dis -------I'm jumping in kinda late here so maybe your "minkey" question has been answered. In the Pink Panther movies, Inspector Clousieu(sp?) would often mangle words with comedic result. For example , he mixed the words "massage" and "message" to the dismay of the hotel desk clerk. "Minkey" was how he pronounced "monkey". Whether it has any other connotation ,I do not know. Sorry for the derail.
There was a former minister who came from another denomination....I don't remember which one. His name was Ross Tracy. He was a very tender-hearted man. I remember, he was a bit quieter than the rest of leadership.
During the first year of the 10th Corps, he was at Emporia. I think he was run off a few years later.
His daughter Martha was in the 14th Corps and married another Corps guy from the 14th.
As I also recall, he had taken PFAL during the Carolina's massive growth spurt. He had gotten tired of the contradictions in the denomination. He took the class and went full speed into TWI. He may have been in the 1st Family Corps. I don't remember for sure.
I think Ross Tracy was a Methodist minister from Michigan. He travelled to HQ to see VP and what initially impressed him about VP was the way he dressed. Not like a typical minister. He took PFAL and was eventually forced out of his church and stood with TWI for years.
I think Catcup referred to him earlier in this thread, that he is now back in good standing with the Methodist church.
quote: He can and He did. In this case, He Himself chose as the instrument of His preservation,
"those evil catholics."
Common people not reading it is NOT how I would have handled it if asked.
Why God Almighty elected to preserve it in this fashion-they're the ones that Martin Luther's
texts ultimately came from- is not known to me. However, I would not seek to lecture
Him on ways and means. Perhaps you should address Him directly on this one.
I have a question for you, Wordwolf. Why the double standard???
On one hand you say that God chose the catholics to preserve His word, so no matter what evil they did; torturing and murdering people in the name of God, selling indulgences to people to "buy their deceased loved ones out of purgatory", and misrepresenting Christianity as salvation by works. Despite all that and more, I'm supposed to just let it slide because God needed them to preserve His word and all those people they killed or misled are just collateral damage and that's too bad.
On the other hand you say that God didn't choose VP to preserve the truth of His word because of all the evil that VP did, even though he didn't kill or torture anybody and even though he correctly represented Christianity as salvation by grace, and he encouraged people to read the bible for themselves. I'm supposed to forget that and focus on all these accusations that were never brought before a court of law.
"As far as the gates of hell not prevailing against the church, I think of the catholic church not being able to extinguish Christianity despite all their efforts during the dark ages."
=========
mstar1:
"YOU wouldnt have much of a Bible to read if those evil catholics hadnt been the ones to preserve it all through that period."
=========
Johniam:
"Oh. God can't protect his word? Preserved? Yeah and they didn't let common people read it for themselves. They must've preserved it just in case someone like Martin Luther actually read it and challenged them doctrinally."
=========
WordWolf:
"He can and He did. In this case, He Himself chose as the instrument of His preservation,
"those evil catholics."
Common people not reading it is NOT how I would have handled it if asked.
Why God Almighty elected to preserve it in this fashion-they're the ones that Martin Luther's
texts ultimately came from- is not known to me. However, I would not seek to lecture
Him on ways and means. Perhaps you should address Him directly on this one."
==========
Johniam:
"I have a question for you, Wordwolf. Why the double standard???
On one hand you say that God chose the catholics to preserve His word, so no matter what evil they did; torturing and murdering people in the name of God, selling indulgences to people to "buy their deceased loved ones out of purgatory", and misrepresenting Christianity as salvation by works. Despite all that and more, I'm supposed to just let it slide because God needed them to preserve His word and all those people they killed or misled are just collateral damage and that's too bad.
On the other hand you say that God didn't choose VP to preserve the truth of His word because of all the evil that VP did, even though he didn't kill or torture anybody and even though he correctly represented Christianity as salvation by grace, and he encouraged people to read the bible for themselves. I'm supposed to forget that and focus on all these accusations that were never brought before a court of law.
Why the double standard??? "
WordWolf now responds:
I have a question for you, Johniam,-why the Strawman?
(From Nizkor.org)
"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. "
You said that I'm excusing ANYONE of ANYTHING they did.
Let's recap the posts so far, as quoted in this very post for convenience.
Johniam claims the Roman Catholic Church attempted-put forth a considerable effort-
to extinguish Christianity during the Dark Ages.
His exact words?
"As far as the gates of hell not prevailing against the church, I think of the catholic church not being able to extinguish Christianity despite all their efforts during the dark ages."
One might say that Johniam was saying that the Catholic Church was operating under the auspices
of the Devil during the Dark Ages, and actively seeking to wipe out Christianity.
In fact, this seems to be what he was saying outright.
mstar1 responded as follows:
"YOU wouldnt have much of a Bible to read if those evil catholics hadnt been the ones to preserve it all through that period."
mstar1's pointing out the only ones WITH Bibles WERE Catholics, so the later proliferation of Bibles
was due to the preservation of Bibles during ALL those centuries,
including the timeframe when Johniam asserts the Catholics served the devil.
