Raf

Told you it was a tough one.

No siree. "No, I mean I buried Horace Townsend. For good."

Pond, I'm really surprised Mike would behave that way toward you. It is unlike him (and no one would accuse me of being in his fan club). I concede, however, that his words on the stress thread are very much unlike him as well, so I'm not doubting you either. I just don't think it's very "Mike-like" to threaten anyone. Insult? Yeah, but his insults are usually a bit subtle (to him).

Is that like a wild pitch? A-cuz it was nowhere near the strike zone. :)

Apology accepted. :P

Mark, I did not deny that you accused Jerry of bigotry. I only said you berated him as being ignorant of history. I didn't say that was the ONLY thing you were saying. As for switching terms in the middle of the discussion, sorry, I won't give you a break. It makes reasonable dialogue impossible when someone changes definitions midstream.

According to Mike, he is not the only one who has adopted his thesis. I take him at his word.

Personally, I think Mike's garbage about PFAL is far more insidious than anything in the joke that opens this thread. We all knew Pirate was kidding. Mike is serious, and has lemmings following him off his spiritual cliff. So, for me, I'm going to put offensive into perspective.

When I send a private message to a fellow poster, I expect that to remain private. Anything else is rude and ungentlemanly (or unladylike, take your pick). If I send a private message that is bullying, threatening or insulting, I've already crossed the rude line, and if it comes back to bite me in the butt, I have only myself to blame. The private message privilege can easily be abused, and I do not advocate that.

You can call other forms of worship "Catholic," but then you need to define your term. They would balk at the term, most certainly. More importantly, Jerry is talking about the Roman Catholic Church, so for you to switch definitions on him mid-argument is less than fair. Umm, okay.

I can't figure out the first word(s). I did figure out the last word, but I'm stumped on the overall title.

"You will watch your tongue in my courtoom." "And you will watch your tongue in my presence!"

Probablt because they seemed to have a strategy: Steve! hits 5,000 posts, and never posts again. And they stuck to it! Hey, I applaud 'em.

This is historically incorrect, and presumes all copies of the scriptures were in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. Also untrue. Mark, I wouldn't berate someone for an ignorance of history in the same post as inaccuracy this blatant.

Agreed. I don't even want to see his PUBLIC messages, much less his privates.

I'm a little confused on your criticism of the Jehovah's Witnesses with regard to changing the word "Lord." At best, your criticism is incomplete. The word LORD in the Hebrew Scriptures was generally "YHWH," which JW's translated Jehovah. This was perfectly appropriate and you should not have a problem with it in the slightest. The New Testament is where it gets tricky, because they used "kurios" (not sure I have the exact transliteration there) when quoting OT passages that contained YHWH. So sometimes inserting "Jehovah" in place of Lord is appropriate in the NT, and sometimes it is not. In any event, those changes made by the JW's support the truth, not lies.

The first two are adventures. Next!

Tough one. "You've known all along, haven't you? He might have fooled us, but he hasn't fooled you."

If I know Mike, the previous post probably says something about my mischaracterizing him, then goes on to discuss... well, evade my point. I did not mischaracterize him in the slightest. If Wierwille says something outside of PFAL, he only rejects it if it disproves his thesis. So when Wierwille tells HCW "PFAL is not God-breathed," it doesn't matter, because he did not WRITE that. Very convenient.

This sounds very Naked Gunish. 2.5?

Whenever Wierwille says something that is not actually in the written material, Mike accepts it if it sheds light on the material and rejects it if it sheds even more light on the material. For example, he's eager to note that the "fire engine red curtains" scenario, which helps establish the silliness of the "law of believing" doctrine, is not actually in the book. That way he avoids having to confront that Wierwille's actual teaching on the subject is wrong, and any mistakes we made based on that wrong teaching were our fault, not his. Very convenient.

Jerry, You only thought PFAL was right. You never said it was perfect. Then you did something remarkable: You mastered it, warts and all. And you found warts! And helped a whole lot of people in the process. I get too much credit for what YOU started. I salute you, sir.