WordWolf

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.

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.

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....

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...

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

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...

Interesting point. We're asking if God has "emotions" without checking that all of us have ONE definition of "emotions." Nice one. I've held a position along this line for some time.

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. I posted another description. I think you'll appreciate this one more than the last one, and it explains the reason for the name.

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.

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 )

*wild swing* Is it CLERKS or CLERKS 2????

The line sounds familiar. The clues eliminated INXS and the Grateful Dead, who lost their lead singers. (And Jerry Garcia was never "very hot.") A lot of "classic rock" bands werent together in the late 80s- like Led Zeppelin. Bands like Twisted Sister are out because Dee Snider was never "very hot" either. But I'd need another line to work out who's left. I'm thinking it was a band who FORMED in the '80s, not someone like the Rolling Stones.

'Debbie Does Damage?'

There's been a number of discussions, where a number of people made a number of comments. Some you'll probably agree with, some you'll probably DISagree with. Here's the ones I remember offhand. -Mrs W could be super-specific with Way Builders, even to the point of working counter to the best judgements of professional builders. One poster said he had to redo a day's work to a lower work-standard because she wanted the aesthetics different. -That account was an exception to most stories of her. Where vpw was full of bluster about his own greatness, and meanness when things weren't PRECISELY how he wanted them, for the most part, she's been reported as rather subdued and reserved. Nobody's come forth with accounts of her screaming at people or humiliating them. So, she's remembered as someone whose actions were better. -As important as what she DID was, what she did NOT do was more important- she did NOT rape the flock, drug anyone, or participate in any of the conspiracies TO do any of those. She's not reported to have even PRIVATE vices, in comparison to vpw's PUBLIC vices and addictions to alcohol and tobacco. ====== That having been said, it's a fair question why she's not condemned. After all, she did not come forth and give testimony against vpw the criminal. Therefore, one would ask-why didn't she? A more petty person may lead in and say she liked the money and general higher standard of living she got. Perhaps that person would be right. However, she avoided conspicuous displays of wealth. (No fancy cars, fur coats, or Imelda Marcos shoe collections.) Further, when she married vpw, he was seriously broke. He WAS already the convincing talker he met, and he was already a candidate for "the ministry." One might speculate he convinced her-at first-that he was a godly man with godly conduct. (He convinced us, why not her?) So, perhaps (I'm speculating here) she didn't see his true nature emerge until much later, much "too late". What does "too late" mean? Just as one must understand the times, customs and cultures in the Bible, one must understand her in terms of her own time/culture. At that point in history, divorce was nearly unheard-of. Women stood by their men, right or wrong. She already had children with him before he was overtly evil to even the discerning eye. It was unheard of to divorce with kids on the line. Would she have to leave them behind? Would she need to support them? Was she ready to raise them without a father? Perhaps people living NOW can suppose those were simple decisions THEN. The other possibilities would have been to "turn state's evidence" against vpw- either exposing him to the police or to the ministry. If she "went public" in the ministry, almost nobody would take her seriously. vpw had built up a great reputation as deeply and uniquely spiritual. She had not. If there was a question, HE would be believed. If she "went public" to the police, she'd need EVIDENCE. Direct testimony of victims who left was hard since they'd been run off. Direct testimony of victims who stayed was harder since they were intimidated into accepting vpw's doctrine of "the lockbox." Further, vpw had a criminal gang prepared to facilitate his rapes and druggings by doing things like lying on the witness stand. Could she use videotaped evidence? Not when portable video cameras DIDN'T EXIST. So, simply put, if she stepped forward, she stood to lose EVERYTHING and succeed in NOTHING. Worse was being married to him-when he could be a mean drunk. Imagine being married to a drunken, belligerent tyrant who barked orders and brooked no dissent. I never saw him hit her, but I'd be surprised if he went as far as he did and NEVER hit her. He certainly grew up thinking violence was an option. At his BURIAL, she was heart to say "He was a mean man." She knew he'd "get even" if she ever tried to expose him. Did she ever help some of his victims? One stepped forward and said she arrived in time to interrupt vpw's moves on her, enabling her to contrive an exit. ===================== So, on a purely moral front, yes, it is wrong that she did not step forward and report a criminal. However, for reasons mentioned above (and others left out), it is understandable (if wrong) that she would conclude speaking up would only harm her and her children, and it would be best to not interfere (much) with his felonies. Double-standard? Not quite. It was still wrong-but we understand. She felt powerless for many reasons. In short, what one would ask of her in this case was more than she was able to give- and it seems she wished she WAS able.....

