WordWolf

It was a beautiful day, The sun beat down, I had the radio on, I was driving. Trees went by Me and 'Del' were singing 'Little Runaway' I was flying."

I should have known I'd get myself in trouble.... I don't have a par for it, but how about Paul Sorvino to Mira Sorvino ?

Go ahead and go into 1986. Who's it going to hurt?

As always, we're looking for your recollections of events. ANY recollections are appreciated. This was the year vpw ran to Gartmore, and the PoP was written after his death in April 1985. vpw taught on "the Hope" shortly before he died. It was a VERY busy year in twi. What do you remember of it?

I see I went too fast for you. I'll slow down. You were replying to this: Now then, any careful reader should be able to see that I ran thru all the possible meanings of the 2 concepts disagreeing. Anyone who wanted to make consistent sense of them, furthermore, can see that the Gospels verse was approximately understood correctly, and the Epistle verse was written correctly, but twisted from its meaning to form an excuse to abuse Christians. Jesus' warning was NOT to disregard your natural father. "Honor your father and mother" is the first commandment with promise. Jesus warned against taking another man, and making him an authority figure with religious power. Like in Judges 17. This Micah guy made himself a bunch of graven images (in violation of the First Commandment), and a house for them. Then he decided to finish the whole set. Judges 17:9 "And Micah said unto him, 'Whence comest thou?' And he said unto him, 'I am a Levite of Bethlehem-Judah, and I go to sojourn where I may find a place.' 17:10 And Micah said unto him, 'Dwell with me, and be unto me a father and a priest, and I will give thee ten shekels of silver by the year, and a suit of apparel, and thy victuals.' So the Levite went in. 17:11 And the Levite was content to dwell with the man; and the young man was unto him as one of his sons." Is the account inconsistent? Did he offer the man being a father and instead make him a son? The account IS consistent, and the offer was as stated. The "father" Micah referred to was a title of RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY, much like the secular authority of a natural or foster-father, except in a religious dimension. The young man lived there like he was one of the family, but the position he filled was as "father and priest", religious authority. If you need more, the next chapter tells more on this. THIS is the type of authority Jesus said NOT to have, and it's the type twi specializes in. ====== So, what was Paul on about? Paul spoke to someone specific, and said that he "fathered" him. Paul acted as an advisor and educator to this specific person, as an earthly father might. He did not act as "religious authority" even though this would not have seemed unreasonable at the time. Further, since Paul knew that now EVERY CHRISTIAN was a "priest", Paul knew the CONCEPT just COULD not work-even on paper. Paul was not acting as if he had any legal rights (or any other rights) to boss around his "son"- marking this different from the Judges incident AND Jesus' warning. His "son" was effectively an "adult". If one would try to extend authority and claim Paul could claim the same rights as an earthly father, this would not work, since an earthly father could not boss around his adult sons who made their own paths in the world. So, no matter how you slice it, Paul was NOT claiming Patriarch status, nor religious priest status, over the few people he PERSONALLY "fathered". There is no Biblical basis for the twi-invented doctrine of "vpw is our father in the Word."

Just thought I'd mention- I was raised Roman Catholic, and got straight "A"s in religion, and neither at home, nor in class, nor in mass, did I get an impression that I'd better shape up or I'd be going to hell. I've seen that characteristic on fictional television, but I'd never seen it for real growing up. So, not everyone was taught that-although I don't think anyone WAS saying EVERYONE was taught that.

I've suspected that. vpw is forgiveable, twi corps were well-intentioned, but the RC Church must be razed to the ground.

So you can name ONE other group that did that.... so they ALL may do that. Riiiight. After all, since everybody else was doing it, they did it too.Riiight. I've never heard of a Christian group-one that was not already labelled as toxic or dangerous- making such a claim.

Fascinating. Having seen that your initial complaints about Roman Catholicism were in error and without merit, you wasted no time in finding all NEW complaints about them, without pausing for anything like saying "I was wrong in my beliefs, having based them upon what lcm, vpw and the others said about Roman Catholicism". That's not a particular form of time-efficiency that would have occurred to me.

Really? Well, live and learn! *checks* Ok, Jerry Maren was in Under the Rainbow with Billy Barty. Billy Barty was in Willow with Warwick Davis. Which has been seen by....Kevin Bacon! I think we established this is NOT my game.

People can suffer through clinical depression or functional depression for DECADES. For many of them, death would be a welcome friend. Some other people want to commit suicide, and attempt it, only being saved thru an error in the attempt, or thru an outside rescue. (No, I'm not saying suicide was not "error", read the entire post.) Those people do not wish to live. Some believe to die. Period. Then they get up the next morning, and maybe they change their mind. Or, maybe they consent to die for a decade. Believing to die failed them-because believing is STILL not a law. Not-believing to survive failed them for the same reason. You do not "die when you quit believing". You die when you quit breathing. You quit believing when you die.

