WordWolf

RumRunner,

they can control the access to the books,

but they can't control the access to ideas in the internet.

I don't believe that TWI got everything right. I have had to discard many things that were off both doctrinally and practically. Since I enjoy CFF does that mean I'm somehow not able to enjoy other Christians? Does that mean that I can not be impartial? Does it mean that I look down on other Christians?

I don't know, does it? I think that was OUR question FIRST.

Does one set of beliefs-to YOU-mean that all Christians with DIFFERENT beliefs are

INFERIOR, WRONG and REPUGNANT?

Some people would say yes, some people would say no, and some would mean yes

but would obscure it in a cloud of oratory.

I mean, we all think we're right, but what one says about those that are "wrong" tends to be more telling,

to me, than just about anything.

Correct.

I found that song expresses some thoughts I've never fully articulated.

Your turn, Ca Dreaming!

Then I'll post the next one:

"We may never never meet again, on that bumpy road to love

But I’ll always, always keep the memory of"

Or, to put it differently....

There's no doubt that Christians inside twi have something to offer. They are born again believers,

they have the spirit of God!

God is not restricted entirely from twi, for truth and deliverance.

Having said that, one main issue I contend with in going to a twi meeting-or that of an offshoot- is having to

sit and listen to someone butcher the truth twice a week. Do they get things right, sure they do. Can some people be excited about their fellowship? Sure they can, some do.

There is something to be said about doing your best to get to the truth with an aim towards continuing to grow. Religion is religion it tends to stagnate, whether it's got TWI's mark on it or Roman Catholic mark or whatever. The structure that VP put in place through the late 70's and into the 80's made TWI into just another religion because it allowed for the centralization of money and authority and well you know the rest of the story. I don't see this in the 1st century Church as recorded in the book of Acts.

To answer the question "what is wrong with twi?", it's just a religous organization with a stagnated and limiting structure. There's nothing new under the sun. The adversary has been squashing real movements of God for centuries. Sure there are good hearted folks in twi, the same is true of its offshoots. We here just have a unique perspective on TWI that leads some to think that somehow those good hearted folks in Churches are somehow different from the ones still with TWI.

I want to be where I am challenged in my understanding of God's Word and where I can be reproved and corrected when needed. For me that is NOT with any offshoot. Dont' misunderstand I don't hold to the offshoot like I did with TWI. I get the Word I need-and that's from OTHER Christians.

It's all in your perspective, sometimes.

What I noticed the most was that CG's "ministry" almost ran parallel to LCM's. They had the same need for control, the same kind of paranoia and megalomania. I thought they might have done much better had they joined up together instead of going their own way. They were travelling down the same path and didn't manage to connect!

They could not unite.

Highlander Syndrome- "There Can Be Only One."

Two lions on the same hill. Think about it.

==========

Now,

someone claimed that Christian radio programs are run exclusively by know-nothings who

just push denominational doctrines.

I don't normally listen to them myself, but not for that reason.

One time, I was packing for a ministry event the night before, and had a Christian radio station

on in the background. I was concentrating on my packing, and only vaguely aware of the content

of the show. One Christian was being interviewed, and giving his opinion on a variety of

subjects from Scripture. After a few minutes of me nodding along and agreeing while packing,

I finally stopped and focused on the radio. The guy had NO connections to twi/vpw/ whoever,

but had been outlining one thing after another that I agreed with, all on different subjects.

He also mentioned in passing that he spoke in tongues more than an hour a day.

So, I'd say that guy and whoever put him on the radio, to name two,

were not fitting into the usual straitjacket of

"not twi, therefore garbage!"

======

Reminds me of that Scottish store in that Saturday Night Live skit.

Their motto?

"If it's not Scottish-it's CRAP!!!"

JohnIam:

"In Acts 4:30, AFTER Jesus was born, he is called a holy CHILD. In Luke 1:35, BEFORE Jesus was born, when he was in utero, he is called a holy THING! Some versions of the bible tweak that verse to say holy one or holy child, but the greek is neuter, according to Bullinger. If it's neuter then it's not male or female. If it's not male or female it's not a child.