Of course, if they were the sole holders of the Bible and working for the devil, it would have been
easy to quietly trash all the Bibles, possibly replacing all the copies with lectionaries and polities
and leaving NO Bibles intact to contradict them.
This did NOT happen.
Is mstar1 advocating any exemptions, indulgences, or free passes for Catholics?
Not in this post. Only black-and-white thinking would see this attempt at showing how this
was not black-and-white would view this response as such.
Then Johniam responded.
"Oh. God can't protect his word? Preserved? Yeah and they didn't let common people read it for themselves. They must've preserved it just in case someone like Martin Luther actually read it and challenged them doctrinally."
Here, Johniam is directly disputing the content of mstar1's post. He's claiming the Bible's preservation
had nothing to do with the Catholic Church-which means Johniam's disputing history here.
Then he changes the subject and rails about how evil the Catholic church was for not
letting their hand-copied Bibles be read by the illiterate peasants (who can't read anything),
whose grasp of Latin usually seemed a bit weak (meaning they can't read the Vulgate,
even IF you handed it to them.)
Then he claims the SOLE reason they preserved the Bible (now he's admitting they
preserved it?) was to dispute people later like Martin Luther who read it and challenged them.
Now,
Luther read it once the printing press made it possible to circulate copies not done by hand.
That required Bibles that WERE done by hand to work from.
That required Bibles preserved intact down the centuries.
That was provided by the Catholic Church.
Which was what mstar1 said,
and Johniam objected to.
Johniam's trying very hard to refuse any credit for something he seems unable
to refute actually happening.
WordWolf replied to him....
"He can and He did. In this case, He Himself chose as the instrument of His preservation,
"those evil catholics."
Common people not reading it is NOT how I would have handled it if asked.
Why God Almighty elected to preserve it in this fashion-they're the ones that Martin Luther's
texts ultimately came from- is not known to me. However, I would not seek to lecture
Him on ways and means. Perhaps you should address Him directly on this one."
Johniam made a claim about God "protecting His word", and challenged that
Catholics did so in any way.
WordWolf's reply addressed that directly.
That Catholics preserved it is a historical fact.
Either God was UNABLE to preserve His word-so He did not,
or God was able to preserve it-but chose not to,
or God was able and willing to preserve His word- which means He did so.
If He did so, He did so in the manner it DID happen,
which means He elected to preserve His word using Catholics.
He could have sent down new stone tablets or parchments like some
new 10 Commandments, or sent texts into the future with a beam of
godly power-but He did not do so. He worked with the free will of the people
present-in this case, He worked with Catholics.
Did WordWolf endorse the specific plan used by God?
Actually, he specifically said he did NOT.
However, he also admitted that he was man and not God,
and thus complaints as to how God specifically chose to enact His will
should be addressed to God Himself.
==========
All clear so far? Seems straightforward to me. I don't think I'm that far ahead
that I'm losing everyone else.
==========
Then Johniam replied to WordWolf.
"I have a question for you, Wordwolf. Why the double standard???
On one hand you say that God chose the catholics to preserve His word, so no matter what evil they did; torturing and murdering people in the name of God, selling indulgences to people to "buy their deceased loved ones out of purgatory", and misrepresenting Christianity as salvation by works. Despite all that and more, I'm supposed to just let it slide because God needed them to preserve His word and all those people they killed or misled are just collateral damage and that's too bad.
On the other hand you say that God didn't choose VP to preserve the truth of His word because of all the evil that VP did, even though he didn't kill or torture anybody and even though he correctly represented Christianity as salvation by grace, and he encouraged people to read the bible for themselves. I'm supposed to forget that and focus on all these accusations that were never brought before a court of law.
Why the double standard???"
Johniam claimed here that WordWolf said that evil actions performed by members, or planned
by leadership of the Catholic Church, should all be "let slide".
I don't see any such claim in WordWolf's posts-does anyone else?
Please quote EXACTLY where this is even SUGGESTED.
Then Johniam continues and says that WordWolf said that
"God needed them to preserve His word and all those people they killed or misled are just collateral damage and that's too bad."
Where did WordWolf say that God "needed" to work with Catholics at that place and time?
God CHOSE to do so. Being God, He could have done any of millions of other things.
Where did WordWolf say that people that were killed or misled are just collateral damage?
Scroll up, please, and find the quote.
There's not even a SUGGESTION of that.
There's only an acknowledgement that this is WHO God chose to work with,
and this is HOW He worked with them.
There's no claim GOD endorsed evil acts on their behalf, either.
Johniam, however, has decided to place those concepts into the posts he's
finding objectionable.
Since those reasons are not actually there, there must be another reason he
objects to those posts or even accepting that this is how history unfolded.
=========
Johniam finished:
"On the other hand you say that God didn't choose VP to preserve the truth of His word because of all the evil that VP did, even though he didn't kill or torture anybody and even though he correctly represented Christianity as salvation by grace, and he encouraged people to read the bible for themselves. I'm supposed to forget that and focus on all these accusations that were never brought before a court of law."
WordWolf never made any claims comparing them. However, if he had, he would have
done so in the same fashion he NOW responds to Johniam's post.
