WordWolf

I agree with your points (from here, as I have not read the book), but I have to add something about that LAST point. You said that passage implies that everyone "are going to go through a fire". I think that passage implies nothing about a PERSON "going through a fire." It seems clear to me that the person's WORK will "go through a fire" and the person will be untouched by it. Let's look at the verses you mentioned, in 3 different versions. ========================== 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 New International Version (NIV) 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames. ======================== 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 Contemporary English Version (CEV) 11because Christ is the only foundation. 12-13Whatever we build on that foundation will be tested by fire on the day of judgment. Then everyone will find out if we have used gold, silver, and precious stones, or wood, hay, and straw. 14We will be rewarded if our building is left standing. 15But if it is destroyed by the fire, we will lose everything. Yet we ourselves will be saved, like someone escaping from flames. ============================= 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. 14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. ====================== ====================== ====================== I think that's what it's saying- the WORKS are tried by fire but the person is spared the flames no matter what.

Correct! The possum playing possum is voiced by William Shatner. (His daughter is voiced by Avril Lavigne.) Hammy the Squirrel is voiced by Steve Correll, which is why Hammy suggests "Steve" as a name. For those who haven't seen it, it's loosely based on the newspaper comic strip. Small animals are dealing with suburban sprawl reaching them. (In the movie, we also have humans who have to deal with animals there as well.) It's reasonably funny, and has some hysterical lines.

I find sexual predators in general to be blights on society, without qualification. I find it disturbing when I see someone trying to excuse serial predators. For example, vpw set up an elaborate structure to facilitate sexual predation. He set up so he could find women to target, he set up places to prey on them, a network of people to conspire with him, and walk them through an innocent arrival somewhere through "exit counseling" them to keep their mouths shut or report they were going to speak up so he could have them excoriated. That's not even addressing setting up doctrine so he could have a "script" to work from they'd already accepted. Then people come along and make it sound as if vpw walks into his office one day and a woman's sprawled nekkid across his desk with a flower in her teeth. "What's he supposed to do?" Well, even IF such a fantasy thing happened, the MARRIED MINISTER is supposed to turn and run from his office until he can get one or more people to accompany him back to his office. This is why Billy Graham has made it a practice to arrange never to EVER be alone with a woman- not even in an elevator. It allows him to be faithful to his marriage before God, anf it allows God's people to trust him to refrain from opportunistic sin. All of this is different from conspiring to commit sin, making elaborate arrangements, then carrying them out- which vpw did and taught lcm and others to do as well, making them two-fold the child of hell he was, if at all possible.

"No, I can talk. I'm just driving." "The homeowners charter, which you signed, says the grass is supposed to be two inches, and according to my measuring stick, yours is two-point-five." "Mother, is that you? Beckoning me into the light? Must... move... toward... the light!" "I don't want to die, Dad. Not for real..." "Lets call it Steve!" "Steve??" "Steve's a pretty name!" "I really thought you were dead!" "I learned from the best." "What about this one, this Depelter Turbo?" "That's a contraband item, ma'am, as it is illegal in every state... ...except Texas." "I don't care if this violates the Geneva Conventions, I want it. "I thought you might, so I took the liberty of installing it for you."

That's it. My first clue was harder because I lost track of which thread I was on until I came back to update it.

"No, I can talk. I'm just driving." "The homeowners charter, which you signed, says the grass is supposed to be two inches, and according to my measuring stick, yours is two-point-five." "Mother, is that you? Beckoning me into the light? Must... move... toward... the light!" "I don't want to die, Dad. Not for real..." "Lets call it Steve!" "Steve??" "Steve's a pretty name!" "I really thought you were dead!" "I learned from the best."

"What's the use in trying, all you get is pain. When I wanted sunshine, I got rain."

"We gotta install microwave ovens Custom kitchen deliveries. We gotta move these refrigerators. We gotta move these colour TV's."

"No, I can talk. I'm just driving." "The homeowners charter, which you signed, says the grass is supposed to be two inches, and according to my measuring stick, yours is two-point-five." "Mother, is that you? Beckoning me into the light? Must... move... toward... the light!"

"I couldn't leave her if I tried."

"Hard To Handle". The Black Crowes did a version of this song.

Eh, is this "Mister Jones and Me", by Counting Crows? (Or "Mister Jones", I'm never sure.)