I get mildly annoyed seeing those bumper stickers which say 'It's a child, not a choice'. If I had the means or the inclination I might alter the message to 'It's a fetus, not a child'."

"To be fair, when John the Baptist was about to be born it says the BABE leapt in Elisabeth's womb. There. No partial birth abortions. If I could make law, I'd say all abortions must be performed before the end of the first trimester (13 weeks) the only exception being if a doctor concluded that the mother's life would be in danger later than that and that any doctor found to fraudulently sign off on that would permanently lose his med license."

Ok, as to the second, I think JohnIam agrees with almost all of us on the second matter, that John the

Baptist was referred to as a "babe" and not "a collection of cells", so that sometime BEFORE 9 months he

would be considered a baby, which means that he counted as such sometime BEFORE

"his first breath". (Which would mean an abortion at that point would be ending his life intentionally, which

would be murder in the first degree.)

Now, as to the former,

JohnIam said

===========

"In Acts 4:30, AFTER Jesus was born, he is called a holy CHILD. In Luke 1:35, BEFORE Jesus was born, when he was in utero, he is called a holy THING! Some versions of the bible tweak that verse to say holy one or holy child, but the greek is neuter, according to Bullinger. If it's neuter then it's not male or female. If it's not male or female it's not a child."

===========

I'd like to proceed.

============

Oakspear:

"According to the blue letter bible concordance, the phrase "that holy thing" is the single Greek word

hagios - "thing" was added by the translators, and therefore has no authority. "

=============

JohnIam:

"It's been awhile since I read this, but yes the only greek for holy thing is hagios, yet in Bullinger's Lexicon and concordance to the NT he says the word hagios is neuter, hence the word thing.

What? Are you pro life?"

=============

Oakspear:

"Actually I brought it up because I will not take anything as truth because Wierwille said it, not because of a position one way or another on abortion.

For anyone who still has a good lexicon that lists the parts of speech for all words used in the NT: is johniam correct, is hagios is this case the neuter gender? What gender is used in other instances? Is the use of gender significant in this case?

The actual form of hagios in this verse is hagion, and it is modifying the word gennōmenon, translated as "which shall be born". Earlier in the verse, "holy" is in the same form, hagion when modifying pneuma, spirit."

================

WordWolf:

"I've wondered if anyone was ever going to bring that up.

Actually, back in twi-timeframes, I was going verse-by-verse through the Greek on much of the New

Testament. (I had the time.) I did look at this verse, Luke 1:35. It is true that the English calls Jesus

"that holy thing". It also says "replenish" in Genesis, which has nothing to do with the Hebrew meaning

of the word, "to fill". So, we look at the Greek. The most literal Greek I got from Luke 1:35 in that

verse, from the phrase "holy thing", which was the Greek word "hagion", was "Holy One."

That's because the plural of that word, "oi hagioi", is translated as "the saints."

(My Bullinger's Critical Greek Lexicon notes that thus noun was used for "the saints" 61 times, and

"saint" in the singular once.)

This happens in the openings of several Church Epistles, like Romans 1:7, where the word "saints"

in

"to all those who are in Rome beloved of God called saints", the word "saints" is "hagiois".

So Jesus, at the time of "the Annunciation" (Gabriel visiting Mary) was referred to as a "hagios",

and I NOW am referred to as a "hagios". Either we are both a "thing" or we both are NOT.

Basic English places a noun as a person, place or thing. Since I am a person, I am not a "thing",

since I can't be both "person" and "thing" under basic definitions.

(Unless one wants to split hairs and go into different specialist vocabularies in an effort to obscure

the subject, anyway.)

Therefore, since I'm a person or a "holy one" in that expression, so was he.

That's using simple Bible cross-checking: the meaning in Luke 1:35 must agree with ALL usages in Scripture.

