Raf

Don't forget that a major reason we don't see new perspectives about recent activities is that we haven't allowed new members to sign up for quite some time. Anyone who JUST left would not be able to register unless they explored the forum enough to know how to do it (you do it by contacting me: check out Greasespot 101 forum for details or find me on Facebook: there's a link on every one of my posts).

My personal belief: A lot of people knew a lot of things, but few people knew "everything." Not that anyone knows everything now, but we have MUCH more of the puzzle pieces in place than we did when we were in. I knew, for example, that Dubofsky and Lynn were no longer associated with TWI when I got in/out in the late 1980s. But I didn't know why. I knew that there were rumors about weapons training, but I didn't know the truth about them. I knew there were allegations of plagiarism, but I had never seen it documented. I knew that Passing of a Patriarch was a big deal, but I had never read it in its proper historical context (even when I did read it after it was formally published in the early 1990s). And I'd never heard of the JAL or Schoenheit letters/documents. And the sexual abuse never rose above the rumor stage where/when I was.

A lot of stuff was known, but not a lot was widely disseminated and very little was available in one place for handy dandy reference.

A Star is Born Babs The Prince of Tides

Sounds entertaining

Nope.

Waydale, and to a lesser extent GSC, was crucial in exposing the truth of TWI and providing its former members a place to gather and share thoughts. That TWI is a shell of its former self can at least PARTLY be attributed to this site and its predecessor. However, let's not exaggerate our influence. TWI was on a downward spiral long before we came along.

"Captain America: The Winter Soldier" is an incredible movie.

Well, it's not a nonsensical statement if you're equicovating (that is, changing the definition of "God" and/or "exists" halfway through the sentence). I can believe Thor exists without believing Zeus exists, for example. I can believe Yahweh exists as a historical motivator without believing that he exists objectively in reality. But if I'm not changing the meaning of either word, then yes, it is a nonsensical statement. I've often said I have no problem with public displays of religion, but I have a serious problem with public displays of religion. If you don't know that I've changed the meaning of "public" in the middle of the sentence, it makes no sense. Public can be the opposite of private. It can also mean government funded/endorsed, etc. I have a problem with the latter, but not the former. That's not a coherent thought. Given your record of coherent expressions of your thoughts, I will ask you to clarify what you're trying to communicate here. O K. I'm sorry, relate that to the topic, please?

"If you could go back in time to Germany, before Hitler came to power, knowing what you know now, would you kill him?" ... "What about my question? "Huh? Huh? Oh, you mean the one about Hitler?" "What would you do?" "I don't like this, John. What are you getting at?" "What would you do? Would you kill him?" "All right. All right. I'll give you an answer. I'm a man of medicine. I'm expected to save lives and ease suffering. I love people. Therefore, I would have no choice but to kill the son of a bitch." "You'd never get away alive." "It doesn't matter. I would kill him."

Nope

If chockfull and I can get along, then any two Greasespot posters can get along. AmIrite?

I will be sending you a dry cleaning bill for that one. Coffee stains are very hard to get out of new clothes.

Cap 2 is incredible

Correct

Cross shredded into itsy bitsy pieces would be a fair assessment. Half the rules we have on this site addressed various ways I let him have it. Of course, my views have changed since then, but that's another, longer story. Let's not discuss that particular fellow unless he comes back and is able to defend himself.

MRAP, you were nowhere near a rule violation and never strayed from the topic.

There's a difference between drawing a conclusion based on the evidence and sticking with a presupposition in spite of the evidence. They are not both "accepting a premise."

Considering how many people at the time pretended to be apostles when they were not, I think taking their word for it would be exceedingly problematic. Someone pretending to be Peter wrote a gospel, after all. It's so absurd that no one takes it seriously. But if I were to take the wroter's word for it, I would have to assume it was written by Peter because he said so.

What I'm saying is, just because Peter uses the word "scripture" to describe the writings of Paul does not necessarily mean he is elevating it to the same level as "scripture" the way we use it today. I'll give you an example. Back in 1989/1990, after the Geer split from TWI, Geer wrote a letter to the subscribers to his newsletter and weekly tapes in the United States. I refer to that letter as "The Epistle of Chris Geer to the Americans." But when I wrote about it on GSC (or was it Waydale? I don't recall), some folks here were amazed that Geer would have the GALL to write an EPISTLE! They thought it was arrogant as hell of him to do such a thing. Of course, he never called it an epistle. That was MY word, not his. And it was accurate. An epistle is a letter. It doesn't have some kind of glorious meaning. It's a flipping letter. He was no more full of himself than I am writing this post. When WE use the word "epsitle," we bestow on that word a gravitas, an authority, that is missing from the word itself. It just means letter. I wrote a letter. No controversy. I wrote an epistle. Who do I think I am?!?! That's what I mean by Peter referring to Paul's letters as "scripture." I don't see where he's elevating it to some God-breathed status. He's just saying it was a written document. We need to be careful not inject OUR meanings onto the words that THEY used. We need to read it as THEY would have understood it. As for Peter not being the author of Peter, I'll just rest on the consensus of modern scholarship. Whoever wrote that letter (epistle) was not an illiterate fisherman more familiar with the Septuagint than the Hebrew scriptures. I'll refrain from elaborating on the argument here.

You guys are assuming "scriptures" means something magical, as opposed to "stuff that's written down." When Peter (who, by the way, was certainly NOT the apostle Peter), uses the word "scripture," is he using it in our modern sense? Or is he equating Paul's letters with the Torah?

Two people have a wonderful, sappy and melodramatic romance, but their conflicting political views and convictions constantly threaten their happiness. Barbra Streisand provides the sappy melodramatic song and hams her way through the movie. He eventually becomes involved in the first major battle of the American phase of the Vietnam War. Starring Babs, Robert Redford and Mel Gibson.

"And tell me that you'll never leave me [TITLE] and do it again."

"The missiles are flying. Hallelujah! Hallelujah!"

Minions