Raf

There's No One Like No Place Like Home. There's No One Like No Place Like Home. There's No One Like No Place Like Home. There's No One Like No Place Like Home. There's No One Like No Place Like Home. Uhhh, how many lumps do ya want?

That's not what I said. Read it again. It was a cult because of the way it mistreated people. I reject your standard of what makes a "cult." It's not disagreeing with you on doctrine: it's mistreating people. (I use cult according to its common usage, not its historic).

You didn't raise Christian issues, diazbro. You disagreed with them. Which is your prerogative, but I'm not about to fight you on it. Go fight someone else. It was a cheap shot to suggest that my standard was personal and not Christian. If you think I'm mistaken, that's fine. Your prerogative, like I said. But you crossed the line by suggesting that I'm just looking for a verse to back up my point of view. It's the Scripture that informs my point of view on this, not vice versa.

I didn't call you a robot for PR. Listen carefully: legal advice that runs counter to Pat, you criticize and bicker and question our motives and our qualifications for daring to have the audacity to speak on the subject. Legal advice that runs in Pat's favor, you greet with utter silence. And you accuse others of hypocrisy? Listen, you don't know my motives, psychologically or psychiatrically, so like Long Gone said, if you want to discuss the issue, fine. But I'm not the issue. Now that was a cheap shot. I cited chapter and verse. I stand by it. I am not attempting to "compel" anyone. Get your head out of the cult, will you? I'm trying to persuade. There's a difference. Like psychology and psychiatry.

Charles Stanley has always been a favorite of mine. On the local front, John Wagner (Davie, FL) and Bob Coy (Ft. Lauderdale, FL). Among offshoots, I still like Vince Finnegan and John Schoenheit (although they don't agree with each other as much as they used to). John Lynn is a hoot too.

Diazbro: I've already addressed this. I've already said that if you're not Christian, my argument holds no sway. Pat is a Christian. I believe my words are relevant, and if he disagrees with them, that's his prerogative. Just like it's my prerogative (and none of your business) if I disagree with Pat. P.S. If you don't care to look up the difference between psychology and psychiatry, then I don't care to continue that portion of our discussion. I noticed that you have not criticized Goey or Zix for their legal posturing that supports Pat. I suppose offering a legal opinion is only objectionable to you if Pat is opposed.

MY point of view? I just asked a question. If the Sermon on the Mount doesn't apply here, where does it apply? To answer your question more directly, yes. And diazbro, when you start telling me what's motivating me, you're putting yourself in my head. That's psychology. You don't know me, and you're flat out wrong about my motivations. Further, I did post some legal observations at the beginning of this thread. That's why I said I will RESUME my PRINCIPAL objection to Pat's course of action, which is not legal. It's Christian. It's Matthew 5. And if it doesn't apply here, where does it apply?

Well, I'll tell you what: I'll cut out the amateur lawyering if you cut out the amateur psychology. I'll resume my principal objection to this action: Pat is not The Way International. TWI is. Give them their domain name already. I the Sermon on the Mount doesn't apply here, then where does it apply?

Suggesting that our disagreement with Pat is based on a dislike for him personally is just as much of a cheap shot, if not more. You think you have an understanding of my motives (or anyone else's who opposes this legal action)? Well, you don't. You're being presumptuous. If anyone else had said they were suing The Way International for the right to use thewayinternational.com, I would be just as opposed. It has nothing to do with Pat, and I utterly reject your mischaracterization of my motives.

TWI I, II, III: Three drinks every time the speaker on the audio tape makes fun of the term "literal translation according to usage" by deliberately flubbing one of the words (ie, "non-literal transliteration according to my misusage). Drain the glass if it doesn't sound like he's kidding. TWI I, II, III: One drink every time The Way Ministry is mentioned. Two drinks if it's The Way International. TWI I, II: One drink for every adjective used to describe Jesus Christ in the intro. "God Bless You in the Wonderfully Victoriously Living Name of Our Precious Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" would get four drinks.

Actually, I can't figure out what you meant... I THINK you're saying that evil and organization are not mutually inclusive. In other words, just because you have organization doesn't mean you're evil. And just because you're evil, doesn't mean you're organized.

I think you meant, they're not mutually exclusive.

Well, at least we're in the same week. Hey, Roy, here's one date we can all agree on! 5/3! Happy Birthday!

Diazbro, I submit that for you, it's not about TWI vs. PR; it's about your hatred of TWI and your desire to see them brought down by any means necessary, even if they have a point. Lawyers who are skilled in the law come to opposing conclusions over complex issues. There's no reason preventing laypersons from discussing the merits of legal cases, even if they're not lawyers.

I can't believe I'm posting on this, but here goes: David's death had a profound impact on Kirk. Perhaps losing his son is what gave him the emotional impetus to sacrifice the Enterprise itself (two "sons" lost in one movie). The death of his son is still weighing on him heavily in Star Trek VI: The Apology for V. I think that was the name of it.

Why do you respond to serious examination with ludicrous hyperbole? These people thought LCM was God's spokesman on earth. They thought defying him was identical to defying God. That's tremendous authority: whether it was "absolute" or not is quibbling over semantics.

Happy Birthday Donner!!!!

One drink every time the name of a TWI class is mentioned. Two drinks of there's an explicit exhortation to take that class. Three drinks if PFAL is mentioned in a tape made after the WAP class was introduced.

Two drinks every time someone says "that's right!" Two drinks everytime someone (generic) who left TWI is called a "copout." Three drinks if the "copout" is identified by name.

Ooh, I'm a triple threat! Okay, for the record: It's Living Epistles Society, not Living Epistles ™. (The name derivation was utterly independent of that business, as WordWolf will attest). My affiliation with Greasespot is... I post on Greasespot. SURPRISE!!! My affiliation with CES is: I contribute to them financially. They have ABSOLUTELY NO SAY over what I post on my Web Site. They have NEVER tried to influence the site in any way, shape or form. I have gone to them several times to request permission to show book covers and to publish one of their articles. But my site is NOT a CES site, nor is it properly called an extension of CES (or Greasespot, for that matter). That said, I am utterly HONORED to be on the list.

Did anyone else like to do "Father counting" during prayers? Some of our prayers had more fathers than the Vatican. "Father I just want to thank you Father for your love for us Father. And Father I thank you for your Word, Father, for your grace, Father and your peace reigning in our lives Father..."

Happy Birthday. Wanna make a bet?

Was the original script called "Dejados Atras"?

Not to his face.

It's Pat's last name. The safeguard is a relic of a more tense time.