And whether one is pro-life, pro-choice or pro-ball player when discussing what it actually SAYS is a nonissue."

============

JohnIam:

"quote: so that sometime BEFORE 9 months he

would be considered a baby,

You don't know that. All we know is that shortly before John the Baptist's birth he was a babe, not a thing.

quote: Which would mean an abortion at that point would be ending his life intentionally, which

would be murder in the first degree.)

At WHAT point? Shortly before his birth? or anytime before his birth?

quote: So Jesus, at the time of "the Annunciation" (Gabriel visiting Mary) was referred to as a "hagios",

and I NOW am referred to as a "hagios".

What do you NOW have to do with Jesus in utero?

I'm not really trying to pick a fight with you; as I said earlier, push comes to shove, I think the mother's life is priority over the fetus's. Even in the example of Abigail's friend. Your position on this is not clear.

I have 3 kids. All 3 were born at home with a midwife. Our 3rd had the cord wrapped around his neck several times by the time he got to the birth canal. The midwife caught it and stuck 2 fingers in there and pryed the cord away from his neck so that he wouldn't suffocate when he crowned. I was there.

Knowing what he has grown into, I don't even want to think of the idea of someone drilling a hole in his head at that moment thus ending his life, but I would have preferred that over having my wife die.

You got kids, Wordwolf?"

I said "sometime BEFORE 9 months he would be considered a baby"

JohnIam replied "You don't know that. All we know is that shortly before John the Baptist's birth he was a babe, not a thing."

Frankly, I'm amazed someone can read that and say you DON'T know that.

Here's the account-which you YOURSELF CITED.

Luke 1:41

"And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost"

Luke 1:44

"For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."

(Greek word 'brephos', which is also rendered "infant" or "young child" elsewhere.)

So, since John was not born yet, he was considered a babe/baby.

(I'm skipping any " 'babe does not mean baby thing' because I try not to get involved in discussions that

are EXCEPTIONALLY stupid.)

What month was he at?

Well, according to Gabriel, 6 months.

Luke 1:36.

"And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren."

So, John the Baptist, at 6 months if not sooner, was considered a baby, which is some 3 months before

"first breath" on the average.

That's "sometime before nine months", so that darn well IS what we know.

SINCE John the Baptist, at 6 months, was considered by God to be a babe and not a "thing", and

therefore a person (a babe is a person, I believe MOST of us can see this without further elaboration) ,

then killing him is like killing any OTHER person, and planning to kill a person and doing so is

Murder in the First Degree, under US Law.

JohnIam then wanted to debate the precise point of gestation this would apply-

but seems not to have agreed that this was the case.

---------

When I pointed out God Almighty (by the mouth of Gabriel in the first place, and the pen of Paul in

the second place) called Jesus and me by the same term-hagios, apparently this drew an exception.

"What do you NOW have to do with Jesus in utero?"

Well, I'll say it again.

We're both people.

God called Jesus a "hagios" when in the womb, at a point BEFORE 6 months.

God called me a "hagios" as I am now.

Therefore, GOD ALMIGHTY has drawn a connection between me NOW

and Jesus THEN.

Since as an adult I am a PERSON and not a THING, GOD ALMIGHTY has not "downgraded"

all Christians into "things", he naturally refers to them as people or "ones", in this

case "holy ones." That completely invalidates the poor translation of Jesus as a "hagios"

into "holy THING". Jesus was a "holy ONE" at the time. QED.

Therefore, the entire doctrine of claiming he was a THING based on ONE MISTRANSLED WORD

is WITHOUT MERIT.

GOD ALMIGHTY called it that way, and I for one am disinclined to disagree with Him on this.

Feel free to disagree and tell Him "I believe vpw, not You" on this subject.

=========

Now, as to exactly WHEN a baby is a person,

and what to do when the life of a mother is in danger,

and whether or not I have kids,

this thread asked what GOD said, not what WORDWOLF said,

and asked for avoidance of personal opinion.

