WordWolf

I'd be skeptical about twi selling the copyrights- rather than LICENSING them or retaining them- without some documentation. I don't think they'd avoid taking the money- I think they'd grant a LICENSE to their copywritten material rather than hand it all over. Then again, maybe all the competent businessmen have been run off as well. :)

Congratulations. Me, I left as soon as I spotted that not being the case as well. In my case, that was 1989. And I think the powers-that-be might have been happy to see me go just on the basis of my OWN bucking of authority. :) Of course, I say neither YOUR experience nor MINE speaks for EVERYONE's experience. Some other people questioned or bucked authority, and they were kicked out-either off-grounds, out of the corps, or were made pariahs-even by vpw. I'm thankful that wasn't me, and for you, I'm thankful it wasn't you.

The 1970s, I believe, is the original, which is the one I'm quoting. "Well you're built like a car You've got a hub-cap diamond-star-halo. You're built like a car, oh, yeah." "Meanwhile, I'm stiiiiilll thinking"

I agree on you on this particular. It should have been brought up while he was alive (like some other things were, but they were buried.) Furthermore, it's not a BIG deal. We've discussed a lot of the BIG deals over the past several years. I was just curious about this one, and did a search, and opened a discussion. As you can see, not every discussion here is about something earth-shaking. :) Frankly, I think the discussion that spun off this one is more interesting. BTW, I recommend the "pinned" "sticky" thread "Welcome to the Greasespot Cafe" for basic advice to new arrivals, and the forum "Greasespot 101" as basic information for new arrivals. Enjoy your stay, and feel free to jump into the discussions where you want. If I could ask anything, it would be to not be one of the posters who arrives here to "set us all straight" and presume they're the ONLY ones who really "get it." We're already over our quota on those. :)

Actually, that she brought it up first makes a considerable difference. She didn't seize on something YOU said and run with it. After all, what are the odds? I mean, she still could have been messing with you, but it's less likely under this scenario.

"Stone walls do not a prison make, nor iron bars a cage."- Richard Lovelace.

=== Oh, BTW, Oakspear, thought you'd find this interesting. In police procedures, if a criminal, in the course of being captured, is fatally shot and is dying, I've read that it is in the procedures to inform the criminal that he's dying, so that, if he wants to clear his conscience before meeting his Maker, he can do so. It certainly might make it easier to question him. People, when they see death approaching, often get very philosophical, and look back on the good and ill they performed in life. You might find this short-story interesting along those lines. I read it in high school. It's called "the Contents of the Dead Man's Pockets". http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/2030/Deadman.htm

Hm. Interesting. Of course, you can compare this to Pope John Paul II, a man who was roundly condemned BY vpw. Karol Wojtyla was a man who sought to do his best for God and to bless God's people. Was he perfect? No. Was his doctrine perfect? No. However, if he had his life to do over again, there are fairly few improvements he could have made to perform as a "better" man. Even in his dying moments, he sought to bless God's people. (He raised his hand in benediction to the window-as if praying for the world or the people outside, then lowered his hand, and then he "fell asleep.") NON-Catholics (like myself) were sorry to see his passage, and expressed their sorrow all around the world. In short, Karol Wojtyla was the man he knew himself to be.

Greetings, freelady! Many of us who took that class still think it's a good idea to learn how to understand the Bible. If you're interested in making your "best get better", then some of us would be ready and willing to help you make improvements on the pfal class as taught. Heck-that was my approach when I was IN twi, so I've always thought that was a good approach.

Ok, a new song... "Meanwhile, I'm stiiiiilll thinking"

Bingo.

Jonny, I didn't question that she said it. My only questions centered around her truthfulness. At the time, did she seem like she was making up stories for attention? (Sadly, some older people will say anything, since they are neglected so completely unless they can hold an audience.) Did she seem in her right mind otherwise? (Also sadly, some people, usually also older, will have problems develop in their brains where they are unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality.) So, I was asking if she seemed of sound mind and to be honest in all OTHER things, or if there were one or two other reasons to doubt her testimony. I mean, I believed you were there and she said that... (Unless you had replied and said "No, just funning you...")

Before I forget, I've been instructed, very matter of factly, that the phrase "put your shoulder to the wheel" comes from an Eastern custom involving a condemned man. I ignored the person telling me that, since I already knew the source was "Aesop's Fables." === "A farmer was driving his wagon along a country road when the wheels sank deeply into the mud. The farmer stared at the wagon, then began calling out for Hercules to come and help him. Hercules appeared and spoke to the farmer. "PUT YOUR SHOULDER TO THE WHEEL OF THE CART. MAKE YOUR OXEN PULL WHILE YOU PUSH. NEVER PRAY TO ME FOR HELP UNTIL YOU HAVE DONE EVERYTHING YOU CAN TO HELP YOURSELF. THE GODS HELP THOSE WHO HELP THEMSELVES." ====== For those of you who are wondering, this little story is also the origin of the saying "God helps those who help themselves", which-as you know-does NOT appear in the Bible.