Who needs actual Biblical scholars when your people are actively discouraged from reading the Bible for themselves and thinking for themselves?

twi's official timeline (issued at vpw's memorial thing) gave the opening as 1985. (Same as vpw's death.)

Ok, let's see what the books are here... Dead center. Bullinger's Companion Bible. Front left, Pillai's "Light Through an Eastern Window" and Volumes 1 and 2 of "Orientalisms in the Bible", complete with the Orientalisms Index (study guide). Front middle: Brochure: "Workmen of the Word." Front right: "Strange Scriptures That Perplex the Western Mind", and "Manners and Customs of the Bible." (Two copies of "Strange Scriptures", I wonder why?) Back right: "Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed" "Are the Dead Alive Now?" (2 copies) "Jesus Christ is Not God" and "Rise and Expansion." Why the heck is "Rise and Expansion" such a heavy book when lcm's always light on content? Back left: On the right is "Witness of the Stars", then 2 books I don't recognize, then "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible", then another book I don't recognize, then the New Bible Dictionary, then Bullinger's Lexicon, then 2 books I don't recognize, then Young's Concordance. That's a lot of study materials for people who are not allowed to actually STUDY...

When the subject of "conscience" comes up, I sometimes (like now) am reminded of something I read long ago. An "American Indian" once explained what a conscience is. "It is a three-pointed thing in here. (*gestures to his stomach*) When I do wrong, it turns, and the points hurt me. But if I KEEP doing wrong, then the points wear down, and they don't hurt so much anymore."

How many of you have learned the hard, hard lesson that- despite what twi taught- humans need other humans?

So it looks like actual Biblical scholars never were attracted to twi. We've had justifications as to why those evil Biblical scholars never got honest enough to join, and diatribes on the evils of other Christians in days past when some performed evil deeds, but nobody's found even one.