Therefore, before any other matter is discussed on this thread,

by the rules of this thread, I'm addressing its designed purpose.

So far, we have been unable to complete THAT issue, but instead

have diverted from it to other issues FIRST.

It's almost as if someone's disinterested in the stated purpose of the thread,

or is making an effort to divert the thread.

Me, I have to answer to my own conscience on this.

Despite the program and its attempts to make surrogate lcms and vpws of all its candidates,

many Christians came out of it as great Christians.

Let us not underestimate what this says about each of them.

They were each quite a set of individuals to come through that fundamentally good Christians.

Some even only cherry-picked out the good things in the progam.

Amazing.

They each had quite a heart for God, to have managed that.

what was the lyrics to the song that started:

There ain't nothin' wrong with Hank Williams Jr.

???

Seth

I believe the title of the song is "Country In My Veins."

I never had that song, so it's not on "Branded:A Lifetime."

I was operating under the assumption that VF knew about the rapes and stuff since he

told someone to shush up.

However, I now think it was a psychological blind-spot he showed later.

Whenever anything controversial ever came up,

his response was to embrace what was most harmonious, least-contentious.

He seemed to think "that the ministry be not blamed" was an edict that meant

to silence dissent regardless of the CONTENT.

So, if you found a problem with "the establishment", his response was to

silence the objection, and it would ALWAYS be so regardless of what the problem WAS.

Of course, this strikes me as consistent with the current comments about "legalism",

in that it means a slavish worship of the organization.

It's also interesting that I also remember him responding to the firings, including his

own, by saying "If I want organic unity, I'll join a bowling league",

but was in his own way dedicated to organic unity as well when the microphone was off.

And, of course, someone might claim that the off-microphone issues don't exist,

since they contradict his press releases.

Up to each person what conclusions they'd draw.

Worked fine with Firefox and Real for me.

You would think that it would fail with one or the other if that was the case,

since neither is a Windows product.

Maybe you're overdue to update your browser or media player.

I think it was on that subject that Monty Python had a viewer "write in",

saying that he was beaten as a child, and never suffered any harm,

except for the maladjustment and occasional blurred vision.

(I forget the Monty Python episode.)

This here clip was from an episode of South Park where the parents were

convinced ALL the kids had ADHD and drugged ALL of them.

Most or all of them were just fine once they went off the Ritalin and tried

the "new experimental" behavioral method used by this Doctor.

JohnIam:

"In Acts 4:30, AFTER Jesus was born, he is called a holy CHILD. In Luke 1:35, BEFORE Jesus was born, when he was in utero, he is called a holy THING! Some versions of the bible tweak that verse to say holy one or holy child, but the greek is neuter, according to Bullinger. If it's neuter then it's not male or female. If it's not male or female it's not a child.

I get mildly annoyed seeing those bumper stickers which say 'It's a child, not a choice'. If I had the means or the inclination I might alter the message to 'It's a fetus, not a child'."

"To be fair, when John the Baptist was about to be born it says the BABE leapt in Elisabeth's womb. There. No partial birth abortions. If I could make law, I'd say all abortions must be performed before the end of the first trimester (13 weeks) the only exception being if a doctor concluded that the mother's life would be in danger later than that and that any doctor found to fraudulently sign off on that would permanently lose his med license."

Ok, as to the second, I think JohnIam agrees with almost all of us on the second matter, that John the

Baptist was referred to as a "babe" and not "a collection of cells", so that sometime BEFORE 9 months he

would be considered a baby, which means that he counted as such sometime BEFORE

"his first breath". (Which would mean an abortion at that point would be ending his life intentionally, which

would be murder in the first degree.)

Now, as to the former,

JohnIam said

===========

"In Acts 4:30, AFTER Jesus was born, he is called a holy CHILD. In Luke 1:35, BEFORE Jesus was born, when he was in utero, he is called a holy THING! Some versions of the bible tweak that verse to say holy one or holy child, but the greek is neuter, according to Bullinger. If it's neuter then it's not male or female. If it's not male or female it's not a child."