"you say that God didn't choose VP to preserve the truth of His word because of all the evil that VP did, "
Actually, I say God didn't choose vpw because he didn't choose vpw. Period.
Did God not select him because of all the evil he would later do? Or was it his lack of endurance?
Or how he viewed ministership as just another job? Or his laziness at all phases, choosing to plagiarize
the work of others rather than do his own work? Or how vpw was basically dishonest and thought
nothing of lying to people to their faces, even adding NEW lies when caught? (The second snowstorm.)
Or his hypocrisy in telling people to abstain from their vices while indulging in his own?
Or to speak of faithfulness to all while being UNfaithful to his marriage?
Did God find him unsuitable for any of these reasons? For ALL of these reasons? For reasons not named
or even unknown to WordWolf? I've no idea, and I never even pretended to know God's mind
on any or all of these.
Mind you,
Johniam is perfectly content to condemn and damn the Catholic Church for the evils
perpetrated by members and hierarchy centuries ago-
but gives a free pass to vpw BECAUSE he taught some good Bible-type stuff.
"even though he didn't kill or torture anybody and even though he correctly represented Christianity as salvation by grace, and he encouraged people to read the bible for themselves. I'm supposed to forget that and focus on all these accusations that were never brought before a court of law."
The Catholic Church was not sued for evil actions Johniam blames them for-
and neither was vpw sued for evil actions Johniam does NOT blame him for.
I have a question for you, Wordwolf. Why the double standard???
On one hand you say that God chose the catholics to preserve His word, so no matter what evil they did; torturing and murdering people in the name of God, selling indulgences to people to "buy their deceased loved ones out of purgatory", and misrepresenting Christianity as salvation by works. Despite all that and more, I'm supposed to just let it slide because God needed them to preserve His word and all those people they killed or misled are just collateral damage and that's too bad.
On the other hand you say that God didn't choose VP to preserve the truth of His wordbecause of all the evil that VP did, even though he didn't kill or torture anybody and even though he correctly represented Christianity as salvation by grace, and he encouraged people to read the bible for themselves. I'm supposed to forget that and focus on all these accusations that were never brought before a court of law.
Why the double standard???
I know this may be a minor detail - but this hits me as a bit of a stretch. You are equating VPW's plagiarized patchwork INTERPRETATION of the Bible with - - The Bible!....Seriously - did VPW put out a new translation of the Bible? I thought he claimed PFAL was a class on keys.......Oh no - - are we getting back into a discussion of the God-Breathed PFAL class?!?!....Okay - I'll admit the Scriptures that VPW refers to in PFAL are God-Breathed - - - but some of that off-the-wall stuff like the "law of believing" is more like something the devil belched!
.....Oh yeah - [stay on topic I tell myself - a thread about scholars and TWI - - mmmmm okay -] You wouldn't have known of any scholars in TWI because of TWI's "house rules": You can't go beyond what you're taught. And VPW is the "teacher". No one rises above the master. You better not contradict any of VPW's stuff!....With VPW setting such a low ceiling on intellectual standards [more like a boundary with a "No trespassing" sign] what scholar would feel free to flex their intellectual prowess?
Wordwolf DID show us all, and in very logical detail, where the double-standard lays ....... with you.
Oh my God, we've got a WW apologist here. Who would've thought?
I KNEW that somehow WW would end up asking me why the double standard. Same old same old one dimensional WW. But I noticed something.
My post to WW took up 21 lines and 256 words. WW's reply to me took up 229 lines. No way I'm counting his words; I'd be here all night, but if 21 lines contain 256 words, then 229 lines prorates to 2315 words. I'd even be willing to cut the number in half because my posts read like straight prose while WW's read like poetry a lot. My point is this.
According to WW I'm the "strawman" while he's the real deal. But my 256 word strawman was apparently so effective that it took the real deal certainly over 1000 words to make it right. Shouldn't the genuine article require less words with more impact? Shouldn't the strawman be the one with the excessive verbose BS? Doesn't it even say in scripture that a fool is known by a multitude of words?
Yet Another Fallacy -- that with associating the number of words = quality of the message, be it with little amount, or with a lot. I've seen this fallacy applied to both ends.
WW is 'the real deal' here, not to the number of words used (or the lack of them), but to the points that he raised. In this case he apparently felt that he had to use this amount of information to sufficiently get his point across. Maybe it required less words. It depends. I dunno. But apparently he felt that he wanted to cover all the bases to show you why your argument fails. And as far as I'm concerned, he's done a pretty good job.
Ie., thats why your claim that I'm a 'WW apologist' fails, as I don't need to 'defend' him. He makes his case quite sufficiently. You however, do to VPW's F ups and all, feel the need to defend the man so that PFALs reputation stays pat. ..... All a waste of time, as there are FAR more sources of biblical and spiritual information that helps FAR more people, than PFAL (or VPW for that matter) *ever* could.
But hey, that's your world, and I hope it helps you out. ...
Here it is in even less words....the Catholic church INSTITUITION is evil. TWI INSTITUITION is evil.
Both instituitions have people that are blessed by it and both have people that use the instituition for their evil intent.