Gee, that guy hardly sounds like a Real Genius to me...

I don't see that to be the case, either. I didn't use any "academic techniques" with the Wheel of Time or Harry Potter. (I didn't go to any school offering a degree in either, but I've heard there's a school somewhere with at least a class on HP.) Again, it depends on how deep you want to go. The most elementary SWIMMERS can all hang out in the shallows, to go deeper into the water, you need to swim better than that. With any book, you can get some level of understanding by reading it no matter who you are, so long as you have something approaching an average level of reading comprehension. With any book, the more skills you have (the deeper your background), the more levels you'll understand the book at. Again, that's ANY book. With moderate skills, you'll see deeper and more profoundly than the D+ English student who read through it. With more dedication, you'll bring a broader range to the table, or a greater wealth of specialized knowledge, and you'll understand more. And if you really put in several years of work, you'll find things that the average person would think you made up. (Regarding Hamlet, I've found at least one teacher I had was INDIFFERENT and didn't seem to get a certain point Shakespeare made. So, attitude affects dedication, which affects how far you go or how hard you apply yourself. To very specifically address your point, ANYONE can read Proverbs and should be able to see it's got a lot of wisdom in it, and understand SOME of that wisdom, enough for their preferences. Not everyone could do a read-through of, say, Ecclesiastes and find it equally wise. Due to its handling of DEEPER issues, it can seem like nonsense to an indifferent reader, who might completely miss the points made all over the book. I got accused of polarizing the posts of others a few posts back. I think I'm getting that type of RESPONSE to my posts, however, and I'm not actually trying to make things either/or.

I disagree. Not even addressing matters of the supernatural and doctrine, I would disagree. When I read Hamlet, I come away with a deeper understanding than the high school and college students that read it each semester. (More than I did at both levels, and I understood it a lot at both levels.) That's interest, study, and familiarity. However, they get the basic story-they understand who does what and basically why. Anyone can read "the Wheel of Time" and get an entertaining read of a story they understand. Then there's people who "sleuth" the series, digging for all the nuances the author included for those who look VERY closely. Those people get a lot more out of each volume. When the Harry Potter series was coming out, I took time off sleuthing the Wheel of Time to sleuth HP. It was a LOT easier than sleuthing WoT, but a lot of the same principles applied. Lots and lots of people read the books, and many just got what was on the surface. Some sleuthed deeper, and many of those guessed wrongly because they didn't have enough experience with sleuthing books. I did, so most of my guesses were correct (and I was correct as to which ones were wrong that others proposed.) Anyone with a coherent Bible version that's fairly accurate can get a basic understanding of salvation in Jesus Christ and so on. The basics are of primary importance, and those come through. Those who approach it with a degree of historical knowledge, cultural knowledge, Koine Greek or other language knowledge, those people will be able to get more out of it. Those with a lot of that knowledge will see deeper yet. (That's why ex-twi'ers generally can only see but so deeply- we all had a limit on our education, and few went far beyond that. And I don't count myself among them.) So, I expect almost anyone can read the Bible and get a basic understanding. However, the deeper matters will need more dedication than the average person will devote. That goes for ANY group of adherents with ANY book they consider "holy". They will put in the time, they will be more dedicated, so they will get more out of it.

