WordWolf

Omniscience=All-Knowing. Omnipotence=All-Powerful. Omnibenevolence=All-Loving. We can understand the basic concept of All-Knowing easily enough, more or less. He knows EVERYTHING, past, present, future, to the tiniest degree. We can understand the basic concept of All-Powerful easily enough, more or less. He CAN do ANYTHING, so long as He chooses to, including squash our free will. The problem with discussing "All-Loving" is that the ramifications of it are subject to huge amounts of interpretation. There's a lot of PREDICTION when discussing what God would WANT to do-which is hand-in-hand with His emotions like Love. This means we get sentences like "If God is Love, and He CAN end suffering, he would. Therefore, either He lacks the POWER to end it, or doesn't CARE, or there is not God, pass me another tallboy." Things along those lines, anyway. We don't THINK like God, and CAN'T think like God. Predicting-or even pretending to understand-the thinking of God is a futile effort. The closest I can come is using a chess analogy, and the Big Picture. A human chess player can consider possible moves long before the chessboard reaches a stage where those moves would be used. God can play with an infinite number of moves in mind, and act long before something to prevent it or to make it happen. He certainly has been seen to do so in Scripture. He told Noah-120 years beforehand- about the Great Flood, and had him make preparations in that timeframe. In the time of Daniel, 4 of His people taught wise men, whose students' students' students (and so on) would see the stars, centuries later, and understand the birth of the King of the Jews, and would then arrive at his home with gold and other valuables, then leave, just when God needed to tell Joseph (and Mary and Jesus) to flee the country for their lives- and could now say so when they had money (gold) for travelling in a hurry. God acts on the long-term scale. God's plans are deep and we are not. I can love a God that isn't Omniscient, Omnipotent, OR Omnibenevolent. I love PEOPLE who are none of those things, and can love people who are below average in knowledge and power, certainly. What I may not be able to do is to put a lot of TRUST in someone whose capabilities exceed the tasks he sets for himself. In the case of God, my ability to trust a God who can make promises but not offer 100% assurance of them- which a not-Omniscient and/or not-Omnipotent God could not do- would be LIMITED. So, how do you define "All-Loving", and what conditions do you require of God as the result of being All-Loving? Some people would expect such a God to jump in and stop them from sinning. Others would expect such a God to crush human suffering long before it was a huge issue. (I answered my own question, phrased differently, earlier in the thread, and visited another aspect of it in this post, if you're curious.)

another Spot: anotherDan: Right. I mentioned as much in the 2nd of the long posts, starting off. me: If you look at that link explaining Flatland, you may notice that the bottom of the pagementions Carl Sagan discussing it on "Cosmos" once. I saw that, and was introduced to the Flatland concept at that time. When trying to conceptualize a God whose existence surpasses ours in more TYPES and not just in magnitude (He isn't just "man, but moreso", He exists in ways we don't have names for), I immediately went back to that explanation of Flatland. I don't think I can improve on this explanation. This is how I see the interaction between Omniscience and free will.

Or maybe I was busy working on a significant post, and missed your question, and it had nothing to do with "preference." I'll look at it when I have time to review it and compose a thoughtful answer. (I could just rattle something off, but I'd prefer not to.)

Thank him for OFFERING HIS OPINIONS. He's entitled to his own opinions. Me, I say his conclusions were all SPECULATION and are UNSUPPORTED. If this was his PRIMARY GOAL, as you've suggested before, or even just a major consideration, then he should have just SAID THAT. Then again, since that's a POLITICAL issue, perhaps he should have just kept that as a PERSONAL OPINION and used that time at the pulpit MORE PRODUCTIVELY by TEACHING THE BIBLE MORE instead of dictating political opinions to twi folk. I bet you HATE it when any homileticist OTHER THAN vpw dictates political opinions from the pulpit, especially when they disagree with what positions should be endorsed....

Actually, I'd be fine with that. I probably would use it myself- now that separating the truth from the error is even POSSIBLE. Even the sections that are ERROR can be used as practice in "separating truth from error" and critical thinking.

