Raf

As a member of the mainstream media, I would argue that this case would have a mainstream interest of about... no, I can't think of a soul who would care about a p*ssing contest between a two bit cult and a disgruntled ex-follower. In fact, the media might be hostile to someone who thinks he can register the name of an organization as a domain name and get away with it. HOWEVER, I do think publications like Christianity Today and other cult-watching publications would be more than interested, particularly if the legal case goes Pat's way.

Do not forget that in the 1950s (and possibly in the 1940s), Oral Roberts had a magazine entitled "Abundant Life." It was not an unusual phrase for religious use. Wierwille could have lifted it from a number of sources, including the Bible.

I haven't said anything since page one. But if I choose to say something on a public message board, I reserve the right to do so. If you disagree with me on this tactic, why don't you do so privately?

Ok, fair enough. Line 45 has nothing to do with your experience. But it does have to do with the trademark, ... how, exactly? Because a non-trinitarian doesn't have the right to claim to be a Christian and thus a follower of "The Way," Jesus Christ? Item 45 is irrelevant to every part of your claim, Pat. The law cannot, CANnot allow scholars or partisans to dictate what is Christian and what is not. As such, item 45 has no relevance to the trademark issue as a matter of fact or law. Pat, when you get into this battle, please, please, arm yourself. P.S. I wasn't ignoring you in chat. I just didn't see you there.

If you think I'm being hard on you, wait until their lawyers get through with you.

No, item 45 is irrelevant. That's the point. It's showboating. That's the point. It's holding TWI legally accountable for espousing a doctrine you, too, espouse. That's the point. My beliefs are irrelevant, true. But your beliefs are entirely relevant because, in case you hadn't noticed, you're a part of the case. So spare me the pious "they made money off it" deal, because that's NOT the point of item 45. You threw item 45 in there to prejudice the case against them, and IT (item 45) is cynical and hypocritical because you disagree with the very authorities you are claiming have some say in what makes an organization Christian or not. Are you saying that rejection of the Trinity is deception, but that's only bad when you profit off it? I keep asking you, what's the point of item 45? If you don't want to answer, don't. But don't feign to answer it when you're not.

I'm on your believer links page, as you are on mine. That's not the point. The point is, using the same criteria you claim proves that TWI is misrepresenting itself to the public, the same can be said about you. You claim Path of Christ is Christian based, yet you disparage the Trinity and give money to organizations which actively disparage the Trinity. You don't see anything, I don't know, WRONG with this? Fine, but that's got nothing to do with the Trinity. What does monetary gain have to do with item 45? I'm asking you about the importance of item 45. Can you offer an explanation of how item 45 discredits TWI without discrediting you?

I find the counterclaim rather interesting. According to item 45, "A recognized cornerstone by most religious experts as to whether a religious group is a Christian-based one or not is the belief in the Trinity. TWI's publication "Jesus Christ is Not God" is a refutation and disparagement of this belief." To the best of my knowledge, the "Path of Christ" ministry is currently recommending the CES book "One God and One Lord," which shares the theology espoused in "Jesus Christ is Not God." So, Pat, is the Path of Christ Ministry a Christian-based one? I'm just curious, because a major thrust of your counterclaim is that you would not have gotten involved with TWI had you known it was a non-Christian organization (item 2). Item 45 is presented as supportive of the contention that TWI is not Christian, but that same standard would suggest to me that you are not Christian either. Just trying to see the relevance of item 45.

Here they come Walking down the street They get the funniest looks from Every one they meet...

Almost certainly not. I bought mine at a regular plain old Christian bookstore, non TWI, non-offshoot...

I am SO going to plagiarize that (or re-plagiarize, as the case may be) on a regular basis. From henceforth, the Board of Whatevers of TWI shall be known as The Keepers Of Odd Knowledge Society! Dittos.

Still trying to figure out the first song we should sing. Three baritones and a tenor. Hmmm.

I was just surprised they gave a rat's patootie what I have to say. I'm just one guy who was in TWI for about a half an hour in the 1980s (look it up, John). But let's be honest, the Living Epistles Society doesn't have an audience without the Greasespot Cafe. It never dawned on me that innies would click on my site. I mean, why? You're giving me a swelled head, Eagle. LOL! Actually, Pawtucket, Pat Roberge, Jim Martin and I were thinking of forming a barber shop quartet and debuting outside the Fountain of Living Waters.

Grrr. I hate when you have a point. I will edit and re-post the articles (plus the link to the article on plagiarism on GS Cafe AND the brief about plagiarism in Order My Steps in Thy Word.

Eagle, I've had no interaction at all, by e-mail, phone or any other means, with anyone in TWI. It is gratifying, however, to see that I got their attention. I've removed the articles on the Blue Book and Actual Errors. I may post them again, but I'd rather keep that dialogue here. If that's what upset them, GOOD! If they were upset by my article on tithing, GOOD! If they were upset by my article on Power For Abased Living, GOOD! If they were upset by my various articles on faith, GOOD! But my intent in my site is not to upset TWI. If I manage to accomplish that task by exposing their errors,... GOOD!

And then, of course, there was always the party in the pastor's room. But that was waaaaaay after TWI.

WW would never badmouth me behind my back. To my face, totally different story. :)-->

OMG, Engine posted. And the sun turned to darkness, and the moon...

Of course not! We're talking about the man who invented the breathalyzer!

Did his eyelashes actually hit you? They've been known to do quite a bit of damage to people sitting as much as six yards away.

Excy, click the link. There was an off-color rap song a few years back called "OPP." It stands for "Other People's" umm, girlfriends. Or boyfriends. The song spells it out.

I thought it meant Other People's P*****

Word Wolf and I were always mistaken for brothers (physical). If I had thought of it at the time, I would have said we are: we just have different mothers. And fathers. But one Father. O'Malley. At St. Raymond's R.C. Church.

Word Wolf left the Bronx? And Manhattan? Wow.

Let's see if I've got this straight, oldiesman. You're going to call the guy up and ask him if he's privately interpreting the scriptures. And you expect him to answer... what, exactly? Why don't you call up all those folks who are danged certain they've interpreted John 1 correctly? Why is their word unreliable on John 1, but Rabbi Petasnik is reliable on the Exodus verses? Since when do you leave Biblical interpretation up to "the experts?" Was that a PFAL key that I missed? "Find out what the rabbis think?" Look uo the history of the word "miscarriage." It didn't always mean the child died. The verse doesn't say "miscarriage." It says "that her fruit depart from her." It could depart from her alive (no harm follows - penalty: a fine) or it could depart from her dead (harm follows by definition). If you disagree with me, fine. You're entitled. But don't ask me to accept men's opinion just because he's got the title "rabbi." Or MOG. You disagree with me. Afford me the right to disagree with you, the rabbi and Victor Paul Wierwille.