alfakat

so, what up, waddahay--are you a liar????? Well that would certainly be a big mistake. See Psalm 118:8. (SNIP) ************************** """The reason I don't reply to people like rascal (or post here very often)""" ... is because most people only want to argue their point of view instead of asking questions. I am not saying they are unintelligent or their points of view aren't valid - they only want to argue their point of view. (SNIP)

and you would know, eh, GOD ALMIGHTY, your worshipfulnessness....

so why in the FRICK do you not apply the SAME standard to vic, wth????? huh??? maybe you never heard him .... and moan about others; I sure and H did.... ps-- forget it, don't bother....you are simply NOT worth wasting time on...you were the same one slobberin' all over the guy when he was around... makes me sick now, made me sick then...

waddaklown -- you are not a poltical office holder, are you??? you should be... cuz you baffle with the best of 'em... I would not go to church with you, even if it was the truth of God's Word...sound familiar, bub? huh??

whatahay, you are really quite the entertainer...cept the act is getting a bit stale. ya know, the one where you're the expert and have all the right answers and all. That act... yes, I guess all those things viccers did were mistakes, yeah, that's the ticket! He just did not "get" that extra-marital sex with impressionable, starry-eyed teens was biblically forbidden. A mistake, that... He just did not "get" that copying other folks work and signing your name to it was theft and, again, biblically forbidden. 'nother mistake, that... Asking for umarked envelopes full of cash taken from fellow Christian's love gifts *is* greed and lust, ding, also biblically forbidden. YOU, SIR, are the one "selling" and intellectual snake oil is what you are offering. I am sure CG could use you in his ministry, though....

so OM, how do you explain Paul's action in Acts 16 in contrast to the immediately preceding discussion in Acts 15, further expounded in Galatians 2 and 3. What is GOD trying to teach you, and me, and us, there??? Your confidence in God's Spirit is rather appalling........

9-3, top of the 8th, 2 out...the suspense is KILLIN me.... 10-3, top of the 9th, 2 out... and the hearse is pulling up for the Yankee coffin...

tossing out the fool's gold is the action taken as a result of the education, wattahayseed. Surely you remember "The aim of all education is action." As Catcup said, it will come back to you if it is valid, without the garbage wrappers.... I am sure that people own dynamic tapes by all kinds of con-men, so what??? It was not his Sunday Service tapes that betrayed people's souls, get a freaking clue... how dim can u be????