A perception of life "now being meaningful" can be confidently claimed by many people as the result of many different organization's packages. White supremacists can claim their beliefs bring "meaning" to their life. Homosexual advocates can claim their platform "brings meaning" to their life. Many members of street-gangs, if asked, would claim their gang gives them "meaning." So, this claim is not as impressive as it may sound. It put forth ONE set of dogmas, which answered some questions-some of them provably INCORRECTLY.It added OTHER contradictions. But, to the adherent, when vpw gave some examples, and said he was "explaining apparent Bible contradictions", (despite doing a passable job at best of addressing them), this is a tremendous lesson learned. So long as any family holds to THE SAME DOGMA, then they will be in harmony. (See examples above for a few.) If one person in the family is a dogmatist of pfal, and the rest of the family is NOT, then pfal (like any other dogma in that situation) would ERODE harmony in the home. If one's entire family is in twi, pfal would "develop more harmony in the home." If one's entire family is in the KKK, white supremacy would "develop more harmony in the home." Since this is something white supremacy could perform besides pfal, it's not as impressive as it sounds. It ADDED SOME ERRORS, and gave ONE method for separating truth from error. However, when that method was used to detect error in the contents of pfal, that was SUPPRESSED by vpw, the guru of pfal. Separating truth from error in twi doctrine was verboten. (Ask John Schoenheit how well it was received to separate truth from error on, say, adultery.) You didn't know how to pray effectively without pfal? I KNEW how, but I just didn't CHOOSE to, myself. I hardly expect I was rare in that respect. Good plan.