===========

I'd like to proceed.

============

Oakspear:

"According to the blue letter bible concordance, the phrase "that holy thing" is the single Greek word

hagios - "thing" was added by the translators, and therefore has no authority. "

=============

JohnIam:

"It's been awhile since I read this, but yes the only greek for holy thing is hagios, yet in Bullinger's Lexicon and concordance to the NT he says the word hagios is neuter, hence the word thing.

What? Are you pro life?"

=============

Oakspear:

"Actually I brought it up because I will not take anything as truth because Wierwille said it, not because of a position one way or another on abortion.

For anyone who still has a good lexicon that lists the parts of speech for all words used in the NT: is johniam correct, is hagios is this case the neuter gender? What gender is used in other instances? Is the use of gender significant in this case?

The actual form of hagios in this verse is hagion, and it is modifying the word gennōmenon, translated as "which shall be born". Earlier in the verse, "holy" is in the same form, hagion when modifying pneuma, spirit."

================

Ok, it is here that WordWolf joins the discussion....

I've wondered if anyone was ever going to bring that up.

Actually, back in twi-timeframes, I was going verse-by-verse through the Greek on much of the New

Testament. (I had the time.) I did look at this verse, Luke 1:35. It is true that the English calls Jesus

"that holy thing". It also says "replenish" in Genesis, which has nothing to do with the Hebrew meaning

of the word, "to fill". So, we look at the Greek. The most literal Greek I got from Luke 1:35 in that

verse, from the phrase "holy thing", which was the Greek word "hagion", was "Holy One."

That's because the plural of that word, "oi hagioi", is translated as "the saints."

(My Bullinger's Critical Greek Lexicon notes that thus noun was used for "the saints" 61 times, and

"saint" in the singular once.)

This happens in the openings of several Church Epistles, like Romans 1:7, where the word "saints"

in

"to all those who are in Rome beloved of God called saints", the word "saints" is "hagiois".

So Jesus, at the time of "the Annunciation" (Gabriel visiting Mary) was referred to as a "hagios",

and I NOW am referred to as a "hagios". Either we are both a "thing" or we both are NOT.

Basic English places a noun as a person, place or thing. Since I am a person, I am not a "thing",

since I can't be both "person" and "thing" under basic definitions.

(Unless one wants to split hairs and go into different specialist vocabularies in an effort to obscure

the subject, anyway.)

Therefore, since I'm a person or a "holy one" in that expression, so was he.

That's using simple Bible cross-checking: the meaning in Luke 1:35 must agree with ALL usages in Scripture.

And whether one is pro-life, pro-choice or pro-ball player when discussing what it actually SAYS is a nonissue.

Jeepers, but this is a strange thread.

Without having read it all in depth can I just add (a derail really) - was the real Challenging Counterfeit VPW? ( :unsure: ducking for cover).

Discuss (WordWolf?? )

Well, since I was asked....

I think that-just as there are many ways to counterfeit a dollar bill-

there are many counterfeits of spiritual realities,

each sounding, to some degree, internally-consistent,

and as great a number not bothering.

And, of course, even seeing something is no guarantee it's accurate,

nor a guarantee it was true.

I read a book by Dan Corem called "Powers" once.

As a Christian, he's familiar with stage-magic and so on, and suggests

that the stage-magic of the time of the Exodus was sufficient to accomplish

the things Pharaoh's magicians did (such as a hollow tube concealing a

serpent, making it look as if the staff became a snake-which was then

beaten by a miraculous snake from Moses.) Further, once the 10 Plagues

exceeded their abilities to fake, they stopped trying.

"This is the finger of God."

He made a compelling case.

That makes for a non-supernatural counterfeit. Others have mentioned that

a lot of what was cited in the Advanced classes as genuine devil-magic,

was later shown to be stage-magic dressed up as supernatural.

Those are more supernatural counterfeit.

