• Announcements

    • GT

      Log in changes   08/07/2016

      With the upgrade there is no longer separate login ids and display names.  Your login ID is now your display name.
    • pawtucket

      Document Section   08/11/2016

      With the upgrade to the new server, we ran into problems with the software managing the document section.  While this is being remedied, the domain is redirected to the forums. 

WordWolf

Members
  • Content count

    14,222
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

226 Excellent

About WordWolf

  • Rank
    Bestiarum Christi

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. As someone who's still a Christian, I found nothing in your posts to draw my interest-which is why I found nothing worth commenting on. What I found was some link-dumping (just a link with no real commentary), and some cheerful blurbing (boy howdy, this is some great stuff!) Since this is a DISCUSSION forum, I expect to actually DISCUSS things. People who show up with just links usually are members of an ex-twi group who are posting links to their ex-twi group....and sometimes they pretend they're not a member of the group. (On an unrelated Christian board, I once ran into a drive-by post by Jeff of CES who said, in effect, "Gee, I found this website with some unusual stuff on it. What do you guys think?" with a link to his own content from the CES website. I responded immediately and called him on it. He never replied. Either it was a true drive-by and he never visited again, or he cut his losses when he realized he was caught. So, your posts. They were vague comments about someone's content on YouTube. They didn't even have the direct links to the content. So, I would have had to look them up to find out about what you WEREN'T saying about it. On message-boards, playing coy (being vague and indirect) usually backfires in either the short or long-term. I don't know WHY you posted that way. I just know that it's a formula for keeping me DISinterested.
  2. Reminds me of one often-repeated phrase that kept going around LEADERSHIP when "a Pivot Point in History" was disseminated, but before it was abandoned by that selfsame leadership. "What God knows, He knows. What God doesn't know, He doesn't know." In case you don't recognize it, that's an EVASION, and different people said it to me like it actually provided information. So, as you see it, that's what it means. What does THAT mean, and why is God Almighty limited to your definition?
  3. We're looking at this from an entirely different question-which means, to me, your question phrases like a trick question. Isaiah 57:15a For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity Isaiah 46:9-11 9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: 11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it. So, we start from there. God "inhabits eternity" and "declares the end from the beginning." What does that mean, and what implications does that have on our concepts of God Almighty? Is God even Almighty? Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite. I John 3:20b God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. We have some parameters here concerning God's knowledge. He knows all things, and understands all things. He knows the end from the beginning and inhabits eternity. What does all of that mean together? The conclusion we've been drawing is that God Almighty is more than 3-dimensional. Rather than existing moment-to-moment as we do, He "inhabits eternity" by existing in each moment simultaneously, so to Him, there's a perpetual present (or past or future.) Events that are in the future to us are ancient history to Him. That is consistent with Him "inhabiting eternity", "knowing all things", having an "infinite understanding", and "declaring the end from the beginning." Other models with a lesser god lack an explanation that covers the verses.
  4. I don't think we're going BACK, either. I believe we're going forward. I Corinthians 2:19 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. All of this history just to go back? I consider that inconsistent. (Of course, I may be wrong.)