Now then, what was the point of my digression into discussion of Flatland and a 5th Dimension, both fictional? Simply this. Both of them discuss conceptual existence where other dimensions, other levels of existence, are unperceivable to people living in a limited number of dimensions. In each case, those who exist in more dimensions must make measures to limit themselves to interact with people in a more limited existence. ======= We go into a look at Genesis 22. I'll provide commentary as we go along. Genesis 22. (NASB) "1Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." [We know God knows where Abraham is- God's getting his attention.] 2He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you." [There's been a number of different schools of thought on Abraham's instruction here. I think ALL the ones I've heard have some merit here. A) God mentions NOTHING about KILLING, and offering a human as a burnt offering, in Israel, has meant they were separated to serve God for life. We saw that with Jephthah's daughter. God mentions nothing about a KNIFE, WOOD, a ROPE, and whatever blunt instrument Abraham likely used to pop Isaac in the head so he could tie him down and stab him or set him on fire. So, does God intend Abraham to interpret this instruction as "Kill your son for me at the designated location"? Well, perhaps not. Then again, perhaps. I think an intelligent argument can be made either way. B) God almost certainly wanted Isaac set aside. We refer sometimes to time alone with God as a "mountaintop experience." Did God want Isaac dedicated to Him, set aside, and brought alone to that mountaintop to educate him? It is my belief that the evidence supports this, whether or not He clearly meant to indicate to Abraham "just bring him and dedicate him" as opposed to "barbecue him." Either instruction brings Isaac to the right place at the right time. Furthermore, Abraham is past 100 years of age, and time is running out for God to raise up his replacement. C) What was Abraham thinking? Abraham received Isaac in the FIRST place by a reviving of "life" to himself and Sarah- Sarah was unable to bear children, until God wrought a miracle in her. (God promised her, and she judged Him faithful who had promised.) Raising the dead-for God-is not hard, as Abraham sees it. Abraham knows God promised him SPECIFICALLY that through ISAAC-this here Isaac- will be all these things that haven't happened yet. Therefore, nothing Abraham can do can change that. Even if Abraham killed Isaac, burned him, and scattered the ashes, God could produce a miracle, restore and raise Isaac, and then proceed to carry out His promises. Hebrews 11:17-19 (NASB) 17By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; 18it was he to whom it was said, "IN ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS SHALL BE CALLED." 19He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type. Abraham had his trust in God, which he should have. Whether or not he had the wrong idea of how to offer his son, he had the right devotion and trust.] 3So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him and Isaac his son; and he split wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. 4On the third day Abraham raised his eyes and saw the place from a distance. 5Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the donkey, and I and the lad will go over there; and we will worship and return to you." 6Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son, and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So the two of them walked on together. 7Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, "My father!" And he said, "Here I am, my son." And he said, "Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" [i see Isaac had no idea what Abraham intended. Me, I think there's going to be quite an event when a 100-or-more-year-old man tries to tie a young boy down to a wooden structure. I wish there was some text that addressed it....] 8Abraham said, "God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." So the two of them walked on together. 9Then they came to the place of which God had told him; and Abraham built the altar there and arranged the wood, and bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. [Abraham is thinking "I will kill my son and set him ablaze as a burnt offering to God, and God shall raise him and then carry out His promises." Abraham has AMAZING levels of trust in God. Even with all those promises, I don't think I could have an heir late in life and accept killing him for God, even at God's explicit instruction. Was Abraham supposed to try to kill his son? Or was that Abraham misunderstanding his instructions? It doesn't matter- the result is exactly the same either way....] 11But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." 12He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." [1)Abraham has now been stopped from killing Isaac. Immediate problem solved. 2) Isaac is now set aside for God, and on the mountaintop. He can now be educated by God with few distractions. 3) Did God mean Abraham to TRY to sacrifice Isaac, or did He want Isaac simply dedicated to God? Either way, God got it- Abraham did not withhold Isaac from God. Abraham has demonstrated an unbreaking respect for God and obedience to His Will. 4) Did God know before this that Abraham was prepared to offer his son to God? Yes, before He ever asked Abraham. (Scroll up in the thread- God knows the end from the beginning.) Why, then, is He saying that "now He knows"? Well, if I wanted to be difficult, I could say "The ANGEL is saying this. The ANGEL is limited in knowledge." However, I perceive this as ducking the issue. God ALREADY knew. ABRAHAM probably didn't know until he did it. Also, now everybody's physically where they were supposed to end up. God-who DID know before- cannot lie. He is declaring that He now has the PROOF that Abraham is that faithful. God Himself did not need that proof-but He required ABRAHAM provide that proof for ABRAHAM's sake. God LIMITED HIS INTERACTION with the puny human so that the human's little brain could keep up with God. God demonstrated interaction on a level Abraham could comprehend. Abraham knew God was transcendent, and had no limitations on knowledge or ability. (Near as I can see, since he was confident about Isaac being brought back, and God's promises being guaranteed.)] 13Then Abraham raised his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him a ram caught in the thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram and offered him up for a burnt offering in the place of his son. 14Abraham called the name of that place The LORD Will Provide, as it is said to this day, "In the mount of the LORD it will be provided." 15Then the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, 16and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies. 18"In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice."" [Again, I see this as God phrasing and framing things in a manner that Abraham can comprehend, limited Himself so Abraham can understand what he needs to.]

Let's take a look at it. Genesis 22. (NASB) "1Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." 2He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you." 3So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him and Isaac his son; and he split wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. 4On the third day Abraham raised his eyes and saw the place from a distance. 5Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the donkey, and I and the lad will go over there; and we will worship and return to you." 6Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son, and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So the two of them walked on together. 7Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, "My father!" And he said, "Here I am, my son." And he said, "Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" 8Abraham said, "God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." So the two of them walked on together. 9Then they came to the place of which God had told him; and Abraham built the altar there and arranged the wood, and bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." 12He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." 13Then Abraham raised his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him a ram caught in the thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram and offered him up for a burnt offering in the place of his son. 14Abraham called the name of that place The LORD Will Provide, as it is said to this day, "In the mount of the LORD it will be provided." 15Then the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, 16and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies. 18"In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice."" ====== Now, avid readers of science fiction-or some comic-books- may be familiar with concepts of interactions between differently-dimensional beings. In one direction, we have "Flatland." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland Consider a 3-dimensional being-such as one of us- attempting to interact with a realm where everything is 2-Dimensional. They 2D'ers would not be able to perceive all of us in their realm-their realm doesn't HAVE enough dimensions to show us. We would be perceived only when and where we intersect their realm- thus, we would APPEAR 2-Dimensional, and only existing as the part that intersects theirs. If we rested, say, our fingertips there, we would be perceived as 10 flat points- which is all they can perceive. A 2-D'er would have great difficulty in understanding a 3rd dimension they have no method of perceiving at all. The only way it COULD perceive a 3rd Dimension would be for a 3-D'er to pluck them from their realm and show them existence in 3 axes of direction-at which point, it may perceive its own realm as greatly limited. (Comic-book fans may be familiar with the 5th Dimension of Zrrff, home of Mr Mxyzptlk, Qwsp, Johnny/Jakeem Thunder's Thunderbolt, and Bat-Mite. One JLA/JSA crossover shows Captain Marvel and Green Lantern in the 5th Dimension, looking like flat playing cards, as they interact with the natives, who are simplifying themselves to interact with them. Several natives travel to Earth, contracting from 5-dimensions into 3-dimensions to do so.)