Raphael Gasson claimed to have spent years exercising "supernatural"

powers that had nothing to do with misdirection, drained the life of the user,

and weakened his spiritual defenses against possession. He was completely

sincere, internally consistent, and -although he didn't realize it- consistent

within a framework he never designed nor saw.

When the Advanced class covered the supernatural, it treaded on firm ground

when addressing directly what the Bible said, and wandered out far into

speculation whenever it said otherwise.

I am not interested in personal opinion but rather what God has to say.

Then I recommend asking a moderator to move this thread to DOCTRINAL,

because you want a DOCTRINAL discussion.

(Check out the pinned/sticky topic.)

Or you could restart this as a new thread in Doctrinal,

and ask a mod to delete this one.

I could swear we DID discuss this once... I'll chime in when I remember

what was said on-topic.

Jerry Maguire

Tom "Psycho" Cruise

Interview with the Vampire

Still in search of recollections of this particular, peculiar year....

You know a damn lot that's what you know about it!

And I don't give her a free pass but Groucho said something like apples and oranges (Donna and Dorthea). That is right on!

My bad, it was Georgio not Groucho .

As for Donna's motivations, I'll take her OWN words, as reported by those who knew her personally...

"My time with Donna was during the time period of 1978-80. At that time she was an arrogant,

mean-spirited b*tch in her late twenties. She coveted after power....she explained to a bunch

of us once that when she was 'husband-hunting', she had dated numerous top twi leaders,

dropping names of 1st and 2nd corps guys. She said that when she got to craiggers,

she knew he was the one. Why? Because she knew that he was going to 'the top'

as she put it. She somehow knew that she was destined to be on the top rung of the twi ladder

and she got herself there. It's almost like the story of MacBeth- ambition, power, money.

She was willing to put up with lcm's adultery in order to maintain her position as 'first lady of

twi'- it was a simple tradeoff. Her disgust with her husband was only exceeded by her own lust

for power and position. Today, she probably feels like she 'earned' the right to live in

the corps chalet for all the years of putting up with bozo."

"That's exactly what she told ME once in a conversation. She told me (this was late '70s)

that she had decided years before she would do Whatever It Takes to 'get to the top'.

She was totally committed to being a top hot dog (as they used to say.)

She was very calculating. Although, back when she was young, to look at her,

you never would have thunk it because at one time, she was a wonderful, compassionate person

who truly did have a heart for people. In fact, I think it was that quality that helped get her to the

'top.' She is where she is now by deliberate, scheming decision."

Compare and contrast this with what's been said so far...

I am claustrophobic. Until reading this thread, it never occurred to me that it could be related to TWI meeting-itis. Very interesting.

You weren't at enough meetings before saying you were claustrophobic to get it from twi, dude.

You were already claustro sometime before ROA '89, which was the first time I heard

you mention it. Before that, you were part of the group in an investigative capacity,

and not in the chain of command.

=======

Actually, I take that back.

I MENTIONED IT ALOUD at ROA '89, which means I knew BEFORE then.

So that means it wasn't news that summer, which pushes it back a few months.

Grosse Point Blank

Minnie Driver

Sleepers

If you look into BG Leonard’s book and web site you will read things from his classes, which Weirwille took, used by VP almost verbatim as his own. Some argue the Bible and theology is NOT owned by anyone. However, even personal experiences were stolen.

So, a preacher like BG could find the truths that were godly and able to set us free, a loser like VP could steal them and present them as his own, and the amazing words of God could survive all the human banter and manipulation to still reach you and still set you free, the insidious part is once set free, you/I have a total dedication to help others by serving them the bread of Life I found in the PFAL class. Unbeknownst to us the premise, the experience and the research we were reading were taking from another man.

So, no wonder the words of the class were in conflict with the man who brought us the words of PFAL. The lines between being dedicate to God and the presenter of a class were blurred. A devilish successful plan. If you cannot stop the words of life from reaching people make sure it does not get past the boundaries of the man packaging it.

