Raf

I just happened to sign back on right after you posted. I understand what you're saying about the lawyers being a part of the legal system, but a phrase like "the courts are taking this seriously" (or however it was originally worded) is not accurate when no hearings have been held. Lawyers file frivolous lawsuits all the time, and opposing lawyers invariably take those lawsuits very seriously. They have to. In fact, they have to argue, seriously, that the lawsuit is frivolous. It isn't until a judge has begun to look at the arguments to decide whether or not they are worth pursuing that one can say whether "the courts" are taking it seriously. You wouldn't say "the courts are taking TWI's position seriously" just because Pat does, would you? Or just because TWIM's lawyers do? Of course not. I could sue you right now, and you and your lawyer would take it seriously. But as I have no reason to sue you, the moment a judge gets a look at my lawsuit, it ain't gonna take him more than a few seconds to dismiss it. You think TWI's lawyers are taking Pat's challenge seriously. I agree. They'd be fools not to. But they ain't the courts. Not in that context.

ANOTHER new person? I'm going to have to call Juan Valdez (and his burro Ramon) to order more coffee. But we still have a few cups left. How do you take your coffee, Hooner?

You do know the difference between apples and oranges, don't you? TWI's lawyers are not the court system. I agree that they're taking this seriously. They should be. But they are not "the court." The court is the judge and, if it gets that far, the jury. For all we know, the judge is going to look at the claim and the counterclaim and dismiss both. You don't know what they're going to do and neither do I. So don't speak for the courts when you really only mean to say TWI's lawyers.

You guys make an assumption that we have based our conclusions solely on Wierwille, without any further study. It is a mistaken assumption. Many people, Christians, have come to the same conclusion as Wierwille. When discussing this issue (on those rare occasions that I do these days), I leave Wierwille out of the discussion. He is not an authority and his history/hermeneutics are laughable. But even a broken clock is right twice a day, as they say. My opinion.

And yes, it is worth the price of admission.

I haven't read the articles. I didn't start this thread, insurgent did. :)-->

We never met: I just like to pour coffee for the new folks who show up at the cafe. How do you take your coffee?

I just don't see how one Person in the Godhead can keep a secret from another Person in the Godhead.

I don't understand the question. You sure it was intended for me?

Some more for the yuck list: Weeeeeee've got the power... to take the Word over the wooooooorld In fact, with all due respect to the heart of the guy who put that tape together, I thought it was the worst collection of sings I'd ever heard. The Trinity is idolatry, who's kidding who? I am a leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaf, I am a leeeeee-eeee-eeeeaf... (I know, I listed that one already. But it deserves to be listed twice).

Insurgent: It's okay to quote something. That's not plagiarism. And it's not copyright infringement either.

That would be the satire speech on the beginning of the Tom Burke tape. What a waste of tape.

I'm not talking about Songbook songs. I'm talking about those songs by Acts 29, Brian Bliss, PDSTRO, Sam Pruyn, Breakthrough, Billy Falcon, Singing Ladies... you know, songs that they produced and sold. If we were to include hymns, I would have to argue for the PFAL song. "I Saw The Light" was independent of TWI. I was thinking of "Plurality Giving" by Acts 29: It goes beyond abundant sharing It's giving your plurality If you really want to move the Word it's time to raise your vision. It goes beyond abundant sharing It's giving your plurality You've got the choice; it's in the Word, what's your decision? How many of the people singing that song were PG'ing? Gimme a friggin break. Oh, and I'd be pushing up DAISIES before anyone ever caught me singing I am a leaf, I am a leeeeeeeee-eee-eeeeaf...

Hey Bramble, Let's pretend, for argument's sake, just pretend, that I never heard the song and I don't have the slightest idea what the lyrics are or why you hate it. Just pretend, mind you. Could you tell me? :)-->

Def, there is a different kind of "dispensationalism" being discussed on this thread. Not the same as what we've all discussed before. This is more about a peculiarity of Jehovah's Witnesses.

What was the worst song produced and sold by TWI's various groups? I remember continuously hearing "There Ain't Nothin' Wrong With Hank Williams Jr." (I don't know the exact name of the song). And every time I heard that song I would think... I didn't ask you. It's like, the song extolls the virtues of Country music, which is fine, but has got a big fat zero to do with the Bible. Anyway, that's not the worst song in my opinion. But I am thinking of one in particular that drove me bats. But I'll save it until I hear a few more. Now, you can't just name the song: give a lyric or two and 'splain why you hated it.

DMiller, Even if one were to reject dispensationalism, an argument can still be made that the tithe is not applicable today (as a requirement). We know, for example, that circumcision is not a requirement. Most of us realize that dietary laws are not a requirement. One must ask IF the tithe falls into the same category of laws that are no longer required. Gentile believers with no background in Judaism are never told to tithe. James, after the Jerusalem council, never instructs Gentiles to tithe. JAMES! I thought he was the big legalist! Yet no instruction to tithe. Paul spends several chapters in Corinthians talking about the heart behind giving. The tithe is conspicuously absent. You'll never catch me saying there's something wrong with tithing. But there is something wrong with requiring others to do so. The NT doesn't.

After you see the third movie, let me know.

I usually try to serve coffee to the new folks, but in this case... For JT:

This is a great one from Goey in the Doctrinal Forum:

Ohhhhh k. That answers my question. :)-->

I know I wasn't in for a very long time, but I did listen to a whole bunch of tapes and I don't recall Wierwille making such a big deal of his heritage. Mention it, yes, but I don't remember him making a big deal of it, like it made him more spiritual or anything. Maybe I'm just not seeing it.

My WORD we're getting tons and tons of new folks lately. What gives? In the meantime, would you like some coffee gammacoffey? Or is that redundant?

I feel for you, Pat. That's why I asked if there was objective proof, in writing. The letter sent to Janet would qualify. I hope others kept it. Goey, you wrote: True, but where did they "announce" this? On tape? In writing? We agree, the word got out: but that wasn't my question. My question is, can it be objectively proven (in writing or on tape) that the bookstore was ever closed to the public?

Some really good moments, and Puss 'n Boots totally steals the show... But there's not a lot of show to steal, IMHO.