I think the GSC community has benefitted greatly from a DIVERSITY of responses, as each person contributes in his or her own fashion, with his or her own contributions.

Next episode.... "Unfortunately, we've found there's little profit in trading with the Federation. In order to comply with your commerce laws, we've had to pay a series of taxes and fees that have made the cost of doing business with you too high." "What sort of taxes and fees are you referring to?" "For example... on a recent shipment of Karemman Fleece, a four percent surcharge was added to pay for inspecting the cargo for 'changeling infiltrators.'" "What?" "You never know where they might be hiding." "Another three percent of the shipment's value was lost due to 'unforeseen' currency fluctuations." "There was a run on the Bolian Credit Exchange... played havoc with the markets..." "A six percent tariff was imposed to help offset the 'lost income of Tarkalian sheep herders.'" "Hardworking people... you have to feel for them..." "Should I go on, Captain... ?" "No... I think you've made your point..."

I'm concerned that there's preconceived notions that haven't been reconsidered. "SCIENCE" may require evidence, but there's a significant number of hardcore fundamentalist atheists that consider cold, bloodless analysis of the EVIDENCE to be secondary to their "gospel"- mainly, that religion is a blight on society, and is nothing but destructive. I'm thinking of extremists like Richard Dawkins, who broke from more reasonable scientists like Stephen Jay Gould in that Gould may disagree with Christians but respect that they are capable of independent, intelligent thought. Dawkins even tried to make up a term for atheists to say they're more intelligent than people of faith. Unless your name is "Charles Darwin", I didn't see anyone suggesting you were a Lamarckian.I didn't even consider it possible you were one. Mind you, if you insist you ARE one, I'd have to accept it, although I'd be shocked. Since Lamarckianism WAS discredited, obviously, the current thinking doesn't go in that direction. I know that there ARE some people that do that, but there's plenty of educated people of faith who DON'T do that with their Bibles or other books. I'm a LOT more comfortable with discussions of evolution when all the parties can focus on evidence, lack of evidence, and what both mean than dogmatism AND making caricatures of the opposing points of view. Please note that means I'm disinterested in digging into the subject here. I'm fairly confident that all my preferences would be selected against.

Correct. And since your premise- pfal being from God-has been discredited beyond REASONABLE doubt, you're arrogant serving something you THINK is the truth. I just wanted to let that sit on its own. That's a question I never expected anyone to raise. I'll keep it next to "how do you know Jesus didn't eat sour cream on Wednesdays?" I notice you're still pushing this "Paul travelled in time" theology because vpw couldn't keep track of Paul vs "this guy Paul knows." I can repost the summary of the previous discussions on that, if anyone's curious. I know if YOU were, you'd have learned the last time we went over this. I wonder how God covered the "woman's fear killed her kid by hitting him with a car" part of session 1 without any cars or modern schools. Maybe he used an example with a chariot. I also wonder why neither Jesus nor Paul mentioned this supposedly foundational foundation (so important it was in the very first session) principle if God actually taught it to them. There's neither Scriptural nor historic record of it-or a contemporary equivalent- ever coming up. All the "documentation" for it is in the beliefs of Mike. Or the opinions of Mike. Or, as vpw might have phrased it, the "private interpretation" of Mike. ============= In other news, we went from "the Holocaust" to "Mike's commercials" in one page. Again. Will this entire thread be hijacked-again? If so, was the purpose of derailing it TO DISTRACT FROM THE DISCUSSION OF HOW VPW SUPPORTED HOLOCAUST DENIAL? Time will tell.