Anyone have all the thread about BG Leonard? I know I typed some of his books’ stuff and it was a twin to VP’s. And others found even more and more similarities. That whole discussion is what shocked the crap out of me and ended the circular thinking…

WordWolf – do you have it? I cannot find my Leonard books

Maybe helpful, but I am looking for the prophesy Leonard got and the one VP claimed to get....

http://www.waychrist.com/BG%20V.%20VPW.htm

The whole holy spirit -- Holy Spirit and other things VP claimed he found.

helpful but again the GS thread REALLY helped me:

http://www.equip.org/free/DW100.htm

Here is BG and his wife's site -- eye opening, get a few books:

http://www.ctcoftexas.com/index.html

I think someone here typed in alot of his stuff for us to look at.

BG Leonard:

quote:

One day God spoke to me. "If thou wilt wait patiently before me, I will give thee

the revelation concerning that which is written in my Word touching these things; the

revelation my people need to bring them out of their chaos and confusion." I believed

God. For months I waited before His presence in solitude, During those wonderful days,

He revealed the truth to me concerning the gifts of the Spirit. As He did, these things

were proven by acting upon the knowledge thus received, and by examining the results

in light of His Word.

Add "an early October invisible snowstorm", and inflate it to "like it hasn't been

known" and you have the 1942 promise.

And was all of that a distraction from the lack of Biblical scholars in twi-

people that were not twi-trained and indoctrinated from the get-go?

Maybe...

Do we have emotions?

Interesting point.

We're asking if God has "emotions" without checking that all of us have

ONE definition of "emotions."

Perhaps our emotions are mere shadows of God's realities.

Nice one.

I've held a position along this line for some time.

Here it is in even less words....the Catholic church INSTITUITION is evil. TWI INSTITUITION is evil.

Both instituitions have people that are blessed by it and both have people that use the instituition for their evil intent.

Truth is an 'aside' that stands on it's own, seperate from those INSTITUITIONS. God ( i guess ) is still able to use those instituitions to do things like 'preserve' and 'get His Word out'. Much like Israel 'preserved' His Word through their 'good' and 'evil' days.

Ok, that was simple and direct.

I'd agree IN PART.

Both institutions have had corruption.

We are unable to go back and see what the literal motivation was for starting the Roman Catholic Church.

However, with twi we ARE because it was fairly recent, historically.

twi's inception was based on dishonesty and other things. That means it was wrong from the beginning.

(Let me know if you need me to outline that one all over again.)

I agree that both organizations have had people in them who have acted for good,

and others that have acted for evil.

I'll take another step and say I'd like/liked all those who've done evil at both to do

hard time at Leavenworth or a similar hard-labour prison.

(Big rocks to little rocks, little rocks to sand.)

As to truth and God's use of both institutions (and others), I'll tentatively agree with

what was said here-God can work with both, even as he worked with Israel.

(That all 3 should have done better is a separate issue that excuses NONE of them.)

And anyone who can manage to misunderstand me this time has obviously been

working hard at doing so.

So... is a 'strawman' like a scarecrow?

I posted another description. I think you'll appreciate this one more than the last one,

and it explains the reason for the name.

I KNEW that somehow WW would end up asking me why the double standard.

[You presented the double-standard while accusing ME of one. Exposing it and asking

you about yours was obvious-and one might suspect, your intention all along.

(If one thought you were that clever a rhetoritician.)

If a mobster complained about street crime, it's pretty obvious a response to him

likely would address organized crime. Does "expected" now mean "wrong"?

I missed that briefing...]

Same old same old one dimensional WW.

[Ad hominem attack, again. That was also "expected."

It being "expected" didn't make it "wrong". It was wrong because it was an

ad hominem attack. It's predictability was irrelevant.]

But I noticed something.

My post to WW took up 21 lines and 256 words. WW's reply to me took up 229 lines. No way I'm counting his words; I'd be here all night, but if 21 lines contain 256 words, then 229 lines prorates to 2315 words. I'd even be willing to cut the number in half because my posts read like straight prose while WW's read like poetry a lot. My point is this.