Johniam: "As far as the gates of hell not prevailing against the church, I think of the catholic church not being able to extinguish Christianity despite all their efforts during the dark ages." ========= mstar1: "YOU wouldnt have much of a Bible to read if those evil catholics hadnt been the ones to preserve it all through that period." ========= Johniam: "Oh. God can't protect his word? Preserved? Yeah and they didn't let common people read it for themselves. They must've preserved it just in case someone like Martin Luther actually read it and challenged them doctrinally." ========= WordWolf: "He can and He did. In this case, He Himself chose as the instrument of His preservation, "those evil catholics." Common people not reading it is NOT how I would have handled it if asked. Why God Almighty elected to preserve it in this fashion-they're the ones that Martin Luther's texts ultimately came from- is not known to me. However, I would not seek to lecture Him on ways and means. Perhaps you should address Him directly on this one." ========== Johniam: "I have a question for you, Wordwolf. Why the double standard??? On one hand you say that God chose the catholics to preserve His word, so no matter what evil they did; torturing and murdering people in the name of God, selling indulgences to people to "buy their deceased loved ones out of purgatory", and misrepresenting Christianity as salvation by works. Despite all that and more, I'm supposed to just let it slide because God needed them to preserve His word and all those people they killed or misled are just collateral damage and that's too bad. On the other hand you say that God didn't choose VP to preserve the truth of His word because of all the evil that VP did, even though he didn't kill or torture anybody and even though he correctly represented Christianity as salvation by grace, and he encouraged people to read the bible for themselves. I'm supposed to forget that and focus on all these accusations that were never brought before a court of law. Why the double standard??? " WordWolf now responds: I have a question for you, Johniam,-why the Strawman? (From Nizkor.org) "The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern: Person A has position X. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). Person B attacks position Y. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. " You said that I'm excusing ANYONE of ANYTHING they did. Let's recap the posts so far, as quoted in this very post for convenience. Johniam claims the Roman Catholic Church attempted-put forth a considerable effort- to extinguish Christianity during the Dark Ages. His exact words? "As far as the gates of hell not prevailing against the church, I think of the catholic church not being able to extinguish Christianity despite all their efforts during the dark ages." One might say that Johniam was saying that the Catholic Church was operating under the auspices of the Devil during the Dark Ages, and actively seeking to wipe out Christianity. In fact, this seems to be what he was saying outright. mstar1 responded as follows: "YOU wouldnt have much of a Bible to read if those evil catholics hadnt been the ones to preserve it all through that period." mstar1's pointing out the only ones WITH Bibles WERE Catholics, so the later proliferation of Bibles was due to the preservation of Bibles during ALL those centuries, including the timeframe when Johniam asserts the Catholics served the devil. Of course, if they were the sole holders of the Bible and working for the devil, it would have been easy to quietly trash all the Bibles, possibly replacing all the copies with lectionaries and polities and leaving NO Bibles intact to contradict them. This did NOT happen. Is mstar1 advocating any exemptions, indulgences, or free passes for Catholics? Not in this post. Only black-and-white thinking would see this attempt at showing how this was not black-and-white would view this response as such. Then Johniam responded. "Oh. God can't protect his word? Preserved? Yeah and they didn't let common people read it for themselves. They must've preserved it just in case someone like Martin Luther actually read it and challenged them doctrinally." Here, Johniam is directly disputing the content of mstar1's post. He's claiming the Bible's preservation had nothing to do with the Catholic Church-which means Johniam's disputing history here. Then he changes the subject and rails about how evil the Catholic church was for not letting their hand-copied Bibles be read by the illiterate peasants (who can't read anything), whose grasp of Latin usually seemed a bit weak (meaning they can't read the Vulgate, even IF you handed it to them.) Then he claims the SOLE reason they preserved the Bible (now he's admitting they preserved it?) was to dispute people later like Martin Luther who read it and challenged them. Now, Luther read it once the printing press made it possible to circulate copies not done by hand. That required Bibles that WERE done by hand to work from. That required Bibles preserved intact down the centuries. That was provided by the Catholic Church. Which was what mstar1 said, and Johniam objected to. Johniam's trying very hard to refuse any credit for something he seems unable to refute actually happening. WordWolf replied to him.... "He can and He did. In this case, He Himself chose as the instrument of His preservation, "those evil catholics." Common people not reading it is NOT how I would have handled it if asked. Why God Almighty elected to preserve it in this fashion-they're the ones that Martin Luther's texts ultimately came from- is not known to me. However, I would not seek to lecture Him on ways and means. Perhaps you should