Raf

Def, While I understand what you're saying, the difference is that there is a religious belief called "Unitarianism" that is not Biblical. "Biblical Unitarianism" is a distinction that avoids confusion with the generic term "Unitarianism." "Biblical Trinitarianism" is redundant, since the Trinitarian argument is recognized as being based on people's understanding of the Bible. "Unitarianism," without the "Biblical" prefix, is not recognized as being based on people's understanding of the Bible. "Biblical Unitarianism" more specifically distinguishes between that belief and "Unitarian Universalism."

Why change tactics? We should keep doing what we're doing: sharing our histories while conducting honest/vigorous debates about doctrine and practice. If we can do anything, we can praise them for doing the right thing and opening their bookstore to the public, just like any other church would do. Secrecy only breeds speculation, rumor and innuendo. If TWI's books are not for sale, and if TWI will only share its books with members, then the only people who will be able to say anything about TWI's books publicly are those who are critical of them. So Bravo to TWI for opening the bookstore.

Oldiesman, I can't speak for what you're feeling inside, but I can speak for your words. You're calling her a liar. Period. Your words indicate more than "I just don't believe everything she says." You are flat-out accusing her of lying. To not see that is to not realize the power of your words. "I was told ABC." "I don't believe you." You're accusing her of lying. You have every right to do that. It's your prerogative. It's also disgusting. I think that's a much better way to make your statement, mj. Thank you for clarifying.

You know, it's one thing to argue and have an intelligent/heated discussion about the extent to which TWI pressured people to have abortions and/or the amount of choice the people had or felt they had. It's another thing entirely to tell someone that she was not told what she was told. I find that statement appalling. Argue with Rascal all you want. You are entitled to your own opinion. But as the saying goes, you are not entitled to your own facts. It is a fact that this is what she was told. I think Rascal is owed an apology (for whatever my thoughts are worth).

Saw it last night, with someone who hadn't read the book. There was a little trouble following the big plot twist at the climax, but my friend caught on right before it got scary. Tom, you're already pretty much caught up. But since you're on track, might as well watch the second movie before you see the third. Kenneth Branagh's performance alone is worth the price of the DVD. It'll also get you accustomed to the boys' voice changes and introduce you to Ron's parents, Draco's dad (who shows up again in the fourth movie, no doubt) and gives a bit more background on Hagrid. The new Dumbledore is terrific. Richard Harris brought a lot of dignity to the role, but the new guy brought just the right touch of mischief. In the first two movies you get a sense that Dumbledore is aware of the mischief that the trio are up to, but in this one, he's a bit more actively complicit. Harris was aging to the point where I wonder if he could have pulled it off. The third movie is incredible, I thought. Great acting all around, and it's the first time you get a real sense that this is part of a series: it's the first one that leaves you eager for the next installment. Our audience applauded when the director's credit came up.

Single. And can you do me a favor? Make it real small. And print it 1,000 times. You can hand it to me in a scroll. No need to waste money on wood; just wrap it around a cylindrical piece of cardboard.

I don't miss the cost. I don't miss the pressure to tithe. I don't miss the need to explain why the ministry did not do any charitable works with the money it was getting from its abs. I don't miss the need to explain that "moving the Word" is more important than feeding the hungry and clothing the poor. I don't miss the angry tone of L. Craig Martindale.

I like you anyway, John. :)-->

You flatterer you. I take it you received my check.

Diazbro, With all due respect, we won't know what the courts are thinking about any of this until there has at least been a hearing. Anyone can file a lawsuit claiming anything, and any defendant can file a counterclaim. To say the courts are taking this seriously requires a bit of prognosticating. You don't have the slightest idea whether the courts will take Pat seriously, or whether they will take TWI's claim seriously for that matter.

Aww, I wanna see what you originally wrote! But I'll be okay. Job's fine. Just a tad off topic. :)-->

Ok, that's much better: The veracity of the Trinity OR the veracity of Biblical Unitarianism rises or falls on the doctrine, not on the integrity of those who espouse it. That's what Goey was saying, and it appears that you are saying the same thing.