[My post, observers can note easily, included a complete recap.

The unvarnished posts, then the posts each followed by running commentary.

THEN my reply.

Thus, readers were easily able to compare my claims against the posts, and see if my

claims were valid or not. It's hard to be tricky when EVERYTHING is in plain sight.

Readers were able to make INFORMED opinions, and were not required to just

suppose I was recalling or interpreting correctly.]

According to WW I'm the "strawman" while he's the real deal.

[Your POST CONTAINED a "strawman". You are a human being. So am I.

No guarantee EITHER is always right is expected nor implied.

That's why people actually have to READ THE POSTS.

When that was done, it was easy to see yours was flawed. (Scroll up-

I already outlined that.)]

But my 256 word strawman was apparently so effective that it took the real deal certainly over 1000 words to make it right.

[No one said I provided all the details because you were "effective."

I did it so that it was easy to compare the 2 side-by-side.

My post also included your posts, twice.

Readers can benefit from me making things plain.]

Shouldn't the genuine article require less words with more impact?

[Depends. Commercials on tv are concise. Politicians are remembered for their best

"sound bytes." Are those guaranteed to be correct because they are brief?

Further, "yo mamma" is two words. Is that guaranteed to be an effective rebuttal

to cold facts and evidence?

Frankly, I think I had more impact for MOST PEOPLE through plain speaking

than you did with the short attacks.]

Shouldn't the strawman be the one with the excessive verbose BS?

[Now, you didn't know what a strawman was, necessarily, before all this.

That you don't know NOW is intentional ignorance....

Unless you're DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENTING IT in order to rewrite it into

an attack. So, you're misrepresenting the strawman itself.

Which means you're either deliberately attacking the meaning with ANOTHER

strawman, or you're determined to misunderstand it, even if it means

making the SAME MISTAKE OVER AND OVER.

For everyone who wishes to actually understand, here's the

strawman again. (In different words.)]

"'Straw man' is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched."

"The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent. In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context."

"As the "straw man" metaphor suggests, the counterfeit position attacked in a Straw Man argument is typically weaker than the opponent's actual position, just as a straw man is easier to defeat than a flesh-and-blood one. Of course, this is no accident, but is part of what makes the fallacy tempting to commit, especially to a desperate debater who is losing an argument. Thus, it is no surprise that arguers seldom misstate their opponent's position so as to make it stronger. Of course, if there is an obvious way to make a debating opponent's position stronger, then one is up against an incompetent debater. Debaters usually try to take the strongest position they can, so that any change is likely to be for the worse. However, attacking a logically stronger position than that taken by the opponent is a sign of strength, whereas attacking a straw man is a sign of weakness."

( from http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html )

[Me, I believe the posters here can understand this, and see the difference,

especially side-by-side.

Further, my post was verbose.

However, you've decided for everyone that this made it "excessive" and "BS."

Seems they've decided otherwise so far...]

Doesn't it even say in scripture that a fool is known by a multitude of words?

[Proverbs 23:9 says a fool will scorn the wisdom of words spoken to him as well.

Neither represents the be-all and end-all of identifying a fool, however.

And nothing says a fool "is known by" a multitude of words.

Must be why you didn't supply a reference...

Doesn't it bother you to misrepresent verses of Scripture?

Is there no twinge of conscience when "changing a word" in the Word of God?]

Johniam, it seems that you have a problem with the poster rather than the message. What's your next move? To yell "Yo Mama!"?

Great mature, intelligent discussion, debate and disagreement, John.

Actually,

when the opponent's position is unassailable, and someone wants to try to discredit what

can't be discredited, it's common to try to use the "ad hominem" attack.

That's its purpose. It's wrong, unprincipled, and petty, but that's how it goes.

In other words, WW refuses to admit that he has a double standard even though it is in the sight of the sun. No surprise there.

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.

2. Person B makes an attack on person A.

3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

( http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html )