Thanks. We've been saying that. If ALL of us would agree on this, posting traffic on the GSC would reduce by 50% overnight. Personally, I think that everything you said has been well-documented and is currently a matter of public record. However, there are those who-somehow-disagree.

Maybe not, but his "blessings" were at their "expense". Proverbs 10:22 "The blessing of the LORD, it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with it." The blessing of twi, it makes a few rich, and rains sorrow on others.

I'll skip the "bifurcation", aka "false dilemma", and run thru all the possibilities. You can pick your favourite. A) The Gospel is wrong. The Bible can't be trusted, don't be a Christian, twi AND all Christians are wrong, get a new hobby. B) The Epistle is wrong. The Bible can't be trusted, don't be a Christian, twi AND all Christians are wrong, get a new hobby. ======== C) Both verses are right; Jesus' words are misunderstood. Woodrow explained this one in detail in "Babylon Mystery Religion". This "Father" thing was with the connotations of a religious leader who must be followed without question, and had precedents in the Old Testament among people in error. Therefore, Jesus' words are correctly understood-and in this context, PRECISELY RELEVANT. Most twi people who had this book DID know this-but never applied it to the mog. D) Both verses are right; Paul's words are misunderstood. twi has taught that this meant Paul was to be followed off a cliff like lemmings or something, and beyond question. This is neither true of EARTHLY fathers nor any OTHER kind. It also contradicts the previous verse. In the case of Paul, he worked SPECIFICALLY with these people, and PERSONALLY educated them, and now, like any parent, he had to let them go and hope he educated them correctly. There is no verse that says a father is allowed to keep his children in indentured servitude until his own death, nor that he could transfer said indentured servitude in perpetuity to his successor. Please present it, if you disagree.

Then in that case, Jerry Maren was in the Wizard of Oz,with Billy Bardy. Billy Bardy was in Willow, (he played the old wizard at the beginning) and Willow Upgood was Warwick Davis' most visible role. I think that equates to a par-2.

If you like comedies, leaving out the Marx Brothers is just plain wrong. Their greatest film was "A Night at the Opera". Period. (It was excrutiatingly assembled, so that makes sense.) "A Day at the Races" was their next film, and appeals to general audiences like the previous film did. (Thank Irving Thalberg for that. He claimed adding production value at the cost of some of the zaniness would make the movies appeal to wider audiences. He was right with both movies.) "Horse Feathers" also appeals to a wider audience. Fans of oddball comedies love "Duck Soup", which didn't connect to its audience at the time, but later generations LOVED it. ======= So, "A Night at the Opera" IS a must-see. The others, it's up to you. I love the Marx Brothers, and have seen several MORE of their movies. However, I don't recommend anyone go out of their way to see the others. (Unless you're a fan, say, and want to see the "Cocoanuts" "Viaduct" scene or the auction, or the "He lost his shirt" song, or "At The Circus" and the "Lydia the Tattooed Lady" song.)

Please note that "making a profit" is not a requirement for plagiarism. Presenting it as your own work, period, is plagiarism. Making a profit is one reason to commit the crime of plagiarism, although hardly the SOLE reason. Some more are mentioned here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/pl...m-wierwille.htm

I'm not answering EVERYTHING in ONE post. If you'll arrange for a steady paycheck for me for posting on the GSC, then I'll see to responding to EVERYTHING much faster.

Staying clear of danger and dangerous things can be difficult, and require CONSTANT VIGILANCE. We who forget the past may be more apt to repeat it. And "Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird." (Proverbs 1:17) twi prefers we just silence ourselves, and stop warning the birds, so they can ensnare them in their nets. No dice. Every day we speak out. Every day new people seek information on twi, and read us. Every day new people read us and steer clear of twi. Every day people who are IN get sick and tired of being sick and tired. Every day sick and tired people who are IN read us. Every day sick and tired people who are IN and read us realize God doesn't live in twi's little cage, and consider escaping into the sunlight. Even vpw might have known this expression was being incorrectly used. Living Victoriously, session 1, he explained how the term "Protestant" was incorrectly attributed to "protesting" something. "pro"-forward, forth "test"-as in "testament", "testimony". Thus, a "protestant" "speaks forth". (In case you're wondering, the "test" descends from the Latin word "testari", or "third", and from thence into the term for "witness", since a witness is a neutral third-party. A good collegiate dictionary should tell you that-it did for me.) You incorrectly quoted Hamlet, when the players were enacting "the Murder of Gonzago", aka "the Mousetrap." As the play's queen exclaims-in great detail-how she will not remarry, ending in "In second marriage let me be accursed! Let none wed the second but who killed the first!" And then CONTINUED for a time. Hamlet watched to see if Gertrude recoqnized the comment- it was a reference to his own father's death. Was she complicit in her husband's death-then marrying his killer? Hamlet then prompted her for a response. "Madam, how like you this play?" The innocent Gertrude didn't recognize this reference, and said "the lady doth protest too much, methinks." Hamlet's reply:"O, but she'll keep her word." The current king, feeling guilty, adds "Have you heard the 'argument'? Is there no offence in it?" So, the meaning of Gertrude's statement was "The lady runs on a lot, I think." (Review the scene-I think you'll agree.) Some people have INCORRECTLY attributed her comment to "protesting", but that changes NOT the meaning of the line. It's about as sensible as saying "Wherefore art thou Romeo?" means "Where are you, Romeo?" when it means "Why are you 'Romeo'?" i.e. "Why did you have to be one of those hated Montagues, of all people?"