Truth is an 'aside' that stands on it's own, seperate from those INSTITUITIONS. God ( i guess ) is still able to use those instituitions to do things like 'preserve' and 'get His Word out'. Much like Israel 'preserved' His Word through their 'good' and 'evil' days.
Wayne Clapp at the Indiana Campus (dean for many years) had a Master of something degree and was pursuing a doctorate, but I don't think I recall him actually teaching, just getting his freebee education courtesy of the slave corps.
J.
I believe Wayne was a Harvard Graduate. Wayne not teaching, I think you must be mistaken about that. Rev. Clapp is an awesome teacher.
In other words, WW refuses to admit that he has a double standard even though it is in the sight of the sun. No surprise there.
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
I KNEW that somehow WW would end up asking me why the double standard.
[You presented the double-standard while accusing ME of one. Exposing it and asking
you about yours was obvious-and one might suspect, your intention all along.
(If one thought you were that clever a rhetoritician.)
If a mobster complained about street crime, it's pretty obvious a response to him
likely would address organized crime. Does "expected" now mean "wrong"?
I missed that briefing...]
Same old same old one dimensional WW.
[Ad hominem attack, again. That was also "expected."
It being "expected" didn't make it "wrong". It was wrong because it was an
ad hominem attack. It's predictability was irrelevant.]
But I noticed something.
My post to WW took up 21 lines and 256 words. WW's reply to me took up 229 lines. No way I'm counting his words; I'd be here all night, but if 21 lines contain 256 words, then 229 lines prorates to 2315 words. I'd even be willing to cut the number in half because my posts read like straight prose while WW's read like poetry a lot. My point is this.
[My post, observers can note easily, included a complete recap.
The unvarnished posts, then the posts each followed by running commentary.
THEN my reply.
Thus, readers were easily able to compare my claims against the posts, and see if my
claims were valid or not. It's hard to be tricky when EVERYTHING is in plain sight.
Readers were able to make INFORMED opinions, and were not required to just
suppose I was recalling or interpreting correctly.]
According to WW I'm the "strawman" while he's the real deal.
[Your POST CONTAINED a "strawman". You are a human being. So am I.
No guarantee EITHER is always right is expected nor implied.
That's why people actually have to READ THE POSTS.
When that was done, it was easy to see yours was flawed. (Scroll up-
I already outlined that.)]
But my 256 word strawman was apparently so effective that it took the real deal certainly over 1000 words to make it right.
[No one said I provided all the details because you were "effective."
I did it so that it was easy to compare the 2 side-by-side.
My post also included your posts, twice.
Readers can benefit from me making things plain.]
Shouldn't the genuine article require less words with more impact?
[Depends. Commercials on tv are concise. Politicians are remembered for their best
"sound bytes." Are those guaranteed to be correct because they are brief?
Further, "yo mamma" is two words. Is that guaranteed to be an effective rebuttal
to cold facts and evidence?
Frankly, I think I had more impact for MOST PEOPLE through plain speaking
than you did with the short attacks.]
Shouldn't the strawman be the one with the excessive verbose BS?
[Now, you didn't know what a strawman was, necessarily, before all this.
That you don't know NOW is intentional ignorance....
Unless you're DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENTING IT in order to rewrite it into
an attack. So, you're misrepresenting the strawman itself.
Which means you're either deliberately attacking the meaning with ANOTHER
strawman, or you're determined to misunderstand it, even if it means
making the SAME MISTAKE OVER AND OVER.
For everyone who wishes to actually understand, here's the
strawman again. (In different words.)]
"'Straw man' is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched."
"The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent. In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context."
"As the "straw man" metaphor suggests, the counterfeit position attacked in a Straw Man argument is typically weaker than the opponent's actual position, just as a straw man is easier to defeat than a flesh-and-blood one. Of course, this is no accident, but is part of what makes the fallacy tempting to commit, especially to a desperate debater who is losing an argument. Thus, it is no surprise that arguers seldom misstate their opponent's position so as to make it stronger. Of course, if there is an obvious way to make a debating opponent's position stronger, then one is up against an incompetent debater. Debaters usually try to take the strongest position they can, so that any change is likely to be for the worse. However, attacking a logically stronger position than that taken by the opponent is a sign of strength, whereas attacking a straw man is a sign of weakness."
Here it is in even less words....the Catholic church INSTITUITION is evil. TWI INSTITUITION is evil.
Both instituitions have people that are blessed by it and both have people that use the instituition for their evil intent.
Truth is an 'aside' that stands on it's own, seperate from those INSTITUITIONS. God ( i guess ) is still able to use those instituitions to do things like 'preserve' and 'get His Word out'. Much like Israel 'preserved' His Word through their 'good' and 'evil' days.
Ok, that was simple and direct.
I'd agree IN PART.
Both institutions have had corruption.
We are unable to go back and see what the literal motivation was for starting the Roman Catholic Church.
However, with twi we ARE because it was fairly recent, historically.
twi's inception was based on dishonesty and other things. That means it was wrong from the beginning.
(Let me know if you need me to outline that one all over again.)
I agree that both organizations have had people in them who have acted for good,
and others that have acted for evil.
