-
Posts
17,102 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
174
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Everything posted by Raf
-
What does their country of origin have to do with it? Oh, you meant...
-
...cigars. Which brings us back to smoking.
-
Correct! Sho, what did you think of my Sean Connery impershonation?
-
We should change the name of this thread to "The Big O" That'll get the post count up right quick.
-
No. Another hint: "There izh a peash that izh only to found on the other shide of war..."
-
You're halfway there. That's the name of the character who says the line.
-
WAYDALE REPOST: Rafael Olmeda's Original Blue Book Commentary
Raf replied to Zixar's topic in GreaseSpot 101
Okay, let's start with something simple: Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery. Wierwille not only committed adultery, he condoned it, and in the Christian Family and Sex class, failed to teach against it. That he did so routinely and damaged lives and families for it is quite documented. Is that "according to the Word" enough for you? What we've done with Wierwille's works is no different from what he did with Bullinger's: took what he liked, discarded what he didn't. The only difference is, we were not all taught by Bullinger, so Wierwille had no need to document where he thought Bullinger was wrong. But when you listen to ANY Christian minister, you do the same thing: you consider what he says that is right, but you also identify that which is wrong. You do this routinely, but you criticize us for doing the same with Wierwille. Why is that? Why do you get to say that Wierwille is "98%" right? Is it because you've identified the 2% that is wrong? What gives you the right? And speaking of Appollos, doesn't the Bible specifically say where and how he was wrong? So what's wrong with doing that with Wierwille's works? You protest too much. You also failed to answer my question: how do we "prove all things" without identifying what's right and what's wrong? -
2 years from now, will you do a "180" or a "90" again?
Raf replied to mdvaden's topic in About The Way
You mean will I do something like: believe in and teach the Trinity, then change my mind and preach against it? believe in and teach immediate life after death, then turn around and teach the opposite? believe in and teach tradition, then reverse myself and teach what I think the Bible actually says, and throw tradition to the wind? God, I hope I change my mind as more accurate information comes to light for me. It's what Dr. Wierwille did. -
Wierwille was lucid when he gave his last lost teaching, but not lucid when he made it abundantly clear that PFAL is not God-breathed. Get with the program, Def. Mike: "PFAL is God-breathed." Wierwille: "No it's not." Mike: The editing process was overseen by God. PFAL's Editors: "No, He wasn't." Who you gonna believe?
-
I could have told you that.
-
Cool! I thought wolf would be the only one who knew Remo. Dan Aykroyd Trading Places Denholm Elliott !
-
When I decide to quit drinking, I'll ignore the Mike threads in their entirety. :)-->
-
Extra points to anyone who can get this... Cabaret Joel Grey Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins Thread calling WordWolf. Come in, WordWolf...
-
I'm not justifying it. :)--> Besides, I'd rather you call it pathetic rather than understandable. It's now been five hours since the last one.
-
I did tithe for a brief period in the 1990s. And God did spit in my direction. So I stopped tithing immediately. :)-->
-
Byproduct of the karaoke bar scene.
-
Maybe too soon. But I'm counting on all of you to keep the pressure on!
-
For some reason that I can't quite understand, I started smoking about 18 months ago. I had a few this morning, but then... I threw out the rest of the pack... and I threw out the lighter... and I... quit? Yeah. Yeah, dangit, I quit! Who's with me?
-
I just started one. Let's see what happens (naturally, there's no info on it yet). Shameless Plug
-
We should be flexible on this. Most TV movies, no one's ever heard of. Please refrain from the obscure movie of the week that aired one time in 1980. And Lifetime movies are out and out banned. But Steven King's The Stand has already been used. I can't imagine penalizing for "V" or Roots. If you're reasonably confident that a lot of people have seen it or heard of it (Angels in America would pass), then by all means. By the same token, Al Pacino has no shortage of theatrical releases to consider, so if it's not necessary, then let's not go there. Use your discretion. Last movie was: 10
-
Victor Victoria Julie Andrews 10
-
I think I was just the fastest. "The family sings." It was either the Brady Bunch movie (sorry, just 6 kids, unless you count Oliver. Hmmmm) or The Sound of Music.
-
There was an ex-CES forum for a while. It never quite caught on, although there are some interesting discussions. I think http://www.exwayworld.com and/or http://www.excultworld.com have information about offshoots, but no active forum on them. My forum (which I like to think of as the explicitly Christian offshoot of GSCafe) doesn't have any real offshoot discussions to date, but you just gave me an idea...