least two of these items must be used and fully enjoyed before you can leave this facility." "Is there anything I can do for you while you're here? A look around the station... maybe a tour of the Defiant? Chief O'Brien's working on her polaron deflector this morning... I'm sure he'd love to show you around." "Thanks... but to be honest, the last thing I want to do on my vacation is look at polaron deflectors." "I have nothing to say to you, Chief. And I think you know why." "Maybe we should come back another time." "What was that all about?" "It's a long story. And I'd rather not get into it right now." "I hope you're not here for another loan. Don't tell me you've forgotten who staked you three strips of latinum when your winning streak ran dry?" "Oh, my God... of course. Sorry... most of that night is still a blur." "You think we'll have a chance to take a look at that new starship of yours?"

Personally, I think that shouting you down or marking/avoiding you leaves almost no "paper trail" (there's posters here who keep denying it happened!) but actually kidnapping people-and police reports being filed- leave evidence that twi would REALLY hate to have around. I think it was PHYSICALLY possible for them to do it, but I don't think they would have "gotten away with it"-I think the various consequences would have followed them for a long time. Why commit crimes when you can get results ALMOST as good by just using deceit and morally-questionable-but legal- methods? They could have robbed banks, too-but it was easier to convince people to voluntarily give them money, then log the money as donations to a religious organization. It does for me. I can't speak for the others. Next time someone raises the question, I'll have a more-informed answer.

That was, at the latest, about 1 year into attending the corps. According to twi, and according to vpw, the most significant man in Christianity- and thus, in the world- SINCE the Apostle Paul WAS vpw. Then again, the Branch Davidians thought the so-called "David Koresh" was the most significant man in Christianity, and the People's Temple thought Jim Jones was the most significant man in Christianity, and so on. When someone destroys lives, or damages them, people talk about it when they find out. And when dangerous practices that damaged and destroyed lives continue, people talk about THOSE. When it happens in twi and extwi organizations, it gets discussed HERE, in the twi survivor messageboard. Why should that qualify as news, generate surprise, or even need explaining at all?

The question is based on a false premise- that vpw did NOT care what people thought of him, based on one statement made in one book, and SUPPOSED to mean he meant "I don't care what people think of me, period." This is the SAME man that taught that we should stand when a leader entered the room- and he was THE Leader, according to him. This is the man who called a press conference, and when the press showed up, decided that they were supposed to be in semiformal when interviewing him. (There's no dress code for even interviewing the vice-president- people have interviewed him in casual wear.) This is the man who made up a seal modelled after the US President's seal, and had his plane (he didn't NEED a plane) named after, and FURNISHED after, the US President's plane. This is the man who declared he needed all sorts of bodyguards and that people kept trying to kill him, when most people had never HEARD of him. This is the man who put forth that he had received the greatest revelation in nearly 2000 years- which some people not only believed THEN, but believe it still. It's akin to hearing the Great and Powerful Oz say "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain", and saying "You're right, Oz, I'll ignore him, although he seemed to be the person projecting your voice, I shall disregard the evidence of my own senses." This is the same man who claimed to wrestle with the devil PERSONALLY for the world. Supposedly, one of less than the fingers of one hand to do so in all of history, including Jesus Christ. This man was OBSESSED with manipulating his public image. People's opinions of him meant a GREAT deal.

dooj, you're on a roll.

Maybe I'll add this to my signature.

This is very interesting. It's my personal opinion-based mainly on me just mulling it over- that the universe (which scientists say is finite) is contained INSIDE of God (Who is Infinite), and He's ever-present because He coexists alongside 3-dimensional matter everywhere in a fourth dimension, just like a flat, 2-dimensional finite object (like, say, an index card) can be completely encased with, and touched everywhere, by a three-dimensional object (like, say, a jello mold the index card is suspended in.) Then again, Sunesis' idea may be better.

PLEASE feel free to join in on the other games. As for this song, I can't recognize any song that runs over 3:05, so I'm stuck.

No. And I'm delighted someone couldn't just rattle this one off.

[i certainly wouldn't put vpw in Paul's shoes either. Paul spent his life irrespective of creature comforts. He risked his life to do what God wanted him to do, even unto death. vpw lived in creature comforts, and, apparently, was fine with his own choices to drug and rape women in the congregation. He also was fine with people standing and playing "Hail to the Chief" when he entered a room, and deliberately modeled the seal after the US President's seal. and insisted on a plane-which he named after the US President's plane. I could keep going, but it's obvious that-between Paul and vpw, that neither was in the same category as the other.] [Wow- so the God-breathed Galatians 5 has it completely WRONG, and Mike, by contrast, has it RIGHT! Amazing.] [For those who missed it, Mike keeps adding to Scripture and insisting that King David's deliberate maneuverings to trick Uriah which ended in him arranging Uriah's death was COMMON KNOWLEDGE- that the neighbors knew Bath-sheba's child wasn't Uriah's child, and that King David specifically arranged to have Uriah killed. All of this is NOT in the text, and is what vpw called "private interpretation." I've explained this in great detail to Mike TWICE. He still insists this happened no matter what the verses say. If anyone's interested, I can post the previous answers again, but, really, I don't see the need myself.]