  5. He was rather clear and unambiguous about in his his 3-part tape set, "A Pivot Point in History. " Tape 2 said it twice, rather plainly. "If God put Adam in the Garden foreknowing, foreordaining Adam would sin, then he foreordained Adam's fall. If God did that, there would have to be darkness in Him." "If God foreknew-or forced or tracked or whatever you'd like to put as the word there" . He conflated foreknowing a thing (previous knowledge) with foreordaining a thing (forcing it to come to pass) twice right there. BTW, cg didn't do sns tapes, he did GWT tapes, remember? The relevance was this- when unable to distinguish between relatively simple concepts like "foreknow" and "foreordain", they slammed into the Time Magazine question I mentioned before. According to Time Magazine- which is NOT a reputed theological agency- it is possible to reconcile any 2 sayings but it is impossible to reconcile all three of the following: A) God is All-Knowing B) God is Loving C) Evil exists. So, both js and cg resolved this one by deprecating God's Omniscience. I understand Time Magazine's staff being unable to unsnarl this one, but for any supposed Christian teacher to be unable-and continue to teach- is irresponsible, What makes this particularly galling is that a pair of 20-year olds were able to completely refute cg's "position paper" (his tape set) to the degree that he offered neither opposition to their reply nor hostility to it. (He understood full well how completely he was refuted-by people who would really have rather let the older folk do it and not step in themselves.) Having to actually put forth a Biblical argument for God being Omniscient was entirely due to cg (and, apparently, js) putting forth the opposite, and a lot of drones just soaking that up like sponges and immediately turning around and teaching it. That there are Christians not from ex-twi circles who are unable to work through this was made clear by the necessity of other Christians to address it- with books like the one I mentioned. "Open Theism" flat-out denies the Omniscience of God because they think what cg said- an All-Knowing God who does force Himself into EVERY situation would be an unjust God. I would argue exactly the opposite- that a God who forced Himself into all sorts of situations where He was not requested would be unjust. cg's illustration of how this works was an analysis of Genesis 3, where he suggested that God Almighty legitimately didn't know what was happening and had happened, and His questions showed Him trying to find out what happened. I believe the verses show the opposite- and any parent who has had to talk through a punishment with a child can easily see how it worked, let alone anyone who can compare relevant verses about each moment in Genesis 3. cg used phrases like "WHEN ALL OF THIS CAME TO GOD'S ATTENTION" to explain what God didn't know and when He didn't know it-according to cg.
  6. I'll get back to this shortly- and before I forget, what I want to start with is this "process theology" business, which cg espoused with his "Pivot Point in History" thing, and some responses to that. It was actually espoused, with different names, by some people outside twi circles who liked a fuzzy, accessible God and were willing to demote Him to get Him there. The book "The Trivialization of God" (which I've never read) seems to have addressed that issue quite handily. I also addressed some of this in the thread "What Does God Know?" at length. Among other things, cg conflated "foreknow" (to know ahead of time) with "foreordain" (to force to happen ahead of time) and concluded that he was rejecting the former since he didn't accept the latter. I accept not everyone can understand some of the issues he raised- but if he didn't then he has no business trying to put himself forth as an authority on the subject.
  7. Catching up on LoT in the next day or so. I liked the "Raiders" episode, and Mrs Wolf and I kept taking turns catching stuff (I spotted the cameraman with the beard immediately, and giggled when his first name was mentioned, I caught the "wilhelm" and so on-she caught the trash compactor scene before I did... We both missed the 3 years he won awards as a salesman were 1977, 1980 and 1983.) I thought the Justice League Lite also had Elongated Man and Zatanna. Unless there's a new "Legion", he was supposedly a kid of Xavier's- as in, Charles Xavier was the Dad. He was unable to control his mental powers, and ended up with multiple personalities (DID). Later, he killed Xavier and that started the "Age of Apocalypse" storyline- which was ended with the previous timeline restored after someone used the M'Krann Crystal to fix things. (All of that's as I remember it, I may have made an error but I care too little to doublecheck it.)
  8. That's it. Sorry if it was too easy.
  9. Next one. In this movie, a secret agent works alongside an unconventional comedian to outwit a plan to use a space shuttle in a global genocide plan.
  10. Platoon Willem Dafoe Spider-Man
  11. Sounds like it could be "Sling-Blade-Runner."
  12. Not that I know of. He was "Uncle" Vernon Dursley in a set of movies. He was also in Sleepy Hollow Jeffrey Jones Ferris Buehler's Day Off
  13. No, it's an actor who appeared in a movie series and some other movies, including "King Ralph."
  14. "Hold it! You'd never last five minutes in a New York subway!" *WHAM* *WHAM* "Now, THAT's how it's done!"
  15. Peter O'Toole King Ralph Richard Griffiths