Because perception is SUBJECTIVE, and someone touchy on a subject can see an insult in it even when that insult isn't even there. US television writers have to tread a thin tightrope to produce scripts that won't result in SOMEONE starting a letter-writing campaign for the same reason. I left the entire discussion about inerrancy ALONE except for a specific instance where ONE poster posted ONE thing and said it was a contradiction and proof of contradictions. I rebutted that and pointed out I thought it didn't take a lot of work to see how that specific instance fit together. I don't like it when people jump to conclusions that fast- I find it sloppy, and altogether too common nowadays. (Just a reminder: I don't spend all my time on the GSC. Out in the big wide world are lots of people with sloppy logic who tick me off all the time.) That one poster thanked me for posting what I did, and said they'd follow up on their own. "The end", I thought, but a few OTHER posters seem to have seen themselves in what I said when I was specifically addressing ONE poster, and thinking of a bunch of people who've never heard of twi. I was even ASKED about that, I clarified my point, and STILL got someone interpreting my points as addressing them in a general way when I was addressing someone else in a SPECIFIC way. There's an assumption there that there was an assumption that ANY apparent contradiction can be worked out if you just asked someone else. Someone brought one up, I worked it out as if asked. If I'd been asked about it earlier, I would have posted it sooner. When I see an apparent contradiction, I look at it from all the angles I can find, and if that doesn't present a logical answer, I call in others for insight. Often they have access to resources or commentaries or whatever that I don't, or have pondered this very issue before, and can fill in all or part of an answer. I find that's a good strategy to follow. "In multitude of counsellors is safety." I don't know how that became universalized as a Thou Shalt rather than a "rule of thumb." Seems the contents of my posts are being read through a perception filter that's polarizing them. Sorry to hear that. I hate it when I can't find an answer and end up with a persistent question that lasts years. It feels like unfinished business or a discordant note. I suppose that could be annoying. Then again, if you find that lots of people are assuming that- and most of that is as substantial as me not even thinking about you and you deciding I was trying to "character assasinate" you, then there's a simple solution- stop thinking everything's about you. I used to ascribe a much greater importance to my existence in other people's discussions. Once I adjusted my perceptions closer to reality, I found it remarkable freeing. (Of course, it was a slight ego blow that I really wasn't in ANY discussions when I thought I was in a LOT of them, but in the long run, I much prefer it this way.) Just maybe, you're missing a nuance or two here, yourself. But I agree that a difference in perspectives could avoid bitterness in a disagreement here. I was quite surprised to discover I've apparently been in a heated argument for over a day. This is the first I've heard of it. Next time, I'd like to know sooner. Otherwise, I might miss the entire thing. This. I don't think I can add anything to this post, so I won't try.

I give up, why must it? I was pointing out that a SPECIFIC example, to me, looked nothing like what it was being described as, and THAT type of thinking bothered me. Just as when someone says "here's a contradiction" then uses that as their excuse to downgrade the Bible's utility. THAT's what I objected to, and I still do. For the most part, I've been leaving you guys alone about the inerrancy thing.

My point was that I think some people have made the easy decision, and just give up when they run into something they don't understand, as soon as they can't make heads nor tails out of it. (I've usually called in someone else to try to help me figure out what was puzzling me.) We just saw an example of that. Someone posted a pair of verses. I think a careful reading would make it clear, even without any special knowledge of Greek names or figures of speech. Heck, a look at other Bible versions could help work it out. A few seconds typing at Bible Gateway and I have the verses in 2 other versions, which seem to see the verses as I do. NASB 4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him. 5 Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes. CEV 4 Don't make a fool of yourself by answering a fool. 5 But if you answer any fools, show how foolish they are, so they won't feel smart. It's possible- and was just done- to take the 2 verses, not bother using REASONABLE measures to try to understand them- and just turn around, announce they are contradictory, and use that as justification for downgrading the Bible as a guide for guidance, wisdom, etc. It's possible, and lots of people do things like that every day. However, it's not intellectually honest, and it lacks integrity.

