Raf

Not at all.

Mercedes Ruelh. Dot, in the last episode of Benson (I loved that show, stupid as it was), Benson was running for Governor against Gene Gatling (who played the Governor throughout the show's run). The episode ended just as they were about to announce the vote tallies. History will never know who became the next governor of that great state (whatever state it was). You need closure? Call a radio psychiatrist. :)--> Seriously, though, this is classic pessimist/optimist territory. Or romantic/realist. I prefer to think he did the right thing. He had to see about a girl.

It was my impression that he ditched the job to chase the girl. Sort of leaves it to your imagination whether that was a smart move.

NOTICE: PAT IS SPECIFICALLY ASKING FOR "ARMCHAIR LEGAL BUFFS," NOT PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS. HE IS SPECIFICALLY SOLICITING THESE RESPONSES. SO IF YOU DON'T LIKE NON-PROFESSIONALS OFFERING LEGAL OPINIONS, TAKE IT UP WITH PAT. Pat, Presuming your premise to be correct, it would appear the answer is: a. The information you previously provided on the site offers a distilled version of the principles taught in the foundational class. Someone connecting to thewayinternational.com would have obtained the information that TWI sells, without paying TWI. The fact that you gave it away for free is not relevant. You gave away a competing product. Someone looking for info from and about TWI obtained it, and TWI lost money in the process. It should be noted that it doesn't matter that they could have gotten the information elsewhere, because the people who looked for the information didn't go elsewhere; they went to thewayinternational.com. In your defense, I would argue that the majority of hits you received were from people who had already taken PFAL, and thus TWI would not have received any additional money from those visitors. b. They probably can't make that case. c. Short answer: they can't. Skip the long answer if that's all you wanted to hear.

As with all "polling," it will depend on how the question is worded. "If your pastor asked you to have sex with him and that it would please God and that it wasn't adultery, would you do it?" 100% of respondents will agree with OM. "If you were persuaded that your church was God's only true church on earth, and that disobeying your pastor was tantamount to disobeying God, and you were persuaded that God's True Word was not available outside that church, and you truly believed that, and you trusted the people who told you that with all your heart, and your pastor asked you to have sex with him and that it would please God and that it wasn't adultery, would you do it?" I suspect that 100% number will decline somewhat. If anything, they will challenge the premise of the question. "I wouldn't be stupid enough to get involved in such a church." Maybe, but it doesn't answer the question.

The intent that Pat has declared here is that it would be a gripe site, but I do not recall whether he ever actually used it as a gripe site. Perhaps he can answer that if he so chooses. Or not, if he so doesn't.

I'm scratching my head, Goey... are you disagreeing with Long Gone? Because the info you presented only reinforces his point. Unless I'm missing something. In any event... I've been rereading this whole thread today. Zix noted early on that TWI can produce witnesses who say there was no Internet ban just as easily as Pat could produce witnesses who say there was. The difference, and it's in Pat's favor, is that Pat can produce a witness who told TWI to register the domain name at the center of this dispute. They declined to do so, providing Pat the opportunity to secure the name himself. Eagle, I missed something you said about the reasons you want critics to stay silent. I understand your point but agree with the person who responded that TWI's lawyers are probably better than we laypeople at coming up with legal arguments. In other words, they don't need our help. Also, I did not mean to imply that you were abridging my right to free speech. I only meant to assert my right to free speech and, as such, decline your suggestion that this should be discussed privately. Goey, Long Gone, your insights into the legal issues remain fascinating. Pat, Seriously, Good luck.

Did the male leaders who participated in the adultery know it was wrong?

Evan, Actually, it's not a straw man. There are other counterarguments to my position that I won't get into, but straw man is not a legitimate one. My argument is that if the Father is greater than the Son, they are not co-equal, and therefore Jesus Christ is not God because there's something greater than him. You can argue against that, which is fine, but it's not straw man. The second point is that if there's something the Son does not know, then he is not God. Again, the point can be argued, but my position is not straw man. I used to delight in the trinitarian-unitarian argument. I no longer delight in it, so if anyone wants to argue with my position, have at it. Just don't be surprised if I don't engage as vigorously as I've been known to engage on other threads, k?