address Him directly on this one." Johniam made a claim about God "protecting His word", and challenged that Catholics did so in any way. WordWolf's reply addressed that directly. That Catholics preserved it is a historical fact. Either God was UNABLE to preserve His word-so He did not, or God was able to preserve it-but chose not to, or God was able and willing to preserve His word- which means He did so. If He did so, He did so in the manner it DID happen, which means He elected to preserve His word using Catholics. He could have sent down new stone tablets or parchments like some new 10 Commandments, or sent texts into the future with a beam of godly power-but He did not do so. He worked with the free will of the people present-in this case, He worked with Catholics. Did WordWolf endorse the specific plan used by God? Actually, he specifically said he did NOT. However, he also admitted that he was man and not God, and thus complaints as to how God specifically chose to enact His will should be addressed to God Himself. ========== All clear so far? Seems straightforward to me. I don't think I'm that far ahead that I'm losing everyone else. ========== Then Johniam replied to WordWolf. "I have a question for you, Wordwolf. Why the double standard??? On one hand you say that God chose the catholics to preserve His word, so no matter what evil they did; torturing and murdering people in the name of God, selling indulgences to people to "buy their deceased loved ones out of purgatory", and misrepresenting Christianity as salvation by works. Despite all that and more, I'm supposed to just let it slide because God needed them to preserve His word and all those people they killed or misled are just collateral damage and that's too bad. On the other hand you say that God didn't choose VP to preserve the truth of His word because of all the evil that VP did, even though he didn't kill or torture anybody and even though he correctly represented Christianity as salvation by grace, and he encouraged people to read the bible for themselves. I'm supposed to forget that and focus on all these accusations that were never brought before a court of law. Why the double standard???" Johniam claimed here that WordWolf said that evil actions performed by members, or planned by leadership of the Catholic Church, should all be "let slide". I don't see any such claim in WordWolf's posts-does anyone else? Please quote EXACTLY where this is even SUGGESTED. Then Johniam continues and says that WordWolf said that "God needed them to preserve His word and all those people they killed or misled are just collateral damage and that's too bad." Where did WordWolf say that God "needed" to work with Catholics at that place and time? God CHOSE to do so. Being God, He could have done any of millions of other things. Where did WordWolf say that people that were killed or misled are just collateral damage? Scroll up, please, and find the quote. There's not even a SUGGESTION of that. There's only an acknowledgement that this is WHO God chose to work with, and this is HOW He worked with them. There's no claim GOD endorsed evil acts on their behalf, either. Johniam, however, has decided to place those concepts into the posts he's finding objectionable. Since those reasons are not actually there, there must be another reason he objects to those posts or even accepting that this is how history unfolded. ========= Johniam finished: "On the other hand you say that God didn't choose VP to preserve the truth of His word because of all the evil that VP did, even though he didn't kill or torture anybody and even though he correctly represented Christianity as salvation by grace, and he encouraged people to read the bible for themselves. I'm supposed to forget that and focus on all these accusations that were never brought before a court of law." WordWolf never made any claims comparing them. However, if he had, he would have done so in the same fashion he NOW responds to Johniam's post. "you say that God didn't choose VP to preserve the truth of His word because of all the evil that VP did, " Actually, I say God didn't choose vpw because he didn't choose vpw. Period. Did God not select him because of all the evil he would later do? Or was it his lack of endurance? Or how he viewed ministership as just another job? Or his laziness at all phases, choosing to plagiarize the work of others rather than do his own work? Or how vpw was basically dishonest and thought nothing of lying to people to their faces, even adding NEW lies when caught? (The second snowstorm.) Or his hypocrisy in telling people to abstain from their vices while indulging in his own? Or to speak of faithfulness to all while being UNfaithful to his marriage? Did God find him unsuitable for any of these reasons? For ALL of these reasons? For reasons not named or even unknown to WordWolf? I've no idea, and I never even pretended to know God's mind on any or all of these. Mind you, Johniam is perfectly content to condemn and damn the Catholic Church for the evils perpetrated by members and hierarchy centuries ago- but gives a free pass to vpw BECAUSE he taught some good Bible-type stuff. "even though he didn't kill or torture anybody and even though he correctly represented Christianity as salvation by grace, and he encouraged people to read the bible for themselves. I'm supposed to forget that and focus on all these accusations that were never brought before a court of law." The Catholic Church was not sued for evil actions Johniam blames them for- and neither was vpw sued for evil actions Johniam does NOT blame him for. The Catholic Church is to be vilified. vpw is to be praised. So, I have a question for Johniam: Why the double standard?