Raf

No one in the family is active any more. My father still believes it, but does not attend their meetings. Same with mom. They're divorced. Sibs were never into it, and it never caught on with the extended family. I remember when I got witnessed to by TWI: I was stunned to hear there were Christians in the world who believed Jesus Christ was God. Little did I know that they were the majority!

Refi: you must understand that there's no such thing as "partially agreeing" with Mike. By your standard, I "partially agree" with Mike, because I think there's some useful stuff in PFAL. But the reality is that Mike is completely sold out to PFAL, considers it more authoritative than the Bible, thinks the ground shook where VPW walked, and thinks Jesus will come back to earth teaching out of a PFAL book. I utterly reject that nonsense. Most of us see PFAL for what it is, and appreciate it as such. Mike's idolatry doesn't detract from PFAL's value. So, to borrow a phrase from Alice Krige: you imagine a duality where none exists. The people who "partially agree" with Mike ARE the people who are speaking up against his sycophantic misogynistic idolatry. You ask why they don't post when, in fact, those are pretty much the only ones posting on Mike's threads.

Through age 12. After that I was hanging around, but not active.

Interesting that you would call TWI Christ-centered, Refiner. I think TWI was very concerned with the person of Jesus Christ, and in that sense I agree with you. TWI was concerned about his identity, his mission, and his accomplishments. They were concerned about what is available to Christians today as a result of the work that Christ accomplished. They eagerly anticipate his return, which they view as beginning with a pretribulation rapture of the saints. But at the same time, their particular form of dispensationalism places a far greater emphasis on the Jesus Christ revealed in the letters of Paul, with a much lesser emphasis (doctrinally speaking) on the Jesus Christ revealed in the gospels. But TWI has a bit in common with JWs in that prayer is ALWAYS addressed to God the Father, and is in the name of the Son. Here's some distinctions: JW's think of Jesus as "The Master." TWI hardly ever thinks of him that way. JW's think of Jesus as "The Great Teacher." TWI hardly ever refers to him that way. TWI thinks of Jesus as Lord, but for my money, you'd be hard put to get a TWI follower to tell you what that lordship means. TWI is Christ-centered? Having been in both TWI and the JW's, I would argue that your dichotomy between the two groups, at least on this subject, is flawed (which is to say that JW's are as Christ-centered as TWI). The I think the real distinction between the two groups is in the area of pneumatikos/charismata.

I voted for some good points. Glad you find pleasure in that. You're still an idolatrous sycophant.

And we're being asked what we think of your doctrine. It should stay right here.

Ooh, "Star of the Show." I LOVED "Star of the Show." And Billy Falcon's "Spark in the Dark" was great too.

Okay, equal time... I don't remember the name of the song. I think it was "I Love You" by Acts 29. I know your heart I know how hard you've tried I know you're weary from the load you carry You won't get very far I am not condemning you I never will my son You're completely, completely, completely righteous Now it's already done And I love you, I love you, I love you Can I say it a hundred more times There's nothing you can ever do to change the way I love you I love you, I love you, I love you What else can I do Love is what I am my child And I can't stop loving you... There was more, but I always had a soft spot in my heart for that song. What about you? (And please save all the critical stuff for "The Worst Way Song" thread).

If you can accept that a non-Trinitarian can accept the lordship of Jesus Christ and thus have the same salvation and promises that you have, then I agree, let's get on with the business of being Christians. But if you can't accept that premise (and there are many Trinitarians who cannot), then you are accusing me of not being truly Christian. And I have to disagree with that judgment. And then get on to the business of being Christian. :)-->

I rest my case. :)-->

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.