WordWolf

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?

Yeah, I'll say that's close enough. ====================== Lynryd Skynryd's "Gimme Three Steps". " I was cutting the rug Down at a place called The Jug With a girl named Linda Lu. When in walked a man With a gun in his hand And he was looking for you know who. He said, "Hey there fellow, With the hair colored yellow, Watcha tryin' to prove? 'Cause that's my woman there And I'm a man who cares And this might be all for you." I was scared and fearing for my life. I was shakin' like a leaf on a tree. 'Cause he was lean, mean, Big and bad, Lord, Pointin' that gun at me. I said, "Wait a minute, mister, I didn't even kiss her. Don't want no trouble with you. And I know you don't owe me But I wish you'd let me Ask one favor from you." (Chorus) "Won't you give me three steps, Gimme three steps mister, Gimme three steps towards the door? Gimme three steps Gimme three steps mister, And you'll never see me no more." Well the crowd cleared away And I began to pray As the water fell on the floor. And I'm telling you son, Well, it ain't no fun Staring straight down a forty-four. Well he turned and screamed at Linda Lu And that's the break I was looking for. And you could hear me screaming a mile away As I was headed out towards the door. "Won't you give me three steps, Gimme three steps mister, Gimme three steps towards the door? Gimme three steps Gimme three steps mister, And you'll never see me no more." " ============= Too recognizable, I think the others were saying. (Hard to strike a balance there...) Go, Sunnyfla!

New song.... "He was lean, mean, big and bad, Lord, & pointin' that gun at me."

(In case I was unclear, I meant that anyone could post in such a thread once it was started, of course.... One THREAD per person, but not one POST per person...)

Hello. twi currently continues its policy of collecting and collating all the dirty secrets, the weaknesses, the shortcomings, the stumbles, and anything that can be re-interpreted to RESEMBLE them, and stores them on 3 x 5 cards. When they want to put the squeeze on someone, these cards come out and they read them to the person as leverage. When someone leaves twi, those who stayed hear them as twi conducts its usual smear campaign. So, to hear a reading of the 3 x 5 cards is to receive a curse at the hands of twi members. They mean it for evil, but it gives me an idea for good. I read here that once, at least one fellowship back in the wacky 70s would pass around 3 x 5 cards with someone's name, and each person who had it in their hand would write something about the person that blessed them, then passed it on. When the group was done, each person received their card-which listed the blessings. Thus, the idea. I'd like to start a series of threads where anyone who wants to can start such a thread. The rules I propose are simple: 1) anyone can start such a thread. 2) Please keep ONE thread per person. 3) Please label them clearly, with the title as the poster's s/n and "5 x 3" card. (I chose the name since it's "the reverse" of twi's 3 x 5 cards. :) ) 4) No one is forced to EVER post on one. 5) The ONLY things that should EVER go on such a thread are blessings. NO insults. NO sly little digs. NO insinuations. NOTHING that any person would not feel the person they care about most would not mind hearing. Save the venom and sarcasm for other threads-there's plenty to choose from. 6) Please stick to blessings, and keep dialogues/ normal discussions off the thread. Consider this like a big card the person would be handed. Try to keep posts below one typed page if at all possible. One sentence is perfectly acceptable if you are clear and concise. (And speaking from the heart is not something that follows too many rules, anyway.) I think those are reasonable rules to follow, and will only help these fill a useful purpose. With that in mind, I'm starting one for someone I think we all can agree upon. The wonderful blessing in our lives known as Pawtucket..... Paw has provided a place for us to speak the truth and hear the truth. Paw allows us the freedom to heal at our own pace and in our own words, even when it means we squabble, yell, throw things and smack each other. (Within a few distant limits.) This places a greater burden on Paw, since he must occasionally pull apart kids who want "a good fistfight", and let things sort themselves out or eventually step in once there's a loud brawl going on. This is generally a thankless job, and Paw keeps on with it without uttering a peep of complaint, and shoulders the great FINANCIAL burden of the bandwidth and so on without being pushy and asking for a reasonable set of donations, let alone a stipend for the "work" he does maintaining things here. So, this one goes out to Paw. Paw, I thank my God on every remembrance of you.

