WordWolf

Good for you. I suppose that means that you could love Him even if that means that He might have predetermined that all of your children even before they were born would be damned to Hell. He just decided not to share that knowledge with you.

You suppose a great deal, and have supposed me a great fool.

You've also skipped over what I HAVE said on the subject, and what I agreed to just a few posts back,

saying "this reflects how I see this."

No fair. I asked you a question earlier that has yet to be answered.

I answer questions in the ORDER that suits me.

You may notice I'm going approximately in the order of the thread.

I'm also not a Calvinist, and your question largely was one of Calvinism.

I didn't answer your question in the terms you asked it-I answered it as I understood it.

When I get to your question again, I'll see if there's any other way I'd like to address it.

In the meantime, I thought we were having a DISCUSSION.

You posed a conundrum, and I offered my answer, and OFFERED TO HELP YOU BREAK THE DEADLOCK

as I understand it.

If you don't want to cooperate, that's your business, but that means you're less interested

in us all gaining in knowledge here than in "scoring points" in some fashion.

If that's your decision, then all I can say is, you're going to miss out.

"Oo shanta malaka sito la shonta."

I think that's the sentence we've all heard from vpw,

in the classes, and in a variety of settings in twi after that down the years.

Including when he was making a big deal that the utterance was SPECIFICALLY

from God.

Of course, some may wonder if this was a repeat of behaviour he freely admitted

to performing back in 1953, when someone tried to minister to him so he could

speak in tongues, and he chose to PRETEND HE DID,

and spoke Greek,

which they somehow didn't recognize.

I think it's worth considering.

Hey, if this "fluency" issue is worth mentioning when someone wants to know

if the only SIT he supposedly did was the same sentence all over the place,

then certainly whether this same sentence was actually given by God lots and

lots of times, syllable exact to syllable, all over the place and down the years.

I was agreeing with Abigail, but not disagreeing with Tonto, if you can picture that.

"Bullying" is not a subset of "contributing" as I see it.

I'll take first shot at this one.

That's a classic Groucho Marx line. IIRC, it was first heard in "Animal Crackers",

the stage-show and the movie.

(And 3 cheers for Captain Spaulding, I say.)

Since you're specifying a TV show, I'd bet that the show was

"You Bet Your Life",

Groucho's game-show.

I understand Dan. Let me see if I can crack that particular nut a bit for you. Please try to listen with your heart instead of your head.

In my opening post (and subsequent posts) I've spoke of only two theological attributes of God -- Omniscience and Omnipotence. There is a third -- Omnibenevolence.

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.

Now I can love a God that isn't Omniscient. I can even love a God that isn't Omnipotent but, I can't love a God that is not 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.

In my mind the first two (as is commonly understood) negates the latter. So in order for me to believe in and to love God I have to, in all good conscience, jettison the first two.

You see my friend -- If you need to believe in a God that's Omnipotent and Omniscient in order to love Him, I'm fine with that. The bottom line is we both want to love God. Whatever gets you to the place where your love of God is deepen -- I'm all for it. I can't imagine when we both meet God face to face that He'll look over at me and say: "Why didn't you believe that?" or look over at you and say: "Why did you believe that?" I think He'll look at us both and say: "You loved me well and that pleases me greatly."

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:

I basically get the point of the above. I understand what you said about Abraham, and I agree, completely. I understand the ideas separately, I just can’t connect the two together.

'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.'

That's your point about the other-dimension beings, right? God condescends to meet with man?

Right.

I mentioned as much in the 2nd of the long posts, starting off.

me:

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.

mentions 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.

Geisler’s Chosen but Free goes over the variations of Calvinism and gets more technical than Hunt. I found something interesting on page 45 that I thought was appropriate for this discussion on what does God know:

“Let’s again illustrate the harmony of predetermination and free choice. Suppose you cannot watch your favorite sports event live on TV. So you videotape it. When you watch it later, the entire game and every play in it are absolutely determined and can never be changed. No matter how many times you rerun it, the final score, as well as every aspect of every play, will always be the same.

Yet when the game happened, every event was freely chosen. No one was forced to play. Therefore, the same event was both determined and free at the same time.

Someone may object that this is so only because the event has already occurred, and that before the game occurred it was not predetermined. In response we need only point out that if God is all-knowing [omniscient], then from the standpoint of His foreknowledge the game was predetermined. For He knew eternally exactly how it was going to turn out, even though we did not.

Therefore, if God has infallible foreknowledge of the future, including our free acts, then everything that will happen in the future is predetermined, even our free acts. This does not mean these actions are not free; it simply means that God knew how we were going to use our freedom – and that He knew it for sure.”

End of excerpts

I don't think I can improve on this explanation. This is how I see the interaction

between Omniscience and free will.

If it's all the same to you I would prefer that you address my last post. Can you show me how my syllogism is in error?

Now then, I see that you would prefer NOT to address my syllogism. Fine. It stands un-refuted.

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.)

Thanks for that information Mike.

Thank him for OFFERING HIS OPINIONS.

He's entitled to his own opinions.

Me, I say his conclusions were all SPECULATION and are UNSUPPORTED.

I would add that in addition to all this VP didn't like the idea of the U.S. sending billions of $$$ to Israel every year .

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....

Wouldn't it be great if PFAL was on internet free of charge.

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.

For me the following came to pass:

Makes Life Meaningful

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.

Explains Apparent Bible Contradictions

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.

Develops More Harmony in the Home

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.

Enables You to Separate Truth from Error

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.)

Teaches How to Pray Effectively

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.

The other claims came to pass but not necessarily from PFAL, so I don't count those.

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.]

