Raf

Correct on all counts. You left out Christopher Lee's line about the appalling publicity, which I thought was hysterical.

You're thinking along the right lines: more recent, but not current. Another hint: It's got something in common with the last answer

To be offended, I would have to care about his opinion. Since I don't, I'm not. Remember that these folks are quick to condemn us for judging Weirwille, yet equally quick to judge the multitude of people who have come forward to expose the abuses that Wierwille committed. We shouldn't judge him because we don't know the facts, but his accusers? They're all cowards and liars. That judgment is okay, but judging Wierwille by the standards of common decency (not to mention the Bible he held in such supposed high esteem) is out of bounds. Hey, compare ANYONE to Christ, and that person will come up short. And as sinister as I believe him to be, I can think of a great many people more vilely evil. Don't lose sleep over the comparison, rascal.

Realized yesterday that seaspray does not need a welcome. He's been here before, a few years back (as someone noted). And no, nothing seems to have changed with him. Welcome back, seaspray. Let us know when you have an original thought. I'll alert the rest of the media.

Read it again. Slowly. Sound out the words if it helps. When you start, I'll ... Nope, sorry, won't stop thinking, not even for you.

My skin's a little thicker than that, Bolshevik. :) Glad to know where you stand, seaspray. My prayers are with you. Be well.

Good one, Mike. Interesting. See how easy it is to talk about Jesus Christ when you focus on the Bible rather than PFAL? I'm just saying. (and yes, I'm just kidding). Honestly, I think there's a difference between being a sinner, which everyone is, and being sinister. Of necessity, God works with sinners (not a lot of options on that front). But to expect me to believe Wierwille is what you claim him to be, God would have to work not with a sinner, but with the sinister; not with a man who occasionally succumbed to evil, but with a man who occasionally rose above it; not with a man who failed to be what he knew to be, but a man who knew what he was and reveled in it. You compare Wierwille to Saul the apostle, I to Saul the king. You compare Wierwille to the penitent sinner David, I to the unpenitent and ultimately disgraced Solomon. And that's being gracious, for it assumes that at some point there truly was a desire to serve God. Unfortunately, Wierwille ended up serving man, not in any noble sense, but he served man up to the altar of his own greed, his own lusts. Do his misdeeds mark his entire life? No. Of course not. Most of the people he met, he did not hurt. Most of the people who heard him preach were inspired by it, I dare say. And bravo for that. But he didn't need to prey upon more than a handful of God's people to earn the mark of predator. He didn't have to manipulate everyone he met to be a manipulator. As I've mentioned over and over: Jeffrey Dahmer only ate a miniscule fraction of the people he met over his lifetime. A teensy weensy... almost immeasurable percentage. Defend what you want of the cult leader Victor Paul Wierwille. He preyed upon God's people, in Christ's name. It wasn't merely sin. It was a calculated lifestyle of manipulation of Scripture and people for his own lustful ends. Sad, yes. Tragic? Depends on his motives to begin with. A legacy? Maybe. He'll have the legacy of L. Ron Hubbard, Charles Taze Russell, Mary Baker Eddy... when the final history of Victor Paul Wierwille is written, he will take his place among the second or third tier of those who traded in money and lives in Christ's name. He will be, perhaps, a footnote at best (ironic, considering his own failure to use such inconveniences). And Christianity will move on.

Mike, Again, nice try. We've been through this before. Let's not bother, k?

Jeff put it well, as usual. It's true, seaspray, but once you come to that realization, your recovery can begin. The belief system you cling to was, to a large extent, concocted by a predator of God's people for the purpose of satisfying his lust for money, sex and power. Oh, his legacy includes many fond memories for you, and I won't begrudge you that. I had some good memories too. But I'd trade those good memories in a heartbeat if it would take away the pain and anguish suffered at Wierwille's hands by people whose only crime was a desire to get to know God better.