I read this modern-day parable some time ago, and-although some might think it is completely unrelated to this thread, I think it illustrates the point in a different fashion. I'll mark the relevant line/lines. ==================== A wealthy man and his son loved to collect rare works of art. They had everything in their collection, from Picasso to Raphael. They would often sit together and admire the great works of art. When Desert Storm broke out, the son went to war with his Reserve unit. He was very courageous and died in battle while rescuing another soldier. The father was notified and grieved deeply for his only son. About a month later, just before Christmas, there was a knock at the door. A young man stood at the door with a large package in his hands. He said, "Sir, you don't know me, but I am the soldier for whom your son gave his life. He saved many lives that day, and he was carrying me to safety when a bullet struck him in the heart and he died instantly. He often talked about you, and your love for art. The young man held out his package. "I know this isn't much. I'm not really a great artist, but I think your son would have wanted you to have this." The father opened the package. It was a portrait of his son, painted by the young man. He stared in awe at the way the soldier had captured the personality of his son in the painting. The father was so drawn to the eyes that his own eyes welled up with tears. He thanked the young man and offered to pay him for the picture. "Oh, no sir. I could never repay what your son did for me. It's a gift." The father hung the portrait over his mantle. Every time visitors came to his home he took them to see the portrait of his son before he showed them any of the other great works he had collected. The man died a few years later. There was to be a great auction of his paintings. Many influential people gathered, excited over seeing the great paintings and having an opportunity to purchase one for their collection. On the platform sat the painting of the son. The auctioneer pounded his gavel. "We will start the bidding with this picture of the son. Who will bid for this picture?" There was silence. Then a voice in the back of the room shouted, "We want to see the famous paintings! Skip this one!" But the auctioneer persisted. "Will someone bid for this painting? Who will start the bidding? $100, $200?" Another voice shouted angrily, "We didn't come to see this painting! We came to see the Van Gogh's, the Rembrandt's! Get on with the real bids!" But still the auctioneer continued. "The son! The son! Who'll take the son?" Finally, a voice came from the very back of the room. It was the longtime gardener of the man and his son. "I'll give $50 for the painting." Being a poor gardener, it was all he could afford. "We have $50, who will bid $60?" "Give it to him for $50! Let's see the masters!" "$50 is the bid, won't someone bid $60?" The crowd was becoming angry. They didn't want the picture of the son. They wanted the more worthy investments for their collections. The auctioneer pounded the gavel. "Going once, twice, SOLD for $50!" A man sitting in the second row shouted, "Now, let's get on with the collection!" The auctioneer laid down his gavel. "I'm sorry, the auction is over." "What about the paintings?" "I am sorry. When I was called to conduct this auction, I was told of a secret stipulation in the will. I was not allowed to reveal that stipulation until this time. Only the painting of the son would be auctioned. Whoever bought that painting would inherit the entire estate, including the paintings. The man who took the son gets every thing!" God gave His son 2,000 years ago to die on a cruel cross. Much like the auctioneer, His message today is, "The son, the son, who'll take the son?" Because, you see, whoever takes the Son gets everything.

You got me thinking of a Christian hymn that we sang PART OF, and never sang the last verse. It contradicted Session I of pfal and "Christians Should Be Prosperous", you see.... ========== I Know Who Holds Tomorrow (Words and music: Ira F. Stanphill © 1950) "I don't know about tomorrow; I just live from day to day. I don't borrow from its sunshine, For its skies may turn to grey. I don't worry o'er the future, For I know what Jesus said. And today I'll walk beside Him, For He knows what is ahead. Many things about tomorrow I don't seem to understand But I know who holds tomorrow And I know who holds my hand. Every step is getting brighter As the golden stairs I climb; Every burden's getting lighter, Every cloud is silver-lined. There the sun is always shining, There no tear will dim the eye; At the ending of the rainbow Where the mountains touch the sky. Many things about tomorrow I don't seem to understand But I know who holds tomorrow And I know who holds my hand. I don't know about tomorrow; It may bring me poverty. But the one who feeds the sparrow, Is the one who stands by me. And the path that is my portion May be through the flame or flood; But His presence goes before me And I'm covered with His blood. Many things about tomorrow I don't seem to understand But I know who holds tomorrow And I know who holds my hand."

Those of you who are still in, you are STILL being monitored by the twi Thought Police....

Well, I think this is really 2 questions. A) Can a spirit (angel or God) feel emotions? B) Does God feel emotions? As to the first, I'd say it's clear a spirit CAN feel emotions. That's why satan rebelled in the first place-he felt the sin of PRIDE. Ezekiel 28:16-17. (NKJV) "By the abundance of your trading You became filled with violence within, And you sinned; Therefore I cast you as a profane thing Out of the mountain of God; And I destroyed you, O covering cherub, From the midst of the fiery stones. 17 “ Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor; I cast you to the ground, I laid you before kings, That they might gaze at you." That means that spirits can either feel all sorts of emotions, or only pride (or only negative emotions like pride.) I reject the second possibility as ridiculous, pending a specific case for it. I'd say angels of every type can feel all sorts of emotions. ======= B) I'd say God feels DIFFERENTLY than we do, but He feels emotions nevertheless. I have great difficulty imagining a God that would go through lengthy plans for the salvation of so many even to this day, who feels no emotions about them whatsoever. Ephesians 2:4-5 (NKJV) "But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)," I John 4:7-11. "7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9 In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another." I John 4:16. "16 And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him." Seems pretty clear to me. And if someone has some intellectual or linguistic contortion that robs those verses of their plain meanings, that's their business. Me, I think this is remarkably simple- unless you've been taught wrong in the past and are trying to overcome wrong teaching, practical error and doctrinal error. Then it can be VERY difficult. That's how I see it, anyway.

Someone told me that one story going around is that craig was innocent- despite his admissions in direct testimony of wrongdoing in court. I imagine they're saying craig's innocent, and so's Rosa-lie....