Imo, there are far too many examples in the Bible that suggests that God may not be omniscient. For instance you have:

Genesis 22 – In this account you have Abram preparing to sacrifice his son.

In verses 11 and 12 it says "And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me."

In a simple reading of the text it seems apparent that God's knowledge is limited. In other words – How is it possible for this statement "now I know" to be true if the theology of God having fore-knowledge is true? In other words -- the verse seems to indicate that prior to Abram actually going as far as he did God didn't know Abram "fearest" Him. An all-knowing God would have known even before this that Abram did indeed "fear" Him.

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..."

Keep in mind, Wordwolf, that Darwin's version/understanding of evolution has (if you'll pardon the term) evolved to what we have now, ... and will continue to evolve as more information becomes available.

I'm concerned that there's preconceived notions that haven't been reconsidered.

One thing for sure, is that, for whatever amount of blind faith is individually exhibited in Darwinism/evolution, it doesn't come anywhere near the systematic level of blind faith involved in religion, a concept itself that is based upon that kind of faith, the kind of faith that demands belief w/o scrutiny or open challenge. As the biblical verse itself which plainly states, "For we walk by faith, not by sight." And sorry, but you can't tag that one onto evolution, no matter how hard you try, because science requires 'sight', ie., evidence.

"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.

And there is more to evolutionary science than even the examples that you posted, Wordwolf. I seriously don't think that the giraffe's neck simply came about by generation after generation of neck-stretching. I'm not a biologist myself, but I think that there is more to it than that.

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.

You know, I wonder how much force of argument would be a part of Creationist thought if you take away the Bible from being treated like it was some scientific authority. What would they have left? Because for all their protestations to the contrary about claiming to rely upon science to prove Creationism, it all seems to come back to keeping the content of Genesis sacrosanct from two things: 1) scrutiny and challenge, and 2) treating its contents as less than The Final Authoritative Word of God. Almost like its a line that shalt not be crossed under any circumstances. (Keep in mind that I was once a Bible believer myself, so I have some familiarity of the landscape, as it were. ;) )

Ie., loyalty to the 'integrity' of the Scriptures makes for a very poor argument/basis for challenging what has been shown to be a valid theory (evolution), particularly if you are going to come at it from the scientific angle.

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.

It's a telltale sign someone still has a strong TWI-influence [either directly or via offshoot], when they barge in with a certain belligerent attitude. It has NOTHING to do with their viewpoint – it has everything to do with their attitude. I thought Tonto's choice of words "people who choose to be ignorant" was good – one of the dictionary definitions of "ignorant" is "lacking knowledge or awareness of the thing specified."

I can understand if someone has never been touched by the overt acts of the predator. If they were impressed with the pristine Christian image of vpw presented [either directly by TWI or via offshoot], then they will hold his ministry in high regard.

It hits me as odd though, whenever someone comes here and begins whittling away at folks who have firsthand experience of TWI's dark side – and threads become a let's-turn the tables-around-on-the-TWI-critics game. In my opinion, the person is either a plant [of TWI or offshoot] or they're in denial after hearing some shocking information.

If they are a plant – they have chosen to attack those with experiential knowledge of TWI's dark side. To them I say, "Shame on you !!!!"

If they are merely someone who likes vpw's teachings and fond memories of their sweet TWI experiences – that's okay – I would warn them though – that visiting Grease Spot will more than likely have a negative impact on their thoughts about TWI. That's their choice if they want to risk that.

Grease Spot is not like TWI – where the only attitudes welcomed are the ones favorable to them. Nor is Grease Spot a church where everyone is encouraged to drop all their petty differences and have a group hug with Jesus. I like the atmosphere here because it gets people to think. I like the freedom here. I don't have to agree with someone, and don't have to like someone's belligerent attitude either – I can even say so out loud. I spent 12 years selling a pristine image of vpw to folks – and I'm certainly not interested in whitewashing that image now, because sales are down.

As for my arrogance, that’s only true if what I serve is not the truth of God’s Word like it has not been known since the first century. It’s PFAL is false, then I must plead guilty to arrogance, but at least I’d be arrogant with a willingness to serve what I THINK is the truth. I could be worse, like arrogant WITHOUT a willingness to serve.

But if PFAL is from God, THEN I’m not arrogant, just accurate, and willing to serve the accuracy of God’s wonderful matchless Word.

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.

How do you know Jesus didn’t take PFAL? I’ve heard that one before, but usually it’s Paul that people point out could not have taken PFAL.

anyone to raise.

I'll keep it next to "how do you know Jesus didn't eat sour cream on Wednesdays?"

Paul went on his time travel trip to the future to see why he was busting his arss so bad. God showed and taught him by revelation (It was not physics type relativistic time travel.) God showed him how His will finally prevails.

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.

Do I believe Paul and Jesus actually sat through the 36 hours for three weeks, four nights a week? No. They’d have to have learned English for that and it hadn’t been invented yet. Did you think that I would say they both had signed green cards?

I simply believe God taught them in their own tongue (like us) the same general gist and principles that are set forth in PFAL. Dr had 17 different ways of teaching the class (Walter told me this) when he was doing it live. There are always lots of ways to teach the same basic material.

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...

Correct on all counts. There was also a sub-plot with Dr. Crusher and Geordi putting out some burning barrels by opening a shuttle bay door, but I couldn't find any quotes for that.

George

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....

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.

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.

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.

If God's understanding is infinite, his knowledge must perforce be infinite. (How can he understand anything

He doesn't know?)

I Samuel 2:3b (King James Version)

for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.

That means his knowledge is really up there.

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.

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.

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:

That's tough to do if you only perceive the present....

Isaiah 57:15a

15For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy

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.

Malachi 3:6a

For I am the LORD, I change not.

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.