For those who would like some, there's a whole bunch of similar stories here: http://www.snopes.com/glurge/glurge.asp A few of them, as you'll see, are actually true.

I started a new thread on this. Kindly take moose and squirrel over to new thread, Fearless Leader.

I'll start off by telling one that happened to me one night last summer. I had a lot of time on my hands, so I took a long walk. To be specific, I crossed the footbridge on the Willis Avenue Bridge. That one connects Manhattan to the South Bronx. Anyway, I was possibly halfway across the bridge when I saw a guy on the footbridge, over past the security railings, as if he was getting ready to jump. I closed in on him until I was close enough to pull him clear if he tried to jump, and tried to talk him into coming down. We spoke at length. Eventually, we got to what was bothering him. "No one loves me!" "GOD loves you, you nit!" "You know, I DO believe in God." "Really? Are you a Christian?" "Yes." "Really? Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?" "Protestant." "Really? Me too. What franchise?" "Baptist." "Me too. Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" "Northern Baptist." "Me too. Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?" "Northern Conservative Baptist." "Me too. Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, or Northern Conservative Reform Baptist?" Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist." "Me too. Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region?" "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region." "Me too. Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region, Council of 1893, or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region, Council of 1912?" "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region, Council of 1912." "DIE HERETIC!" and I shoved him off the bridge. ======== Ok, of course, that never happened. (Thank God.) And I should change that story soon, since they're thinking of retiring that bridge. The point-for anyone who missed it- was the swiftness which some Christians will condemn and attack other Christians with whom they have almost everything in common, and for whom Christ died. But I didn't feel it was unfair to leave out "my" story. ("My" story which was first told by Emo Phillips on his album, E=MO2". Although I added the name of the bridge and swapped the Great Lakes and Eastern region answers.) I think few people would fault me for telling this story-especially since I say "that was a made-up story" at the end.

Ok, this is spinning off of a different discussion. Here's what you missed so far..... When someone is doing a sermon/homily/teaching, it is not uncommon for them to use an illustration of a point they are trying to make. Sometimes the illustrations are actual-from historical accounts, eyewitness accounts, and so on. The account of George Mueller on-board the fogged-in vessel "the Sardian", for example, was told and vetted by the captain of the vessel himself. Using this as an illustration is not a problem to most people. I've told a story as if it has happened to me-but invariably end it by saying "ok, that never happened", and then explaining the illustration (as if it needed it), and I've told anyone who asked its origin. Sometimes, the speaker will preface the story by saying it's a story. Sometimes, it will seem obvious in the telling (to most people, but, I've discovered, not all.) So, this thread. Please discuss this subject from all angles. Do you like these stories? Why? Do you dislike these stories? Why? What's your favourite? Which one do you hate the most? Which ones fooled you at the time? Which ones surprised you that others were fooled?

Ok, I take it back-this is also worth discussing. There's a style of teaching called "homiletics". In homiletics, an illustration can be made up out of nowhere to make a point. Whether that is ethical or "right" is a matter of opinion. In the same school, Bible language researchers dug for the truth, and Bible historians dug for the truth, and homileticists learned to use made-up stories to make a point. I guess it's worth a separate discussion: 'does training in Homiletics condition a preacher to lie and make up stuff and hobble his ethics?' Of course, there is a big difference between using real examples, or making it clear an example is "apocryphal", and giving them all the same treatment. The only story I ever seriously tell where I use an apocryphal instance is the one about "The Bridge", and I always end that one by saying "Ok-that never happened," and then making my point. I usually didn't get too many made-up stories from leadership, and those few I got sounded like obvious made-up stories. (Like the house-builder who was preparing to retire.) However, I DID face someone who told a story as if he had seen it on TV, back in twi. He supposedly saw the tv show where one guy from Wendy's refused to comment when asked if the beef in their burgers was "stretched" by adding worms to the meat. Imagine my surprise, years later, when I realized he was lying thru his teeth. http://www.snopes.com/horrors/food/wormburg.asp (For the record, a pound of earthworms is much more expensive than a pound of beef.)

