Raf

I'm still waiting for the part where we get to the difference.

I only "steal" my own (with maybe one exception, which I labeled). Tom, if you want to go, by all means do so.

Bliss, I've never asked Mike to leave, nor have I ever tried to silence him. In fact, I invited him to LES.

Somehow, Mike, when you try to rebut what I say, you only prove it further. Your god is a fake, your Jesus is a counterfeit, your idol was a predator of God's people, and your preciousssssss is an error-riddled work of dishonest plagiarism. As for your opinion, I already have stuffed it. And flushed it. It's now where it belongs.

Pineapple pizza will now be served in the TWI cafeteria.

Skillful evasion, Mike. And I do not bow to you, or your idolatrous interpretation of the life and writings of Mr. Victor Paul Wierwille.

In fact, the combination automatically disqualifies it from being a ministry. This is like putting arsenic inside a hydrochloric acid solution and calling it a cocktail. Drink up!

Why is it that after reading this indisputable evidence of an indisputable lie, some people still don't get that he was lying about the 1942 snowstorm too? Oh, it was a vision. Oh, it could have happened with few people noticing, no evidence anywhere. How about this: Oh, the guy fabricates snowstorms to embellish his stories, never figuring anyone would have the courage to check.

For the record, dead bugs on a cold pizza... ... and it ain't pizza anymore.

Ah, the Emo Phillips defense. Haven't seen that one in a long time. Let's go over a few areas where we disagree, shall we? Dr. Got revelation from God in 1942, saw snow on the gas pumps to prove it. His vicious, predatory behavior is excusable, considering the things he taught. In fact, his victims are more at fault than he was. The works he penned are more reliable than the Bible itself, and supercede it whether there's evidence for such a conclusion or not. The creator of heaven and earth is incapable of getting a man to communicate His Word without resorting to plagiarism. If not for Wierwille's writings, Jesus would not know as much as he does today. Mike, you are not my brother, because Jesus Christ is not your Lord. And yes, I could think of plenty of Bible verses where we would disagree. Those condemning idolatry come to mind.

I voted against the limits. Sometimes I forget to disable my signature, which is a big obnoxious banner ad I like to save for deliberate, shameless plugs. In at least one case (and I think only one), the sig remained and I didn't realize it until it was too late to remove. Fortunately, it was on an endless blather thread, which means the thread has moved three pages since my blunder. :)

Awesome! Mike missed your ubiquitously hidden message, AND called himself an idiot to boot! This is too much fun for one day.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Mike just accused someone else of using convoluted reasoning and missing the point. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

It's very noble, the way you stand up for your impotent, criminal, unethical, unimaginative and resourceless god, Mike. Brought a tear to my eye, is what it did. Uncontrollable laughter does that to me.

I GOT IT! Amazon Women Worship The Moon!

I can't figure out what movie title is suggested by showing pictures of the Amazon, Women, a Nun and The Moon. Will have to keep thinking about it.

Uh oh. Mike's talking to himself again. Give him room, everybody.

Happy birthday, Sudo! CUZ you're a DENTIST! And a success!

I agree, Mike. In fact, I think it's one more little piece of incontravertible proof that you haven't mastered the material at all. Dude, FINE! If you acknowledge he plagiarized, but you say so what, that's fine! Now you've gone and implicated God in "Dr's" dishonesty. If you're satisfied with a dishonest god, so be it. Your god is dishonest. Been trying to tell you that all along. Good to see you finally admit it. Your false god is a joke and a jerk, Mike. Maybe. Your debating skills are impressive. But you'd still be wrong, idolizing the predatory, charlatan prophet a false god..

I saw it earlier, but don't see it now. Let's try this as a substitute:

In New York, we just removed the windows. These guys at snopes are simply amazing.

In the Bronx, E****e B***a and S***e A******o made a great team. He was a decent guitarist, she had a phenomenal voice. Gee, I miss them. WordWolf, do you remember some of those songs? "I Just Wanted to Thank You." "Superman" "Spiritual Private Eye"

Clearly. Pokerhondas is correct. :)

There's more than one car. One of those answers is RIGHT-THERE!!!

I guess my deal is that there's no evidence either way to state with certainty either way whether Paul was speaking of himself or someone else. If "that's what it says, that's what it means" is a standard, then we have to say it was someone else. If there's some figure of speech at work here, it doesn't translate well into English. I declined earlier to include this in the "actual errors" list, but I lean toward Paul meant what he said and said what he meant: he knew someone, not speaking of himself. If he was speaking of himself, my faith structure doesn't fall to pieces (perhaps because it was not as fragile as Wierwille's, whose faith fell apart at the mere thought of a preposition being out of place).