So_crates

No you didn't. You left out half the question and went off on a tangent. An intellectually honest person would have answered the whole statement. Once again, you attempt to set yourself as the standard. Well, I don't care what your opinion is. I care what God's opinion is. Responding to half a statement is not only a sin of omission, it's intellectually dishonest. An intellectually dishonest person lecturing about intellectual honesty is like a Saint Vic lecturing on thou shall not commit adultry. Don't have to. The point has nothing to do with previous post. Your just continuing your intellectual dishonesty by attempting to cloud the issue. The point is: you intentionally ignored something that would disprove your claim. Your responded to half a statement which is intellectually dishonest. Yah, yah, yah. Same excuses. None of which address the point. I wrote "explain to me the good that can come from stealing others works and someone forcing themself on women." You had enough time to address the first part (and then wait for and write other posts), now why didn't you have time to address the someone forcing themselves on women part? All your proving is that your "not enough time" excuse is another way of dodging. You come across loud and clear: You have little time. When some people say they're busy (another way of saying I have little time) what they really mean is that what they want you to address isn't a priority. And I can see why its not a priority, the theme running through all your post: Everyone else evil, Saint Vic good. Everyone else no excuse, Saint Vic must be excused. We always have time for things that are important to us. For you, it's your hero worship of Saint Vic. For me, it's getting out the truth about Saint Vic. As I told you once before, you plead for the positive is like a jury saying we don't want to hear about the crimes committed, tell us only what a model citizen the defendant was. Your always complaining people here are trying to trick you. Who's trying to trick who here? Data? Logic ? Is your claim is that its logical to address half a post with an argument that's been disproven 25 times (I notice you didn't address my rebuttal, but chose to go off on this smoke screen) and ignore the other half that disproves your claim? So your saying its logical to be intellectually dishonest?

At the cost of how many peoples lives? How many women had Saint Vic force himself on them in the name of getting the job done?

Don't change the meaning of what I wrote. I wrote "explain to me the good that can come from stealing others works and someone forcing themself on women." I notice you left out the part about Saint Vic forcing himself on women. Rather intellectually dishonest don't you think? Of course I remember it. I also remember its been pointed out the irrationality of your position because if God owns everything than its okay to steal a car. That in spite of the fact God commands us not to steal. There's also the small matter of your position negating Christ sacrifice for us. What was to prevent Christ from stealing from the chuch poor box then claiming it wasnt stealing because, "God own everything, I'm the son of God, therefore I really own this. Also, God gave me permission." The second, most obvious question, How do you know God gave him permission to steal others works?

So, what's all this called for positivity do for the people who Saint Vic plagerized? What's this call for positivity do for the women Saint Vic forced himself on? Where in the bible does it say "Positivity will set you free"? I can, however, point out in the bible where it says The truth will set you free (John 8:32). So, explain to me the good that can come from stealing others works and someone forcing themself on women. You want to talk about a Pure Evil model. Have you read any of your posts recently? All the negitivity launched at other posters. According to you they're constantly trying to trick you, or trip you up, or attacking you. What's your model for people in this forum? Maybe you should try a few cc's of positivity toward other posters before you start criticizing.

And your proof it was a genuine revelation, beyond I said it was a genuine revelation? And you realize of course that Spectrum 49's brilliant post would discredit Saint Vic as a MOG, don't you? For example, when did Saint Vic ever praise someonewho wasn't doing his bidding? And after 42 years of effort resulting in failure--not to mention others testimonials on this forum of resounding failures--I'd vote PHONEY What else you got?

Actually, there are plenty of facts you repeatedly choose to ignore. Many woman have written testimonials here about how Saint Vic forced himself on them. Losing the Way is another book of facts you've chosen to ignore. This is like a jury saying, We don't want to hear anything about the crime, just tell us what a model citizen the defendant was. How can you make an honest decision based on half the information? So you have no trouble forgiving Saint Vic, but you have a problem forgiving everyone here. Proof? How many accusations have you made at the people here? Just a few post down, you accuse ssomeone of trying to trip you up. And you know what goes on in his mind, how? You've accused Twinky of using lawyer tricks. And you know her intent how? Where is all that forgiveness your preaching? And your presidence for this is what? For us professional question askers (lawyers, procecutors, journalist, etc.) when somebody dodges a question it usually means one of two things: a). They haven't thought their story through b). They're hiding something

First, I believe there has been a revision and Telsa is presently credited with having invented radio. Second, for the sake of argument, did either inventor give permission to the people who made money off of radio to use it? You see, back when VCRs first came out there were two formats: Beta and VHS. Sony, the inventor, said they were going to keep Beta for themselves and charge companies wanting to make Beta tapes a fee. They, however, gave the VHS patent, the poorer quality signal, to whoever wanted it. Naturally, where there's money to be made, people invest. That's why there are billions of VHS tapes floating around, but very few Beta tapes. Also, someone posted an experience where he wanted to use some things lying around, but the Corps leader said it was wrong. "Taking without asking is stealing," the leader said. Now, this was the early Corps, so where did the corps leader get that standard? From Saint Vic, himself? If that was a corps standard, and Saint Vic was the top corps leader, why didn't he obey that standard in relation to his plagerism?

On the contrary, Saint Vic tolerated a lot of compromise. God is the right way we do it? You mean like when he stole others works and claiming he wrote them, compromising God's Word on stealing? Or how about when he forced himself on ministry women, compromising God's Word on adultry? Saint Vic seemed to have no trouble compromising on those. But, of course, when it comes to 5 senses things, specifically money and power, Saint Vic felt there was no compromise, as proven by your anecdote In an earlier post you wrote: Jesus tolerated no compromises either, not on important issues. What Jesus didn't compromise on, unlike Saint Vic, was God's Word. So, by your compromise proving priorities argument we can see God's Word wasn't important to Saint Vic, as he repeatedly compromised on it. However, Saint Vic's desire for money and power were important as he refused to compromise on it.