Since you missed me, I'll try again. Here's your initial post. (I corrected spelling and grammar for you.) I won't speak on groups I'm not familiar with. In this case, that means I'll speak on Catholicism. You said they ONLY show you a defeated, crucified Christ. I gave an example of one parish that does NOT. Then you went off about RC history and how all the elements of the organization are for control. I'm not going into detail on how it's silly to repeat lcm's "the Pope wants to rule the world", "the Pope owns an aircraft carrier" rants, nor how there's no secret meetings on how to take over the world- neither on a parish, diocesis, archdiocis, nor Vatican level. I'll get back to the questions you asked. Now, as to whether the RC church requires membership in the RC church for a Christian to be saved, that is patently ridiculous. I was reviewing an entire article on "interchurch" marriages- marriages between RC and non-RC Christians, and how to make them work. Not ONCE in the article does it even SUGGEST the other Christian is unsaved, nor that they're not a "real" Christian until and unless they "come around" and become Catholics. Here's the article. http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0690.asp So, getting that from a CATHOLIC source, I would judge then that CATHOLICS tell other CATHOLICS that NON-CATHOLICS are SAVED. ===== On, then, to salvation.... What do Catholics say on salvation? Well, you'd need to know what they say about God's grace. http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac1000.asp Then here's some stuff on who will be saved. http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0494.asp Here's some general stuff they believe and teach- which sounds VERY different than what you were taught in twi. http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0888.asp Finally, can only Catholics be saved? http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/...003/Wiseman.asp After reading all that, it seems obvious to me that they're clear that salvation is thru Christ only.

Luke 10:25-37(NKJV) "And behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tested him, saying 'Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?' He said unto him, 'What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?' So he answered and said, 'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and 'your neighbor as yourself'. And he said to him, 'You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.' But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, 'And who is my neighbor?' Then Jesus answered and said: 'A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion. So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, 'take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.' So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?' And he said, 'He who showed mercy on him.' Then Jesus said to him, 'Go and do likewise.'" ========== Now then, two men who were EXPERTS in God's Word, who new its contents VERY well, or this schlub, from a despised group, who DID well and may have known few verses accurately? Who would I be more like? Who would JESUS bid me be more like? (These were HIS examples, remember.)

I spent some time among the Roman Catholics I mentioned. I made it clear I was completely DISinterested in BECOMING one when the subject was broached. One guy was convinced I was GOING to become one- I disabused him of this unambiguously. After this, I was still quite welcome as before. NOBODY then said I couldnt join in any reindeer games, NOBODY then said I must conform or be cast out, NOBODY then said I must "come around" to their thinking or I couldn't "come around" to their meetings. From what I've heard, those pronouncements were common among the 90s and 00's in twi. Frankly, I think the only reason me and Roman Catholicism came up there was that I seemed to have a passion for Scripture and a passion for avoiding the "chief seats"- I knew stuff but made a point not to grab for the spotlight. So, a group where I could come and go as I wished, (where I disagreed with doctrine) or one where I had to conform (where I disagreed with doctrine). Which one demonstrates the love which Jesus said would be how the world would recognize his followers? === Further, when I was in college, I spent some time with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. That's where Christians of a variety of groups all interacted, WITHOUT busting on each other and playing games of one-upsmanship. Their advisor complemented me on knowing some Bible and never challenged me on having the storied twi arrogance. Comparing them with twi-even LOCAL, NICE twi in the best times I had, their attitudes were more accurate than twi.

I believe the answer was "both".

So, a teaching that said the opposite of what Jesus Christ said- Matthew 23:9 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." -and THAT's "benign"? THAT's "no big deal"? I notice that lcm and vpw seemed able to recite everything ELSE from "Babylon Mystery Religion", but THAT item seemed to elude them. Good book until I want to call myself something unBiblical? Strange targeting system in play....

I've a church local to me that would surprise themex. First of all, BRING YOUR BIBLE. They TEACH THE BIBLE. Second of all, they have a cross. They have Christ on it. However, he seems to be ascending directly in FRONT of it. "Messiah, dead on a cross?" No, "Trimphant Anointed One, Ascending to His Father". It's a Roman Catholic Church. ===== Will someone please pass a smelling salt under themex's nose?