Raf

Point taken. Perhaps you forget that I never objected to that thread. But that doesn't invalidate your point.

If you're not the kind of person that has a laugh at Internet fights, the rest of the post, and the thread, is not addressed to you. The post also alerts people who might be interested that Satori has resurfaced. I find that interesting. Zixar then addresses someone who's already at the other site (and here), not trying to get anyone else involved in it. So, two reasons: 1. There's a good fight going on if anyone's interested. 2. Satori has resurfaced. Good enough reason to start a thread? Is there a committee to determine these things, now? How did I miss that announcement?

Steve, The PFAL Review is not really a PFAL Review, and should not be treated as such. A true PFAL review (in my opinion) would have plenty of good things to say. The PFAL review I posted had a very specific objective. If that's not kept in mind, I'd just look like a nitpicker with nothing good to say. BTW: Thanks for the compliments. My ego is going to go take a nap now, as it always does after a good meal. :)-->

Oral Roberts also had a magazine called "Abundant Life," around the same time. It was a common theme at the time. I defy you to come up with a class name or a church name that no one else has used in one form or another: as a church name, book name, chapter title, article headline, etc. And that includes the Living Epistles Society. Maybe Stanley Jones did inspire the titles of The Way and PFAL. Huge "so what" in my opinion. I'm a little more concerned with the presentation of the words of others as his own, but even then I have to concede that in this context, plagiarism does not in any way affect the quality of the message. The integrity of the messenger, maybe, but not the quality of the message. "The Word of God is The Will of God." B.G. Leonard

Ah, yes, it's welcoming time... Sorry I took so long. Cream and sugar?

Feel free to quote at will, post links, whatever you'd like. If you'd prefer to post it on your site directly, let me know and I'll send you the articles by MSWord (easier to copy).

No need to apologize from where I sit, Tom:

While we're on the subject: although I did not word it well, there is no ban on cross-posting at LES either. I find it distasteful, but that's only speaking for myself.

I'm still trying to figure out why THE just won't die.

I first encountered Steve when someone posted a link to his website here on gscafe. I e-mailed him with some tips, which he took to heart. Through his site, he helped me see where I was being too hard on the past. But he has always been incredibly honest in his approach, appreciating whatever good we got out of our TWI experience while being willing to see that it wasn't all wine and roses, or milk and honey. I admire him greatly. I just had no idea he was "Eagle."

Knock me over with a feather! You're Eagle?!?!?!?! I'll be dag-burned! HA! Wow.

For some reason this is on the open forum. But it explores some of the same ground as this thread.

We can't even count our votes, and now you want us to count yours?

Yo, physician! Go heal thyself.

Lindy, I was only in for about a year, and didn't have a real job. cut me some slack! I'll give more. I promise. I want God to spit in my direction.

Happy Birthday, Hills.

If I add offshoot time, I think I gave somewhere around the $5,000 mark. That's a rough estimate, and does not include books. Without offshoot time, it's more like $200-$300, again, not including books.

I was going to say it's something of a loaded question, but I didn't want to criticize the question. Understand the target audience: someone who believes changing his mind about Jesus would demean Jesus. I would have phrased the question as such: Does changing your mind about the nature of Jesus demean him in your eyes? Re: "It makes him bigger..." I think their point is that it's not hard to imagine God living without sinning. It is harder to imagine a man resisting temptation his whole life. To think that someone was able to do that is pretty big, bigger than thinking that God can resist temptation. "God, who is incapable of being tempted, resisted temptation his whole life." No duh. "Christ, who was capable of sin, resisted temptation his whole life." Big. That's my read on this stuff.

I have done nothing but joke on this thread. Forgive me if it was read any other way. Every post of mine on this thread (with the exception of this one) was intended as a joke, poking fun at myself as much as anything else. This was NOT supposed to be taken seriously. None of it.

I'm ready to meet my judge. Last I checked, his name was not Liar Liar.

How dare you criticize my board on another site? Some people.

Shameless self-promotion.

All I'm saying is, everyone who liked the way things were before Paw started fiddling around is welcome to join my site, where they will not be ridiculed for their appreciation of accurate time stamps.

Aw come on, fair is fair. What CES is trying to say is that it's not "demeaning" to be acknowledged for what you are. Rather, it improperly promotes Jesus to make him God the creator. Of course, if you believe Jesus Christ is God, then such an opinion is inherently demeaning. But CES doesn't hold that belief. Does saying Prince Charles is not the King of England demean him? Does saying Mickey Rooney is not tall demean him? Does saying Patrick Stewart is not Captain Kirk demean him? If Jesus Christ is God, then saying he's not God demeans him. If he's not, then saying he's not doesn't demean him.

Upon further reading, I will now be mostly lurking on all three sites.