Is that so, j-boy?? please produce chapter and verse.... you obviously are NOT reading what is written. Here is a quote, in it's entirety: " .. quote:Originally posted by oldiesman: quote:But just remember this - Whenever you represent folks as saying that "everything" that VPW taught was bad/wrong because of his sins - know for a fact that you are misrepresenting and lying about the truth of what is really being said. Goey, yes, this is how I read what some folks are saying when they talk about the Leaven Principle as it relates to twi. I think you're misstating what the Leaven Principle means and what folks think about it. Stop the spin Oldies. I was not referring to the intprepretaion of the "Leaven Princple". I said you are dishonest/lying when you represent others as saying that "everything" that VPW taught was bad because of his sins. Address what I actually say Oldies and not what you twist it to imply. quote:I think some folks are so angry and disappointed at VPW because of his transgressions, they've thrown out the baby with the bathwater because, as Pat described it, "most of the time, the crap is so integral in the baby so that even though you have thrown out the bath water, you still have a crap filled baby." I don't think you ever answered me previously about what your baby is. Are you afraid or ashamed to answer. One thing I doubt, is I doubt that your baby is God's Word. I also doubt that is it the Gospel of Jesus Christ. My best guess is that your "baby" is PFAL, the teachings of VPW, and glorification of him as your teacher. This would certainly explain why you whitewash VPW's errors and behavior with all of your "yes buts". Another thing is prettly clear to me, that is that you have very little knowledge or feel for the scriptures themeselves. You almost never use the Bible/scripture to make a point. Interesting for someone who is concerned about people abandoning "The Word". -- For example, you say I missapplied the "Leaven Principle" yet you offer no Biblical exposition as to why. Why not? quote:D-->o you really believe some folks would have the problems they do with twi, had Wierwille lived a devout life? Let's take all the spin away, and answer that one question. If VPW had lead a devout life, he would not have plagairized Bullinger, Stiles and others. Therefore there would have been no PFAL and therefore no TWI. So the answer is is no. quote:Some folks may not say outright they believe "everything" about twi was bad, but, they may just as well say it, because that's the way I read their writings. I see you have now changed "everything in TWI was bad because if VPW sins" to just "everything was bad" - omitting the "because of his sins part". You know that changes the argument don't you - of course you do. It was intentional on your part or very sloppy. So which one is it Oldies? 1. Are "some" folks are saying that "everything" in TWI was bad. or 2. Are "some" folks are saying that "everything" in TWI was bad because of VPW sins. Which one is it Oldies, and who are these "some folks"? Lets have some names and some exmples. Quote what they said and then show how it means either of the above? You can't do it can you? That's why you probably won't even try. Your conscience has been seared. Oldies, it is dispicable how you intentionally misrepresent people, whitewash sin and evil, and defend the indefensible. quote: That's why, when I bring up some "good things" about twi-1, why do some folks get so angry and defensive and engage in sarcasm, namecalling and put-downs? If you were actually trying to bring some balance to the discussion it wouldn't be a problem. But it seems pretty clear your agenda to simply to whitewash the truth and glorify TWI-1 and VPW. IMO, you are spirtually caustic, intellectually dishonest, generally uncaring, and only here to defend VPW and your precious TWI-1. That is why folks engage in sarcasm, and put-downs Oldies. quote:I think because they don't really care what good happened and don't want to hear any of it because in their mind, it doesn't matter what good existed. To them, the evil is the only thing that has any real meaning. Oh, I doubt that Oldies. You think in black and white most of the time. You probably think like that because of your extreme bias and adoration of VPW/TWI-1 as viewed through your rose colored glasses. If someone mentions the bad - you presume that they deny the good and feel compelled to point it out. You project your own B & W thinking upon others. You deny the evil for the most part and only really admit the good stuff. So you project the opposite upon others. It does not make for good discussion. quote:I don't think I am misrepresenting and lying about those who think this way. Of course you don't. - I am sure you have it all justified in your mind. quote:It appears obvious to me by the way some people react to what I have to say that this is the way of things. If I were you, I would think about that statment - it's really pretty ignorant and not even close to the real reason "some" folks react to you the way they do. This message has been edited. Last edited by: Goey, October 18, 2004 21:57 Goey " *************************** Yeah, I do not really see some agenda to guilt anybody, j-boy. and here is a post just below yours by Just Thinking , in case you were too busy being defrauded and guilty.... ""WW, In this case, I don't mind you throwing me into the fracas. If that's the worst you say about me... :-) IMO, useless (at best) and harmful (at worst) discussions start with vague questions. OM started with: "I just don't get it, so I'd like to know if there are any biblical or logical viewpoints out there that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is something God expects of us" As I pointed out before, the word "bathwater" doesn't actually appear in the KJV Bible. So... we get to try to interpret OM's questions. If done unintentionally, it is just confusing and likely to lead to misunderstandings. If it is done on purpose, it allows the one who poses the question to "reinterpret" what was meant when it is convenient. I stand by what I said at the start of thread: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wow, one loaded or misleading question or statement after another: "We learned God's Word in TWI." First, not everyone agrees with you. Second, "God's Word" is a wayferism that means different things to different people. Does that mean the printed Bible, the Bible as interpreted (or whatever you want to call it) by Vic Weirwille's borrowed material or something else? "Not everything we were taught is the truth, but what is truth, is truth, and is God's will for us to know and believe. There are some basic truths we learned in twi that are common Christian beliefs." Here again, I'm sure you believe you learned truth in TWI. For me, I probably got more wrong information than right. It has taken a lot to sift through it and am still going. PJ is right, IMO, that it can be almost impossible to pull out all the weeds because there were so many. As for them being common Christian beliefs, there does not seem to be one other Christian group that agrees with them. Which Christians do you mean exactly? "And so I wonder why some folks find it wrong that some folks cling on to these truths, even though mindful of sins committed in twi." I can't speak for others but I personally don't care what you believe or don't. "I think some folks think we who still believe these truths, should renounce them, because of the evil deeds of some in twi. Are folks like myself being selfish because we refuse to renounce our beliefs?" Nice trick question. Ask in such a way as to only allow an answer that appears to back you up. If I say you are selfish: I would be saying you should give up your beliefs because I say so. Hardly defensible. If I say you are not selfing: I appear to be supporting your views. Very good! You win either way. "I just don't get it, so I'd like to know if there are any biblical or logical viewpoints out there that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is something God expects of us? That we should renounce our beliefs because of the evils of twi? I checked my concordance and the word "bath water" does not appear to be in there. Another trick question but not nearly as good as the others. Who is really going to say "I think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater?" They may agree with your view or, as PJ said, feel that there is either no baby there or it is hopelessly intermixed. Regardless, I doubt anyone has actually said that to you. It is more likely simply your interpretation of their view. If you can point to a response to you where someone has actually recommended that in those words, please do so."" ******************************************* You might care to quit projecting and actually start READING -- or just go on blabbing, without any connection to the discussion, your choice.