I think all we have to do is look to how the ministry defined compromise for an answer to the above statement. In the real world compromise means both sides give a little to reach an agreement. However, with Saint Vic and the ministry leadership, compromise meant what's mine is mine and what's yours in negotionable. In other words, they wanted it their way and, not giving an inch, expected you to "compromise" to their position.

Back on topic:

I would agree with you to a point, Bol. I think that what often causes people to do bad things is not so much the Trinity as thinking they have the one, the only, in big capital letters, TRUTH. Proof? How many of us were convinced Saint Vic was the MOG for our day and time? How many of us thought every word coming out of Saint Vic's mouth came from God's mouth to Saint Vic's ear? Then we took PLAF and were convinced we had the truth, and by-gum the rest of the world was going to listen. How many of us do you think challanged local priest, ministers and rabbis? How many of us challanged our parents? And all these years later, how many of us realize how wrong we were? Thinking you have the only truth does something to the human mind: it fills it with huberis. Once filled with huberis, the mind closes and refuses to continue the search. That huberis also make you view people who don't believe your doctrine a inferior (after all, they're going to the bad place, your going to the good place).

My position throughout these two threads has been: If we can't conclusively prove the existence of God, how can we conclusively prove the existence of something God is a major part of, like the Trinity. I could turn to John and ask okay what was the Word in the beginning with God that became flesh? Who was God talking to when He (speaking of man) said. " Let US create him in OUR image." I've read JCING, so I know the explainations The Way offered. But if you look at it objectively, you can see where the Trinitarian explaination is just as valid as the non-Trinitarian explanation. Both sides have made their case over the centuries, and both have just as much validity. It's like the argument of whether Adam and Eve had a navel. I mention that to someone once and the asked, "Well, did they?" I shrugged my shoulders. "I don't know, I wasn't there." To me, claiming one thing or the other--and especially saying our salvation is dependent on it--is the old Ford attempting to explain Henry. None of us are God, none of us know, all we have is a handful of verses we insist on injecting our personal beliefs and speculations into.

Just like your claim the two verses you presented prove the Trinity doesn't exist is pure speculation. Show me the verse that says "There is no Trinity." Okay, let's look at scripture. Where's the scripture that says there's no Trinity. They don't say there's no Trinity. It's speculation on your part. You set the standard. Now show me the verse that says there's no Trinity. Anything less is speculation.

From the Billy Graham thread in Open: From my understanding of the Trinity, these verses don't prove or disprove them. The Trinity is three states same essence: it often been described as like water: it can be steam, water, or ice. It's all H2O. Using that model, you can see how your two verses fail to prove or disapprove the Trinity. They both mention two of the three states, yet both have the same essence. No, as I said, people start with preconcieved notions, then want to read their notions into scripture. Objectivity--which involves seeing both sides--shows you proof verses can be taken either way

We've certainly been hopping around like we haven't a carrot in the world.

Also from the Police Files: A break in at the police station resulted in all the toilet seats being stolen. Police have nothing to go on.

Modcat5, I apologize for using this method to contact you. I would have sent you a PM, but my PM function hasn't worked since I returned. First off, allow me to apologize to the mods for my part in this. I can see where I was wrong and will endevour to do better in the future. Second, if you would like to delete the Ruffles paragraph, feel free to do so. If you would like to delete this post, as its not on topic, feel free to do so. Thanks to all the mods for their patience.

So, help me out here: You don't trust your source. Yet you believe the information your source provides. (or, at least, believe the info enough to keeping hinting at it in a desire to pass it along.) Your belief in the information is based on...??

The ministry version: Wayberry RFD (Really Foul Denomination) .

Once again, you invalidate your own argument. What has survived from the First Century? The bibical manuscripts we have are much more recent than that. They're copies of copies of copies of... Manuscripts you claimed in previous posts were void of authority, or so your excuse for PLAF being God-breathe goes. If they're void of authority, as you claim, what survived from the First Century?

Of course they'll bless the people that'll find them. Like Saint Vic blessed the authors he plaigerized. Like Saint Vic blessed the women he forced himself on.

First, there's an attribution to the source of the quote. Second, you registered with the forum knowing your quotes would be used. (If you didn't want your quotes used, you didn't have to register with the forum)

In God's family we obey God's rules. With God there is no 60 years ago this was okay, but today its wrong. With God there is no in these fields this is wrong and everywhere else its right. God's rules are absolute: we're in fellowship or we're not, we've followed his rules or we didn't, stealing occured or it didn't There's no rationalizing, no loopholes, and no fudging with God. Rationalizing, loopholes, and fudging are by-products of the human mind.

1). It was not plaigerized from enemies, they were fellow Christians 2). It was not plagerized from pagans, they were fellow Christians (Plaigerism from enemies and pagans is bad enough, from fellow Christians is even worst) 3). There were no wars, therefore no spoils of war. Would a loving father take two steal from two of his children to give to one child who insists on breaking fellowship constantly? It breaks down to how big you think God is. Could God have pointed people who wanted to learn in the direction of BG Leonards class? If Saint Vic why not anybody else?

Doesn't forgivenesss start with admitting you did wrong? Then attempting to make it right? Anybody can say I'm sorry and not mean it. Oh, really? Then why are we told to obey the laws of men? Like I said earlier, God works in absolutes. You obey or you don't. By your reasoning, what was to stop Christ from running off with all the money in the poor box and saying, "Well, its a law of man, its not sacrosanct, so I'm not really stealing."? Again, we go by what you see. Your not the measure of right or wrong. By doing that your putting yourself above God. Why don't you ever check what God says?