I don't see how what I wrote was either lying OR spin. Nor do I see how calling my paragraph "stupid" substantively addresses the point I made, which is that you are so obsessed with the sins of the women that you, like the Pharisees who dragged the woman to Jesus' feet, forgot to include the men. Maybe "obsessed" is the wrong word. Pick another one. Insistent. Stubborn. Dedicated. I don't know, YOU pick the word. Whatever. I'm not wedded to that word.

That's not counterpoint, John. It's spin. It's deflecting from the point. Christian leaders ought not be doing those things. No matter how much you want to malign these women, it doesn't matter. The point is that Christian leaders ought not be doing those things, regardless of whether the women were forced at gunpoint or coming onto them like Times Square hookers during Fleet Week. Oh, and your views on John 8? TWI spin.

wanna talk about ME wanna talk about I wanna talk about number one oh my me my... John, Convenient calling my post "lying spin." Real authoritative. Takes the focus off the baseless speculation of your post and puts it instead on.... meeeeeeeeeeeee. wanna talk about mee-eee-eeeeee. Hey, why don't you quote the rest of my paragraph, John?

Probably? Translation: "maybe." It could have been many times for the guy, just a different girl that time. Probably. Maybe. My baseless speculation is just as good as yours. And just as worthless. Adding a word to the Word, are we? Makes the rest of the interpretation convenient. If only that was what the Lord said! But it wasn't. You know, last time you had the decency to use the word probably. Or maybe. Now you're just stating baseless speculation as fact. Doesn't change the fact that it's baseless speculation: If only that was what the Scripture said! But it wasn't. Good point. Do you know what would have happened if Nathan had gone to David with any other story? David would have chopped his head off! Probably. Maybe. Baseless speculation, stated as fact. Doesn't change the fact that it's baseless speculation. But it sure sounded a heck of a lot better when it was just stated as fact. Sounds real authoritative, doesn't it? I wasn't there, so I have no comment. I'll leave that to others. I am qualified to say the following, however: It does not make one whit of difference if they were willing or unwilling, abused or prostitutes. The point is it was FLAT OUT WRONG for "men of God" to do these things. You can distract and make it about the women. But you're still distracting. Or missing the point. Or both.

Hey John, What's the Greek word for "same" in that verse? Just curious.

Kev, You are very considerate. But the name of a character is not a spoiler. They just changed his name for the movie, which is not exactly a faithful adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel. I guess it's the same reason The Incredible Hulk on television was "David Banner" instead of Bruce. Some writer probably owed a war buddy a favor or something.

Cuppa Joe comin right up for our brand new poster, pfalbmo... cream and sugar with that? Oh, and I have to ask: what does bmo mean?

:)-->

Again with the diversion: Oldiesman, take your eyes off that consequence clause and look at the behavior that's being condemned. Can we agree that regardless of the meaning of that clause, the behavior is being condemned? Do you see it? We can argue the consequence clause in the doctrinal section if you want. But can you, for once, just one time, stick to the subject?

I think she meant Chapter 5: For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only [use] not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. ... [This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. ... Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

So as not to get into a doctrinal debate, I'll drop the point.

This is a matter of deflecting the point of the argument. Johniam, Oldiesman: It does not matter ONE WHIT if the women were prostitutes who took money for their activities and went on to sign multimillion dollar book deals. The point is the Christian "leaders" (ie, Christian servants, at least in theory) ought not do such things. The problem isn't just that there was sex going on. The problem is that it was rampant, and it was justified, by "leadership." It doesn't matter how much blame falls on the victims. Why are you so obsessed with that when the problem being identified is that people took sexual advantage of those they were supposed to be caring for, and they were doing it in God's name, and they didn't even have the decency to teach that it was wrong. Maybe if you stayed on the point, people would stop jumping all over you when these issues came up.

Also like my posts, it may make your stomach uneasy. But that's cafe coffee for you.

Lotsa new talent today. Very well said house 'o rock. Coffee?

Exactly. They controlled your mind so that you weren't thinking for yourselves. Now come think like us and everything will be okay because if you don't we're gonna call you NAMES! Phooey.

Pat, the point of offering the domain name for sale was not raised as a matter of infringement, competition, or dilution. It was raised as a matter of cybersquatting. Not a legal point: just going back over the conversation here. This is not to be misconstrued as a legal statement or advice or anything of the kind. This is strictly about the mechanics of this conversation as carried out on this thread.