this will be the most incredible game 7 ever. Slappin the ball out, for shame and then arguing ... Yankees, you are helping to...reverse the curse!! :D-->

sounds like a line whaddahayyy might use, WW....

wisdom,schmisdom... I asked earlier "and what are we guilting you out of with this agenda, j-am???? what, praytell?? overfond memories of your youth, perhaps??" well, OM??? what is he being guilted out of??? speak up, I say, boy, speak up -- we can't hear your head rattle, speak up -- WHAt is this agenda he is speaking of?? I see no agenda -- what "fraud"(j-am's word) are we foisting on him with our alleged "guilt"?? still waiting, OM............ --> --> --> -->

mstar, true brother in the faith, I stand with you against the heathen tribes of Angles, Saxon and YORK from that Dutch colony to the south of you... GO SOX!!!! what's 4 in a row, no problemo...

and what are we guilting you out of with this agenda, j-am???? what, praytell?? overfond memories of your youth, perhaps?? so JUST how many people did loy-boy shed a tear for, huh?? I would drop the quoting of philosopher loy, j-am.. it doesn't exactly back up a solid argument. nice swill, wattaklown -- same stuff from 6 months back. You oughta get a tv spot with your bright, original material...does the phrase "armchair quarterback" ring any bells?? Freud had nuttin on you that's for sure, "Doctor" wattaklown....

my, my, my, how many errors can we have! tsk, tsk... nobody has raised the issue of "perfection", wattaklown, 'cept U!! nice straw man, dude... did you get him with the klown suit??? perfection is one thing, UNREPENTANT sin is another... can you understand that, bub??? i think not, because it has been brought to your attention in the past and you have blown right by it... why don't you come back when you get the difference between the two... go give Mike a call or somethin'...

let's not even talk about the wonderful heating systems in trailers 6 and 7, or the spacious, functional bathroom facilities... --> --> ... maybe us 6xxxkkxthpphtt kork staffers trashed em for ya, John... alfakat, furn refinishing crew 76/77 interim year staff HQ trailer 7 yee-HAAAWWWW

how can canning twit teaching be compared to canning Proverbs????????? when you can twit, you can pick up a Bible and read -- go ahead, om, you do this...millions have, have received of God's gift and knew nothing of twit...ergo, twit not same as proverbs or Bible in general QED.....

from a more careful reading of Proverbs one might deduce: A. Solomon was not the author of all of them. B. What he did write was as a young man, when the Spirit of God was upon him. Apparently he later went his own way for much of his life, following his own lead and engaging in idolatrous sin. The bible indicates the Spirit left those who did such -- how much writing did he do for the true god then, om??? speak up, son, can't hear ya... C. Vic wrote NO WORD OF GOD I know of unless you have joined Mike's crazy ministry of piffle-bible... ergo, Solomon -- Vic, 2 horses, different (heteros) colors, no REAL comparison...

so why did it, TWI, come to naught, then, OM????? cuz us peeps was all bad??? cuz ole vic slaved over us korks, but we was jess BADD!!??? huh?? why, om???

OM -- ??????????????????????????? you talk out of both side of mouth, kimo sabe...

And, in rebuttal.... OM, you may replace Virginia's name with your own, if you like....

"" quote:In 1981, Wierwille obtained an invitation to one of the events of Ronald Reagan's inauguration,(SNIP) ... On Feb. 9, 1981, Kansas Sanator Bob Dole...wrote in answer to an inquiry:..."I realize that there has been a great deal of concern about the participation of Victor Paul Wierwille, leader of The Way...I want to assure you that Mr. Wierwille's presence was as a private citizen and not as an official guest. It seems that the invitation to Mr. Wierwille came as a result of a routine phone request to a Congressional office that a V.P. Wierwille attend an inaugural event. Whoever took the phone message did not recognize the name... " FRom The Cult That Snapped, pp124-125, by Karl Kahler."" ******************************* hmmmmmmmmm, like so many other bits o' trivia in way world, vicenheimer never actually states that he was a personal invitee of the new Pres., he just lets rumour central do the job and never sets the record straight, either... typical vp flak job....

girl of the order of cow, I believe way, way back this happened every once in a while with no hassles...but as time went by, some korks wouda .... a brick ifn' anybody wouda even thoughta touchin' GAWWWDDD'S MONEY!!! --> :D-->

Song: and it tweren't coffee in dat coffee cup, neither.....howwww-errd, nuthta cup o' coffee, please...

wow, Goey, that is definitely one for the archives! Sums it up perfectly...that is how the leaven worked, exactly. And, yes, virginia, of course there was good and good times in twi -- but it came to naught, not cuz the debbilll dint like us, but because there was leaven ie, error, evil, sin, what-have-you, in the doctrine and practice of twit. QED. Thanks, Goey. To a tee...