I don't think you ever heard about that time I found that Christian getting ready to jump off the Willis Avenue Bridge. It was about this time, a year or so ago, late at night. I talked to him while I moved close enough to grab him. I got him to talk about his beliefs. WordWolf:"Are you a Christian? A Jew?" Him:"A Christian." WW:"Me too. Catholic, or Protestant?" Him:"Protestant." WW:"Me too. What franchise?" Him:"Baptist." WW:"Me too. Northern or Southern Baptist?" Him: "Northern Baptist." WW:"Me too. Northern Conservative or Northern Liberal?" Him:"Northern Conservative." WW:"Me too. Conservative Fundamentalist or Conservative Reformed?" Him:"Conservative Fundamentalist." WW:"Me too. Fundamentalist Great Lakes Region or Eastern Region?" Him:"Eastern Region." WW:"Me too. Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region Council of 1893, or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region Council of 1912?" Him:"Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region Council of 1912." WW:"DIE HERETIC!" *shoves him off the bridge* ======== I've noticed that focusing on what we have in common heads off a lot of arguments among Christians. vpw was fond of starting arguments as quickly as possible, and inventing as many dividers and "deal breakers" between "US" and "THEM" as possible. (There ARE no "US" and "THEM", just different Christians.)

Ah. That explains why the next-to-last one sounded a little familiar. =========== "What does a yellow light mean?" "Slow down." "What..does...a yellow light mean?" "Slow down." "What......does...a...yellow....light....mean?"

George, how about another quote?

I object to subscription models for everything nowadays. I find, as a consumer, I'm getting less for my money that way. I can see upgrading to HD radio-so long as that won't be subscription. And it's still Suda's turn...

That, sir, is why I try to pull up an entire script when I can. In this case, it's here: http://www.twiztv.com/scripts/nextgenerati...on5/tng-505.txt That's how I was able to post huge chunks of the "Valiant" script. I googled the episode name, the series, something from a quote, and the word "script" all in their own quotation marks, and blammo-episode script. Of course, there's occasional deviations from a script, which you need to watch out for. (No, I didn't look for this script until just now. Googling while guessing disqualifies the googler.)

I have more of a problem with Darwin being a Lamarckian than Darwin being a racist swine. It's easier to spot a racist swine than a Lamarckian. For those in the cheap seats, Lamarckianism is a thoroughly-discredited side-alley of evolutionary theory. It's an attempt-and frankly, IMHO, one of the best attempts- to explain how evolution works. The idea is that evolution is directed-but not by an outside hand. It is directed by the actual members of the species. Each member will perform actions that will affect the genetic structure of their offspring. The most obvious example given is the giraffe. Under Lamarckianism, the giraffe finds itself stretching its neck to reach higher leaves in higher branches. Thus, its offspring will have slightly longer necks as a result, and they will do the same, and THEIR offspring will have slightly longer necks...eventually, over many generations, we get long-necked giraffes. However, the thinking at the time of Darwin speculated that the cell was a relatively uncomplicated thing that could be directed with relative ease to alter genetics. That has since been thoroughly discredited. Personally, I think ALL of Darwin's theories merit RE-EXAMINATION, if for no other reason but that they were based on assumptions that have since been proven incorrect by molecular biologists. However, I expect most of them will remain sacrosanct-as matters of RELIGION and not matters of SCIENCE that are subject to proof, hypothesis, experimentation and verification. Don't blame that on me....