I can pretty much tell I've got a successful post, whenever Johniam feels the need to misdirect people from it and pretend he can't read what's written. The first thing that makes it so obvious is that he refuses to post with the markers so you can read what he's quoting from. This allows him to remove things from their context, which makes it easier to lie about what they were saying. Here's the marker for the post he quoted: (You can read it for yourself.) Here's what it said in part: " An organization spends YEARS on each person in their leadership training program. By your own admission, MOST of those who COMPLETED the training and were considered success stories and sent on assignment were "ARSEHOLES." (Most people would say "grossly-incompetent leaders" or something similar.) If MOST of the "successes" of a program meant to produce TRAINED LEADERS instead all became TRAINED ARSEHOLES, what does that say about the program? Most people would call such a program a colossal FAILURE. Most organizations with a "success" rate like that would be horrified, and would halt and completely examine every inch of their program to see where the failures were. twi instead just kept moving things along. If someone had the money together, they were able to enter a program that has been proven to produce leaders who are grossly incompetent, By your own admission. What CREDIBLE organization would consider such an irresponsible course of action?" Here was Johniam's reply: "Would they? Enron had a "success rate" didn't they? Oops. Your selective cynicism can be very funny." So, I clearly pointed out that twi's way corps program has been described by a different twi SUPPORTER as having been a multi-year program for training leaders that, as he said it, produced "ARSEHOLES." How can an organization run a leadership training program that runs for 4 years and ends that time mostly with "ARSEHOLES"? Only if it's a poor excuse for an organization, one that is inept and doesn't actually CARE about the people that are supposed to be led, let alone the people taught to lead. This becomes a bit more obvious when it's seen that the only real part run by professionals is on SALES. (vpw arranged for someone to teach Dale Carnegie's sales techniques without paying Carnegie, which, of course is a violation of copyright and illegal, but typical of vpw.) To bring in Johniam's comment into the thing he was replying to... What LEADERSHIP TRAINING PROGRAM has ENRON been running? What was the "success rate" of ENRON's LEADERSHIP TRAINING PROGRAM? As John puts it, Enron obviously had or has some sort of LEADERSHIP TRAINING PROGRAM with a questionable "success rate" that can be compared to twi's "success rate" for their program-which mostly produces "arseholes" (to hear a twi SUPPORTER say it.) Looks like the only truly relevant part of John's reply was "Oops". His selective reading is sad, but remarkably PREDICTABLE. However, the blatant corruption of twi, the lies to their own people of twi, the criminal actions by those at the top of twi- NONE OF WHICH I WAS ACTUALLY STRESSING- those DO mean that ENRON and TWI are both worthy of being considered equally corrupt and wickedly deceitful. twi's Board has all the morals of a wickedly deceitful Board running a group like ENRON. So, bringing Enron into the discussion actually IS relevant, despite them having nothing to do with posts discussing LEADERSHIP TRAINING PROGRAMS and how twi's fails miserably to benefit its people.

I'll address the glaring errors here in turn. However, I'd like to thank John for making an observation that I wouldn't have expected him to. When your supporters are likening your organization to ENRON, you KNOW your reputation for corruption and low morals is set. So, I agree with John that ENRON and TWI should be mentioned in the same category. Nice one.

If nobody minds, I'll link Julie Haggerty like this: Airplane! Lloyd Bridges Hot Shots

"We've got to catch those thieves red-handed." "What color are their hands now?"

I'm with Naten on this. I'd rather go with "I don't know" than be swift to say "the last word on this is that it's illogical and contradictory at its heart." (Although people can be so, I see God Almighty as ABOVE that and non-contradictory at the Ultimate Level and making perfect sense if we can see that deeply. In this case, I find the verses need no explanation. However, since I'm not holding a universally-held opinion, I'll explain it. This is an example of "antanaclasis", when the same phrase or word is used with 2 different meanings, with both being a grammatically-correct usage, and both meaning different things. We do this in English. "First things first." (Those things of primary importance will be addressed immediately.) "The more I think of it, the less I think of it." (As I give more consideration, my opinion and esteem of it drop further.) "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately." (Attributed to Ben Franklin.) (We must cooperate, or we will all be killed individually.) So, the same deal is with these verses. "Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." "Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." Don't answer the fool the same way he's ranting, because people won't be able to tell you apart if you're both sounding like raving idiots. "Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Answer the fool in accordance with the magnitude of his stupidity, so he can realize he's wrong and learn something. I didn't need any help to see this one- the first time I read this it seemed like the obvious meaning to me, and on further examination, I still find it is so. When considering whether I make sense and God Almighty does not make sense, or I am silly and God Almighty really makes sense, my money's on God making sense and me being too feeble-minded to see at his level. a child first learning how to play chess can't keep up with an adult chess master. The child may consider an individual move of the chess master to make no sense... right until the checkmate is performed.

"Clash of the Titans."

A) Moderating the political forum- which was completely unnecessary to the GSC's purpose and optional- was tiresome and emotionally-draining, to hear the mods say it. I avoided the thing almost completely because it LOOKED like that, and I have plenty of other venues if I want people to yell at each other and insult each other. So, we had a choice of no GSC, or a GSC with no political forum. Me, I don't miss the political forum, and I was missing the GSC before it was gone. Someone made up a separate forum specifically for political discussion. It's around somewhere. http://www.blueredusa.com/smf/index.php If you want to talk politics there, by all means, be my guest. B) There is a chat room. Scroll down your page. I just tried the chat room. It works fine. If you're having trouble seeing it, or entering the IRC channel, then either you need to update your web browser, or switch to a different web browser. (I'm using Firefox, and Opera should render it as well.) Now, whenever I wander through, I don't see anyone IN chat, but that's an entirely different question.