I'll take another step and say I'd like/liked all those who've done evil at both to do
hard time at Leavenworth or a similar hard-labour prison.
(Big rocks to little rocks, little rocks to sand.)
As to truth and God's use of both institutions (and others), I'll tentatively agree with
what was said here-God can work with both, even as he worked with Israel.
(That all 3 should have done better is a separate issue that excuses NONE of them.)
And anyone who can manage to misunderstand me this time has obviously been
working hard at doing so.
So... is a 'strawman' like a scarecrow?
I posted another description. I think you'll appreciate this one more than the last one,
I do believe JohnUis is taking that verse out of context.
Take a look at the verses on either side of that one and you will see that the multitude of words is refering to things like vowing a vow and not paying it and going into the house of the Lord and not considering your words and deeds. It would be foolish to make a promise you can not come through on. It would be foolish to say "God please grant me this and I will do such and such for you," but then when you have what you asked for you forget about what promised.
vs.1&2
Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they consider not that they do evil.
Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter [any]thing before God: for God [is] in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few
Now vs. 4-6
When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for [he hath]no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.
Better [is it] that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.
Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it [was] an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands?
Latter you say, "Oops, I didn't really mean THAT" or "Sorry I made a mistake when I promised to give you my first born when I asked for a child."
So you see, it has nothing to do with taking someone on point by point in a logical and perhaps lengthy manner, as WW can do on many topics on any given day here at the Gspot. It would be foolish not to consider the long and the short of most topics of importance here on the Spot.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
11
11
11
7
Popular Days
Aug 16
19
Aug 14
18
Aug 15
17
Aug 17
17
Top Posters In This Topic
GarthP2000 11 posts
WordWolf 11 posts
markomalley 11 posts
dmiller 7 posts
Popular Days
Aug 16 2006
19 posts
Aug 14 2006
18 posts
Aug 15 2006
17 posts
Aug 17 2006
17 posts
waysider
dis -------I'm jumping in kinda late here so maybe your "minkey" question has been answered. In the Pink Panther movies, Inspector Clousieu(sp?) would often mangle words with comedic result. For example , he mixed the words "massage" and "message" to the dismay of the hotel desk clerk. "Minkey" was how he pronounced "monkey". Whether it has any other connotation ,I do not know. Sorry for the derail.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YIdon'tgotochurch
There was a former minister who came from another denomination....I don't remember which one. His name was Ross Tracy. He was a very tender-hearted man. I remember, he was a bit quieter than the rest of leadership.
During the first year of the 10th Corps, he was at Emporia. I think he was run off a few years later.
His daughter Martha was in the 14th Corps and married another Corps guy from the 14th.
As I also recall, he had taken PFAL during the Carolina's massive growth spurt. He had gotten tired of the contradictions in the denomination. He took the class and went full speed into TWI. He may have been in the 1st Family Corps. I don't remember for sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I think Ross Tracy was a Methodist minister from Michigan. He travelled to HQ to see VP and what initially impressed him about VP was the way he dressed. Not like a typical minister. He took PFAL and was eventually forced out of his church and stood with TWI for years.
I think Catcup referred to him earlier in this thread, that he is now back in good standing with the Methodist church.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: He can and He did. In this case, He Himself chose as the instrument of His preservation,
"those evil catholics."
Common people not reading it is NOT how I would have handled it if asked.
Why God Almighty elected to preserve it in this fashion-they're the ones that Martin Luther's
texts ultimately came from- is not known to me. However, I would not seek to lecture
Him on ways and means. Perhaps you should address Him directly on this one.
I have a question for you, Wordwolf. Why the double standard???
On one hand you say that God chose the catholics to preserve His word, so no matter what evil they did; torturing and murdering people in the name of God, selling indulgences to people to "buy their deceased loved ones out of purgatory", and misrepresenting Christianity as salvation by works. Despite all that and more, I'm supposed to just let it slide because God needed them to preserve His word and all those people they killed or misled are just collateral damage and that's too bad.
On the other hand you say that God didn't choose VP to preserve the truth of His word because of all the evil that VP did, even though he didn't kill or torture anybody and even though he correctly represented Christianity as salvation by grace, and he encouraged people to read the bible for themselves. I'm supposed to forget that and focus on all these accusations that were never brought before a court of law.
Why the double standard???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Johniam:
"As far as the gates of hell not prevailing against the church, I think of the catholic church not being able to extinguish Christianity despite all their efforts during the dark ages."
=========
mstar1:
"YOU wouldnt have much of a Bible to read if those evil catholics hadnt been the ones to preserve it all through that period."
=========
Johniam:
"Oh. God can't protect his word? Preserved? Yeah and they didn't let common people read it for themselves. They must've preserved it just in case someone like Martin Luther actually read it and challenged them doctrinally."
=========
WordWolf:
"He can and He did. In this case, He Himself chose as the instrument of His preservation,
"those evil catholics."
Common people not reading it is NOT how I would have handled it if asked.
Why God Almighty elected to preserve it in this fashion-they're the ones that Martin Luther's
texts ultimately came from- is not known to me. However, I would not seek to lecture
Him on ways and means. Perhaps you should address Him directly on this one."