You know, for a moment, I thought you were actually going to add to a discussion without your OWN agenda. I don't know where my optimism springs from... [And what HE mentioned had NOTHING to do with what we were discussing. And we discussed THAT. We did "pay attention." We discussed it and determined the comments were inapplicable.] [Actually, he himself mentioned having difficulties in that dept.Not that I'm saying "vpw was racist", but-based purely on his OWN words, such discussions do not lack merit.] ["Very forcefully trounced it to pieces"? What-he used an earthmover or something? I've noticed that you accept HCW's accounts when they serve you, and IGNORE them the minute they don't...] [Ok, since you insist on bringing that up again,here's how THAT discussion went. HCW says he saw pictures of vpw in India. HCW says he saw crowds around a train. HCW says he saw a guy. HCW says he was told "this is the guy vpw healed" and "this crowd was here specifically to meet with vpw." He then accepted that this was EXACTLY what those single still images meant. However, they are not "proof". A picture of a guy is not proof vpw healed this man-or HURT this man. A picture of a crowd is not proof they were there to celebrate vpw. I used to joke of travelling to Mexico every May 5th, so that the locals of one community that deeply respected me could honour me with a parade every year. Those paying attention easily got the joke- they were ALREADY celebrating, and I just thought it was all about me. When I brought up that single still pics don't tell a whole story (as opposed to seeing film footage of vpw praying and an arm suddenly healing), HCW loudly and vociferously objected. I left the discussion-not because I disagreed-but because he wasn't listening, and I saw no benefit in remaining in a screaming match. I've mentioned that since, and HCW and I have had a number of discussions-quite civil-since then. You, of course, continue to rewrite that one to your satisfaction. Over a year later, long after all involved parties have moved on. Old news. ] [And we've proven it. You however, claim to be the sole voice of truth and fact here. It's fascinating and sad. ] *** [Ok, this was worth adding to the discussion.You couldn't JUST start down here, without tossing in innuendo, though...] [Actually, "the point Dr was making" was the one he said he was making. That was how "sadly ridiculous" some "so-called Christians" can get in their attempts to "stand approved of God". He said the clipping showed a trivial topic that produced factionalism so great the church split over it. He claimed there was a clipping, and the clipping indicated the existence of such a group. So, proof the group existed would vindicate him, as would the actual clipping. What does the testimony on this thread show? A) One pastor saying "I'm passing along this story without knowing if it's true or not." B) One old lady said "I was in this group." (I asked Johnny to follow up on his post.) C) One poster saying "I've seen articles that lacked merit before and were unchecked. Maybe it was just like them." (Well, maybe it WAS. That means such a clipping MAY have existed.) Which post, then, was "testimony on this thread that people actually do seriously think this way about navels"? Please be specific. There's only a few posts to choose from.] ["As Dr accurately reported". You came to this discussion already certain there was such a clipping. So far, no one's produced it nor seen it, and supposedly the discussion has proved it existed, and "Dr accurately reported." See, that's what anybody ELSE calls a "bias." I came into this discussion saying "I can't find any proof of this group existing anywhere online. There's no church in existence now using that title. There's no website using that name-or the word 'Navelite'- anywhere I can find. The only thing I CAN find is a few people saying they read such a church was started-and they can't agree on what state it happened in." I then asked outright "Have any of you seen proof of this church?" I also allowed for the other possibility "Or is this an urban legend, either passed along or originated by a homileticist..." Since you're a stranger to discussions of urban legends, I'll direct you to some reading material on the subject. http://www.snopes.com/info/ul-def.asp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_legend My bias? Let's see. Before I even involved anyone else, FIRST I checked if I could find the existence of such a church. If I found it, I wouldn't have ASKED, I would have announced I found it, as a matter of public interest. Having found no proof of its existence, rather than jump to a conclusion, Opened discussion on the subject. I asked if anyone could corroborate his story. Therefore, first, I checked if I could corroborate his story. Second, I checked if anyone ELSE could. You, on the other hand, automatically assumed it was corroborated. Then you claimed I was "biased." Most people would find that mildly ironic.]

Wrong. Any honest attempt at reading would have said that. INTEGRITY is moral, and resides in the heart, is displayed in speech, and demonstrated in action. RELIGION is behavioural, and resides in the actions and words. Someone can speak religion, and CLAIM to be loving and compassionate, OR someone can have integrity, and HAVE love and compassion. It's the difference between hearing a sermon and SEEING a sermon. Someone once said that knowledge PUFFS up (like air in a balloon) and God's love BUILDS up (like concrete in a building). One is solid and consistent, and the other is a bunch of hot air. The difference is not that difficult to see. If one is TRYING. Congratulations!You completely missed-as in 180 degrees-the point! Since that's what you were trying to do, well done! It is not possible to have missed the mark in any greater way! We noticed. Exposing evil has NEVER been a popular concept, either. People have been killed for it. Or been lambasted in messageboards for it. Or things in between.

I know. The verse in question is in Genesis 3, in some edition in someone's mind. Oakspear has not seen this verse. Reread my post very slowly, and say the figure of speech name aloud once, and you'll get my point. I'm sure Oakspear got it (or will when he reads it..)

I should probably let this slide, but I won't. For those of you who have no need of medication, (and don't see "shielding lcm" as a requirement), this should be a piece of cake.

Oakspear, you've missed the verse where it says that you can tear any woman a new one, if she's not obeying you like a slave, or if she IS and you just feel like venting. It's not in the King James or anything. I wish you could see it in the original. As Bullinger noted, it's a legitimate utilization of the figure "fulashidamiy". There's a note on it in the Companion Bible.