"When guys are persistent, it's romantic, they make movies about that. If it's a woman, then they cast Glenn Close." *** "Bygones." *** "A fat man, trying to squeeze through a narrow chimney, and I taunt him with Oreos and whole milk." *** "Snappish" *** "You think we're all from Mars here, don't you?" "I never said which planet." *** "Maybe you should eat a cookie." "Maybe we should share it." *** "Friendly group. They probably take homicides just to lighten up." Hint: The last three quote might make you think of another show, with good reason. Nonethless, all the quotes are from the same show. Even the last three. Even if they remind you of another show. On another network. With good reason.

Nope. Sorry for the delay in updating...

heh heh heh.

"Okay you guys, listen up! People pay good money to see this movie! When they go out to a theater they want cold sodas, hot popcorn, and no monsters in the projection booth! Do I have to come up there myself?" **** "Fred, what we want is, I think, what everyone wants, and what you and your viewers have: civilization." "Yes, but what sort of civilization are you speaking of?" "The niceties, Fred. The fine points: diplomacy, compassion, standards, manners, tradition... that's what we're reaching toward. Oh, we may stumble along the way, but civilization, yes. The Geneva Convention, chamber music, Susan Sontag. Everything your society has worked so hard to accomplish over the centuries, that's what we aspire to; we want to be civilized. You take a look at this fellow here. (Shoots him in the head) Now, was that civilized? No, clearly not. Fun, but in no sense civilized. Now, bear in mind, none of us has been in New York before. There are the Broadway shows - we'll have to find out how to get tickets. There's also a lot of street crime, but I believe we can watch that for free. We want the essentials. Dinettes. Complete bedroom groups. Convenient credit, even though we've been turned down in the past." **** "All they have to do is to eat three or four children and there'd be the most appalling publicity." **** "BUY! BUY! BUY!" "SELL! SELL! SELL!" "Well, it's rather brutal here. Right now we are advising all our clients to put everything they've got into canned food and shotguns." **** "Sir, I'm... I'm sorry about the building." "I'm not." "You're not?" "For one thing, we're insured for the damages. For another, maybe it wasn't a place for people anyway. It was a place for things. You make a place for things... things come."

Nice try, Mike. That you could hightlight "The Way" and ignore "Ministry" and claim "The Way" there is a reference to Christ would be astonishing to me... if it were coming from anyone else.

[ctrl]f "jesus" no matches found [ctrl]f "christ" no matches found All I need to know.

You're still in?

ROTFLMAO

You left out that I engaged in hyperbole, a perfectly valid figure of speech (look it up in your Funk & Wagnall's, or Bullinger, if you prefer) to describe what would constitute acceptable hard evidence. Otherwise, yeah, you pretty much nailed it Oaks.

The post before that referred to what it would take for someone to believe Wierwille said anything right. My post referred to what it would take for someone to believe Wierwille was a predator who abused God's Word and people to satisfy his lust for money, sex and power. Not my fault you tried on the shoes and found a snug fit.

"Snappish."

Can someone jump in? I'll be away from the computer for the next couple of days.

"When guys are persistent, it's romantic, they make movies about that. If it's a woman, then they cast Glenn Close." *** "Bygones." *** "A fat man, trying to squeeze through a narrow chimney, and I taunt him with Oreos and whole milk."

WD, I notice in your chastisement that you neglected to quote the post I was responding to in the first place, thus being able to conclude that I was bringing up the "evidence" issure out of thin air. So here's the post I was referring to... So, you see, far from bringing it up out of nowhere (your second demonstrably incorrect accusation against me on this thread), I brought it up as a specific parallel to the post immediately before it. Regardless, we've both been told this is off topic. So let's keep it that way.

Amen, Mark. That's my point, exactly.

And that would be a false accusation, WD. I replied to Jeff in a PM, as he requested. But the answer to the question is in this thread. The "Moonwalking Bear" is that which is plain for anyone to see, as long as you are not distracted by irrelevancies that call your attention away from it.