==========
Johniam:
"I have a question for you, Wordwolf. Why the double standard???
On one hand you say that God chose the catholics to preserve His word, so no matter what evil they did; torturing and murdering people in the name of God, selling indulgences to people to "buy their deceased loved ones out of purgatory", and misrepresenting Christianity as salvation by works. Despite all that and more, I'm supposed to just let it slide because God needed them to preserve His word and all those people they killed or misled are just collateral damage and that's too bad.
On the other hand you say that God didn't choose VP to preserve the truth of His word because of all the evil that VP did, even though he didn't kill or torture anybody and even though he correctly represented Christianity as salvation by grace, and he encouraged people to read the bible for themselves. I'm supposed to forget that and focus on all these accusations that were never brought before a court of law.
Why the double standard??? "
WordWolf now responds:
I have a question for you, Johniam,-why the Strawman?
(From Nizkor.org)
"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. "
You said that I'm excusing ANYONE of ANYTHING they did.
Let's recap the posts so far, as quoted in this very post for convenience.
Johniam claims the Roman Catholic Church attempted-put forth a considerable effort-
to extinguish Christianity during the Dark Ages.
His exact words?
"As far as the gates of hell not prevailing against the church, I think of the catholic church not being able to extinguish Christianity despite all their efforts during the dark ages."
One might say that Johniam was saying that the Catholic Church was operating under the auspices
of the Devil during the Dark Ages, and actively seeking to wipe out Christianity.
In fact, this seems to be what he was saying outright.
mstar1 responded as follows:
"YOU wouldnt have much of a Bible to read if those evil catholics hadnt been the ones to preserve it all through that period."
mstar1's pointing out the only ones WITH Bibles WERE Catholics, so the later proliferation of Bibles
was due to the preservation of Bibles during ALL those centuries,
including the timeframe when Johniam asserts the Catholics served the devil.
Of course, if they were the sole holders of the Bible and working for the devil, it would have been
easy to quietly trash all the Bibles, possibly replacing all the copies with lectionaries and polities
and leaving NO Bibles intact to contradict them.
This did NOT happen.
Is mstar1 advocating any exemptions, indulgences, or free passes for Catholics?
Not in this post. Only black-and-white thinking would see this attempt at showing how this
was not black-and-white would view this response as such.
Then Johniam responded.
"Oh. God can't protect his word? Preserved? Yeah and they didn't let common people read it for themselves. They must've preserved it just in case someone like Martin Luther actually read it and challenged them doctrinally."
Here, Johniam is directly disputing the content of mstar1's post. He's claiming the Bible's preservation
had nothing to do with the Catholic Church-which means Johniam's disputing history here.
Then he changes the subject and rails about how evil the Catholic church was for not
letting their hand-copied Bibles be read by the illiterate peasants (who can't read anything),
whose grasp of Latin usually seemed a bit weak (meaning they can't read the Vulgate,
even IF you handed it to them.)
Then he claims the SOLE reason they preserved the Bible (now he's admitting they
preserved it?) was to dispute people later like Martin Luther who read it and challenged them.
Now,
Luther read it once the printing press made it possible to circulate copies not done by hand.
That required Bibles that WERE done by hand to work from.
That required Bibles preserved intact down the centuries.
That was provided by the Catholic Church.
Which was what mstar1 said,
and Johniam objected to.
Johniam's trying very hard to refuse any credit for something he seems unable
to refute actually happening.
WordWolf replied to him....
"He can and He did. In this case, He Himself chose as the instrument of His preservation,
"those evil catholics."
Common people not reading it is NOT how I would have handled it if asked.
Why God Almighty elected to preserve it in this fashion-they're the ones that Martin Luther's
texts ultimately came from- is not known to me. However, I would not seek to lecture
Him on ways and means. Perhaps you should address Him directly on this one."
Johniam made a claim about God "protecting His word", and challenged that
Catholics did so in any way.
WordWolf's reply addressed that directly.
That Catholics preserved it is a historical fact.
Either God was UNABLE to preserve His word-so He did not,
or God was able to preserve it-but chose not to,
or God was able and willing to preserve His word- which means He did so.
If He did so, He did so in the manner it DID happen,
which means He elected to preserve His word using Catholics.
He could have sent down new stone tablets or parchments like some
new 10 Commandments, or sent texts into the future with a beam of
godly power-but He did not do so. He worked with the free will of the people
present-in this case, He worked with Catholics.
Did WordWolf endorse the specific plan used by God?
Actually, he specifically said he did NOT.
However, he also admitted that he was man and not God,
and thus complaints as to how God specifically chose to enact His will
should be addressed to God Himself.
==========
All clear so far? Seems straightforward to me. I don't think I'm that far ahead
that I'm losing everyone else.
==========
Then Johniam replied to WordWolf.
"I have a question for you, Wordwolf. Why the double standard???
On one hand you say that God chose the catholics to preserve His word, so no matter what evil they did; torturing and murdering people in the name of God, selling indulgences to people to "buy their deceased loved ones out of purgatory", and misrepresenting Christianity as salvation by works. Despite all that and more, I'm supposed to just let it slide because God needed them to preserve His word and all those people they killed or misled are just collateral damage and that's too bad.