Def, That's not what he said. You're grossly misrepresenting what Goey wrote. By your standard, anything taught by Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart should be dismissed, including the Trinity, life after death, etc.

I took someone to see the second movie, when she had not seen the first. It only took a few sentences for her to catch up. Here it is: A Harry Potter Primer For Those Who've Missed the First Two Movies. When Harry was an infant, his parents were killed by an evil wizard named Voldemort. He was so evil people are afraid to say his name to this day. Voldemort tried to kill the infant Harry, but failed. The encounter left Voldemort "dead," and Harry with a lightning bolt shaped scar. Needless to say, Harry became quite famous in the wizarding world. But he was unaware of this because, while still an infant, he was placed in the care of his non-wizard aunt and uncle. When Harry was 11, he learned that he was a wizard and that he was about to start a seven year education program at the Hogwarts school of witchcraft and wizardry. His aunt and uncle never told him this because they hate the whole idea of it. They are, shall we say, not encouraging. They have a porky son who's Harry's age. They dote over their son and are not very fond of Harry. Once Harry starts school, he makes two friends: Ron and Hermione. He also makes an enemy, Draco. And he thinks he has an enemy in Professor Snape, a dark-robed, sinister looking teacher who always seems to have it in for Harry. Harry's really good at flying a broom, so he's on one of the school's four Quidditch teams. Think mid-air hockey, although it's a touch more complicated than that. For reasons that would spoil the fun, I can't tell you why but every year (so far), a different teacher has been in charge of the class "Defense Against the Dark Arts." Year three is no different. Did I leave anything crucial out? Oh yes, Voldemort. Turns out he (paging Lord Sauron) is not quite dead. He's made two attempts so far to reincarnate. And some people (Draco's dad included) would love to see that happen.

You can say that again. If they reopen their bookstore, I would consider that a good thing. It's just honest. I wouldn't shop there, though. As someone already said, they don't sell anything I want/need that's not available at another Christian bookstore.

I didn't write it. Haven't even read it yet. I just figured this was the best place for it. It's a pdf file. And it's 97 pages long!! Here's an html version.

Doing some checking. Craley was apparently a "longtime" editor of The Way Magazine (which I think puts him a bit higher on the "official" scale than "established TWI believer").

We should contact David Craley and find out how leadership reacted to his article. It strikes me that the firsthand testimony of people who were ordered to get abortions takes precedence over the musings of an "established TWI believer" who may have been guilty of (gasp) independent thinking. Any way of getting a hold of him?

All I needed to know.

I often find myself missing TWI. But then, I'm not an experienced bomber pilot.

That's interesting advice, Refiner. I recall investigating the "cult" charges before I got involved, and I agree, most were doctrinal in nature. The few that were not doctrinal, I either didn't believe or, frankly, didn't care about. "Wierwille was a plagiarist." I never denied that, but I never cared either because plagiarism does not affect the content of the finished product. If it called Wierwille's integrity into question, that didn't matter to me because my involvement was not centered around or dependent on the integrity of VPW. "Wierwille said God talked to him and promised that God would teach him blah blah blah..." My response: Well, at least God didn't try to extort $8 million from Wierwille's followers by threatening his life. The guns thing was no longer happening, and the hunting course explanation seemed credible. I thought the Myth of the Sixth Million and other Anti-Semitic accusations were outright lies. It wasn't until these Web Sites came online that I realized this was true. I was not concerned about the allegations of "adultery" committed by a dead man, and by the time I heard rumors of sexual misconduct involving Martindale, I was just about out the door.

At some point the cafe will officially have more members than TWI. OhYour! Welcome. This is embarrassing but, I think I'm out of coffee. We have some Sanka in the back, if you'd settle for that. Oh! Wait, you're in luck! Someone made an emergency run.

Prove it.

Actually, Tom, I thought the same thing, but then I looked at Oldiesman's list again and I realized these were the smartest things LCM ever said. You should see the list of the dumbest things.

Uhh, yeah, uhh, ok. :)-->