This alone might be considered sufficient explanation in the eyes of some Christians. God knows all things. For those who wonder, Dictionary.com defines "omniscient" as "1. having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things." Looks like the Bible says God is "omniscient" right out of the barrel there. If God's understanding is infinite, his knowledge must perforce be infinite. (How can he understand anything He doesn't know?) "Knowledge" is one of God's Attributes. He is a God of Knowledge.That means his knowledge is really up there. I don't think Jeremiah posited any limitations to the knowledge of God- his entire life was in God's knowledge before he was born. "Declaring the end from the beginning". God knows the conclusion before the beginning. That's tough to do if you only perceive the present.... God inhabits Eternity. We inhabit the present, minute by minute, but God inhabits all of time. As I perceive it, to God, it's all already happened, and was so before humans ever walked the Earth. It's easy to see how a being that inhabits Eternity would be unchanging. We all change-both physically as we age, and mentally as we add experiences. For God to learn new things, to add to His knowledge, would mean He also changes. Rationalizations and discussions are one thing, but if one cares what the Bible says, one's theories must be fitted to what Scripture clearly says, and not the other way around. With the DIRECT references clearly saying one thing, it's not particularly sensible to argue for the opposite, or to make the opposite one's pet theory.

1 John 3:19-20 (King James Version) 19And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. 20For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Psalm 147:2-5 (King James Version) 2The LORD doth build up Jerusalem: He gathereth together the outcasts of Israel. 3He healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth up their wounds. 4He telleth the number of the stars; He calleth them all by their names. 5Great is our Lord, and of great power: His understanding is infinite. I Samuel 2:3b (King James Version) for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed. Jeremiah 1:5 (King James Version) 5Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Isaiah 46:9-10 (KJV) 9Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 10Declaring 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: Isaiah 57:15a 15For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy Malachi 3:6a For I am the LORD, I change not.

Now you've done it. Man, now I have to go eat something before I get into this subject.

Chapter 3 of the Orange Book is titled "BELIEVING EQUALS RECEIVING." Not "some believing results in some receiving." By using the word "EQUALS" he was making it clear that he considered this an EQUATION, and in an EQUATION, both sides are equal to each other. So, believing and receiving, as he said it, were effectively synonymous and MATHEMATICALLY INTERCHANGEABLE. If most people used the word "equals" I would expect them to know that when they had such statements committed to print. When a man speaks of the Word of God as having a MATHEMATICAL EXACTNESS and a SCIENTIFIC PRECISION, and then uses a mathematical term, he is either intentionally making the connection to what it means mathematically, or he is a great fool- or perhaps "an INCONSISTENT fool" would be more precise. pg-44. "What one fears will surely come to pass-it is a law." Feeling cheeky this morning? I shall translate the original person's sentence to something more literal and direct, in deference to you this once. Translation: Weird, I don't remember Scripture ever mentioning an instance of Solomon PREACHING at people.

I think that those who say that God Almighty was the "first cause" that started a process of evolution that began the process that resulted in us being here today could sensibly referred to as "Evolutionary Creationists." They'd believe there's have been no creation without God, nor anything TO evolve, and without God, there'd be no evolutionary process at all.

Ok, let's move this along. This was "Disaster", a ST:TNG episode where the ship was seriously damaged without warning, maybe from a "cosmic string fragment" or something. (Those cosmic string fragments sure came in handy writing some of those scripts...) Poor Keiko O'Brien went into labour in 10-Forward, and the only person certified with current medical training there was WORF. Best quote there was Worf reciting to himself that he had to encourage her to push. So he "encourages", Klingon-style. "Push. Push, Keiko. Push. Push! PUSH!" "I AM PUSHING!!!!" Captain Picard, you may remember, doesn't like kids. (Unless he's related to them.) He was talked into giving a personal tour of a handful of the grammar-school children who won prizes on "Captain Picard Day." He ended up trapped in an elevator with them, then forced to get them out safely. He partly gained control over the situation by giving officer positions to each of the kids, who seemed to respond to being given authority. Riker and Data were trapped where they could access Engineering, but the command consoles were offline, so Data suggested using his own command-circuitry- in his head-to control the console, or something. Deanna Troi was the highest-ranked officer on the bridge (that reminds me, isn't the officer-on-duty supposed to be on the bridge at all times? Whatever), and had some tough decisions to face-like if they should abandon the stardrive section of the ship. Later, she bantered with Riker.