On the other hand you say that God didn't choose VP to preserve the truth of His word because of all the evil that VP did, even though he didn't kill or torture anybody and even though he correctly represented Christianity as salvation by grace, and he encouraged people to read the bible for themselves. I'm supposed to forget that and focus on all these accusations that were never brought before a court of law.
Why the double standard???"
Johniam claimed here that WordWolf said that evil actions performed by members, or planned
by leadership of the Catholic Church, should all be "let slide".
I don't see any such claim in WordWolf's posts-does anyone else?
Please quote EXACTLY where this is even SUGGESTED.
Then Johniam continues and says that WordWolf said that
"God needed them to preserve His word and all those people they killed or misled are just collateral damage and that's too bad."
Where did WordWolf say that God "needed" to work with Catholics at that place and time?
God CHOSE to do so. Being God, He could have done any of millions of other things.
Where did WordWolf say that people that were killed or misled are just collateral damage?
Scroll up, please, and find the quote.
There's not even a SUGGESTION of that.
There's only an acknowledgement that this is WHO God chose to work with,
and this is HOW He worked with them.
There's no claim GOD endorsed evil acts on their behalf, either.
Johniam, however, has decided to place those concepts into the posts he's
finding objectionable.
Since those reasons are not actually there, there must be another reason he
objects to those posts or even accepting that this is how history unfolded.
=========
Johniam finished:
"On the other hand you say that God didn't choose VP to preserve the truth of His word because of all the evil that VP did, even though he didn't kill or torture anybody and even though he correctly represented Christianity as salvation by grace, and he encouraged people to read the bible for themselves. I'm supposed to forget that and focus on all these accusations that were never brought before a court of law."
WordWolf never made any claims comparing them. However, if he had, he would have
done so in the same fashion he NOW responds to Johniam's post.
"you say that God didn't choose VP to preserve the truth of His word because of all the evil that VP did, "
Actually, I say God didn't choose vpw because he didn't choose vpw. Period.
Did God not select him because of all the evil he would later do? Or was it his lack of endurance?
Or how he viewed ministership as just another job? Or his laziness at all phases, choosing to plagiarize
the work of others rather than do his own work? Or how vpw was basically dishonest and thought
nothing of lying to people to their faces, even adding NEW lies when caught? (The second snowstorm.)
Or his hypocrisy in telling people to abstain from their vices while indulging in his own?
Or to speak of faithfulness to all while being UNfaithful to his marriage?
Did God find him unsuitable for any of these reasons? For ALL of these reasons? For reasons not named
or even unknown to WordWolf? I've no idea, and I never even pretended to know God's mind
on any or all of these.
Mind you,
Johniam is perfectly content to condemn and damn the Catholic Church for the evils
perpetrated by members and hierarchy centuries ago-
but gives a free pass to vpw BECAUSE he taught some good Bible-type stuff.
"even though he didn't kill or torture anybody and even though he correctly represented Christianity as salvation by grace, and he encouraged people to read the bible for themselves. I'm supposed to forget that and focus on all these accusations that were never brought before a court of law."
The Catholic Church was not sued for evil actions Johniam blames them for-
and neither was vpw sued for evil actions Johniam does NOT blame him for.
The Catholic Church is to be vilified.
vpw is to be praised.
So, I have a question for Johniam:
Why the double standard?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
So it looks like actual Biblical scholars never were attracted to twi.
We've had justifications as to why those evil Biblical scholars never got
honest enough to join, and diatribes on the evils of other Christians
in days past when some performed evil deeds,
but nobody's found even one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
In other words, WW refuses to admit that he has a double standard even though it is in the sight of the sun. No surprise there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
VPWiam--- err Johniam,
Wordwolf DID show us all, and in very logical detail, where the double-standard lays ....... with you.
<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I know this may be a minor detail - but this hits me as a bit of a stretch. You are equating VPW's plagiarized patchwork INTERPRETATION of the Bible with - - The Bible!....Seriously - did VPW put out a new translation of the Bible? I thought he claimed PFAL was a class on keys.......Oh no - - are we getting back into a discussion of the God-Breathed PFAL class?!?!....Okay - I'll admit the Scriptures that VPW refers to in PFAL are God-Breathed - - - but some of that off-the-wall stuff like the "law of believing" is more like something the devil belched!
.....Oh yeah - [stay on topic I tell myself - a thread about scholars and TWI - - mmmmm okay -] You wouldn't have known of any scholars in TWI because of TWI's "house rules": You can't go beyond what you're taught. And VPW is the "teacher". No one rises above the master. You better not contradict any of VPW's stuff!....With VPW setting such a low ceiling on intellectual standards [more like a boundary with a "No trespassing" sign] what scholar would feel free to flex their intellectual prowess?
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: VPWiam--- err Johniam,
Wordwolf DID show us all, and in very logical detail, where the double-standard lays ....... with you.
Oh my God, we've got a WW apologist here. Who would've thought?
I KNEW that somehow WW would end up asking me why the double standard. Same old same old one dimensional WW. But I noticed something.
