Rocky

I would argue that the people who fell for LRon's BS are no more gullible than we were to fall for VeePee's BS. Scientists have documented that every human is subject to getting conned at some time or other in their lives... aka universal gullibility. But I digress. Is that too much of a diversion from the original topic?

Seriously? Are you now suggesting that it's true just because two people you cited believed it? Ya know, this "discussion" is really devolving into the kind of circular nonsense that we got from Mike until his most recent exit... which was during tax season 2018.

You're just toying with me now.

Paints a picture where?

So, even when I ask you for clarification, you take issue with it? Asking for clarification, in the form of "is this what you mean... ?" is now "spin?" Oh, heck no. I don't think you're crazy. I think you're needlessly defensive and paranoid. So, how would YOU describe the process of "ascertaining spiritual information?"

I see what you did there. It's called "misdirection." Further, I concur with what Raf said!

If your standard/understanding of communication was even close to correct, I would have to say that you intentionally misunderstood. However, it isn't the correct standard. The correct response from you would be to ask for clarification, as in, "is this what you meant?" Because you didn't, that is probably why to you my response to you didn't make sense. My phrase "thought that pops into his/her head" isn't about the devil. It's about how the human mind operates. So, I have to ask for clarification. Are you saying that because you don't associate thoughts in a person's head with how the devil operates, you assume or suppose that when you get a thought that pops (appears, or however you'd like to characterize it) into your head, it must be from God?

Btw, there was nothing kinky about what I posted. If you read it as such, you own that perception. Was that (what I highlighted in bold) a request for clarification? I realize it wasn't framed as such, but to give you the benefit of the doubt, I had to ask.

Yes and yes. It was Halloween 1974. I was fellowshipping with a group led by a Christian chaplain at the base chapel. In walks a military wow, newly stationed at Lajes Field. It took until the next summer to get the PFLAP class together. Bob Warble worked in the local television broadcast center as an equipment tech. AFRTS (A-farts) Armed Forces Radio and Television Service. He and I shared a room in the airmen's quarters (barracks/dorm) eventually had at least three other guys join us for the class and then in august, we went to ROA75 and signed up for one year as MWOWs. John Almquist, Mike Hultberg, and John Miller. We had fellowship in the morning before work. I worked rotating shifts. At some point, we rented an apartment so all five of us could live together. We got a few others to fellowship with us and take the class. At one point, because my 1960 chevy station wagon had a twi bumpersticker, a couple who saw it had taken the class in the states. We had fun. Didn't have to deal with heavyhanded rules much. However, I had been saving my meager pay... after getting involved with twi, that stopped because I was shipping too much of my military pay to Ohio.

Ummm... Pamdalarryum, I was a military wow for two years while an airman (1975-Aug 1977). Stationed at Lajes Field, Azores. Otherwise, more or less unremarkable. I did go to Germany twice to meet with Limb coordinators (Simmons) once in Munster I think it was, and once for an advance where veepee showed up. The most memorable event was going to the sauna in the hotel and one of the young women there was completely naked. Also met a guy (Caucasian) that had spent some time witnessing in Teheran, Iran. He had interesting travel stories. But since it was more than 40 years ago, that's pretty much all the detail I can recall.

Wow! No matter how much anyone asks you for clarification of what you say in any given comment, the only response you seem to ever give is that the reader so asking is willfully refusing to get your point. And when you say so, you usually have some "arrogant meanness" in your response. So, how do you get off claiming anyone else is doing the projecting? Further, when you're faced with questions you seem to not know how to answer, you make statements like you end that comment with. Really, dude!

How quaint. I will grant (and have stated before) that there is something going on beyond what humans can perceive. In fact, there is anthropologically determined and documented evidence that humans have found hundreds, if not thousands of ways to define those "certain (invisible) realities." However, to give any credence to what you present (in bold, above), how do you propose to ascertain the veracity of said information received by alluded to certain invisible realities? By definition, the Judeo-Christian creation story and the surrounding stories (as set forth in The Bible as we know it) has as a major theme, right from the start, deception by a spiritual entity. So, how would one discern whether any given thought that pops into his/her head as being from the right source? Didn't Jesus himself even have to cope with that dilemma? Happy Easter.

LOL! As Raf said, you make a good point (I'd say, a GREAT point). However, I don't consider my role in this "discussion" as having anything to do with patience... because I have ZERO expectation for a rational outcome that might include changing anything TLC believes.

Perhaps Raf could get a part-time gig as a J-school adjunct teaching classes developed by University of Washington professors Carl Bergstrom and Jevin West.

Wordwolf, perhaps you didn't see the links I posted yesterday Monday from Pulitzer.org.

And don't underestimate the oppressiveness of the fundamentalism that it spawns, for one reason, that in order to buy into fundamentalism, one generally either ordains oneself or some other madman as the end all/be all of "no private interpretation." Which, it naturally follows, can only cause private interpretation.

Were you a "minister" or non-ministerial employee of TWI?

This website on ministers/pastors Social Security tax situations makes no mention of any 1984 law changes. Seca is self-employment related contributions (taxes) paid into Social Security. It also says, Can a church pay FICA for a minister to save the minister money? No. A church cannot pay FICA for someone who is a minister for tax purposes. By law, ministers are always treated as self-employed for Social Security purposes and therefore are subject to SECA taxes on their ministerial earnings. Churches that pay FICA for their ministers are not doing them a favor — they are violating the law. When churches mistakenly pay FICA for ministers, they can cause errors in Social Security Administration records that may affect future benefits. Can churches give ministers a Social Security “allowance” or “offset”? Churches can give ministers a Social Security “allowance” or “offset” to help the minister pay SECA taxes. But a Social Security allowance or offset is extra income. The minister will have to report the allowance as income for federal income tax purposes and as income for SECA tax purposes. Do churches have to pay FICA for their non-ministerial employees? Churches must pay their share and withhold the employee’s share of FICA for non-ministerial employees except in rare cases where a church has exempted itself from making these payments. Churches cannot classify non-ministerial employees as self-employed to avoid paying FICA.

Of course. As i expected, you make a claim then refuse to back it up with evidence.

You have those? Show us.

Pulitzer.org provides links to the body of work that earned the medal. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-ne-viz-school-safety-20181206-story.html What's being done to stop another school shooting?

Listed at the TOP of the page in the journalism category!

CONGRATS Raf! However, Washington Post is behind a paywall.

I doubt it.