My post to WW took up 21 lines and 256 words. WW's reply to me took up 229 lines. No way I'm counting his words; I'd be here all night, but if 21 lines contain 256 words, then 229 lines prorates to 2315 words. I'd even be willing to cut the number in half because my posts read like straight prose while WW's read like poetry a lot. My point is this.
According to WW I'm the "strawman" while he's the real deal. But my 256 word strawman was apparently so effective that it took the real deal certainly over 1000 words to make it right. Shouldn't the genuine article require less words with more impact? Shouldn't the strawman be the one with the excessive verbose BS? Doesn't it even say in scripture that a fool is known by a multitude of words?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Yet Another Fallacy -- that with associating the number of words = quality of the message, be it with little amount, or with a lot. I've seen this fallacy applied to both ends.
WW is 'the real deal' here, not to the number of words used (or the lack of them), but to the points that he raised. In this case he apparently felt that he had to use this amount of information to sufficiently get his point across. Maybe it required less words. It depends. I dunno. But apparently he felt that he wanted to cover all the bases to show you why your argument fails. And as far as I'm concerned, he's done a pretty good job.
Ie., thats why your claim that I'm a 'WW apologist' fails, as I don't need to 'defend' him. He makes his case quite sufficiently. You however, do to VPW's F ups and all, feel the need to defend the man so that PFALs reputation stays pat. ..... All a waste of time, as there are FAR more sources of biblical and spiritual information that helps FAR more people, than PFAL (or VPW for that matter) *ever* could.
But hey, that's your world, and I hope it helps you out. ...
..... but, I seriously doubt it.
Caio.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Johniam, it seems that you have a problem with the poster rather than the message. What's your next move? To yell "Yo Mama!"?
Great mature, intelligent discussion, debate and disagreement, John.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Here it is in even less words....the Catholic church INSTITUITION is evil. TWI INSTITUITION is evil.
Both instituitions have people that are blessed by it and both have people that use the instituition for their evil intent.
Truth is an 'aside' that stands on it's own, seperate from those INSTITUITIONS. God ( i guess ) is still able to use those instituitions to do things like 'preserve' and 'get His Word out'. Much like Israel 'preserved' His Word through their 'good' and 'evil' days.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
So... is a 'strawman' like a scarecrow?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
1 john 3:1
I believe Wayne was a Harvard Graduate. Wayne not teaching, I think you must be mistaken about that. Rev. Clapp is an awesome teacher.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
( http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html )
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Actually,
when the opponent's position is unassailable, and someone wants to try to discredit what
can't be discredited, it's common to try to use the "ad hominem" attack.
That's its purpose. It's wrong, unprincipled, and petty, but that's how it goes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ok, that was simple and direct.
I'd agree IN PART.
Both institutions have had corruption.
We are unable to go back and see what the literal motivation was for starting the Roman Catholic Church.
However, with twi we ARE because it was fairly recent, historically.
twi's inception was based on dishonesty and other things. That means it was wrong from the beginning.
(Let me know if you need me to outline that one all over again.)
I agree that both organizations have had people in them who have acted for good,
and others that have acted for evil.
I'll take another step and say I'd like/liked all those who've done evil at both to do
hard time at Leavenworth or a similar hard-labour prison.
(Big rocks to little rocks, little rocks to sand.)
As to truth and God's use of both institutions (and others), I'll tentatively agree with
what was said here-God can work with both, even as he worked with Israel.
(That all 3 should have done better is a separate issue that excuses NONE of them.)
And anyone who can manage to misunderstand me this time has obviously been
working hard at doing so.
I posted another description. I think you'll appreciate this one more than the last one,
and it explains the reason for the name.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
And was all of that a distraction from the lack of Biblical scholars in twi-
people that were not twi-trained and indoctrinated from the get-go?
Maybe...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Eccl. 5:3 - For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Speaking of Biblical Scholars....
I do believe JohnUis is taking that verse out of context.
Take a look at the verses on either side of that one and you will see that the multitude of words is refering to things like vowing a vow and not paying it and going into the house of the Lord and not considering your words and deeds. It would be foolish to make a promise you can not come through on. It would be foolish to say "God please grant me this and I will do such and such for you," but then when you have what you asked for you forget about what promised.
vs.1&2
Now vs. 4-6
Latter you say, "Oops, I didn't really mean THAT" or "Sorry I made a mistake when I promised to give you my first born when I asked for a child."
So you see, it has nothing to do with taking someone on point by point in a logical and perhaps lengthy manner, as WW can do on many topics on any given day here at the Gspot. It would be foolish not to consider the long and the short of most topics of importance here on the Spot.
More ad hominem perhaps?
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Using Johniam's formula of the fewer words the better, ....
... then perhaps he shouldn't say anything _at all_. Then his 'godly' wisdom would be irrefuteable.
..... Right?
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
A la prochaine
I realize that this thread has gotten into some serious discussions on all sorts of stuff..
But thought I'd answer the initial question.
The only guy I knew in TWI that was some sort of theologian before TWI was Rev. Ross Tracy.
He was a minister from another church...not sure which one now.
???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.