WordWolf

September 12, 2007

Jean, thanks for sharing. My Mom had a similar experience; she went to twig for a whole year before taking the class. No high pressure sales, and much enjoyment and blessings at twig.

That's great.

Then again, IIRC, she heard during the "best" days/times of twi,

face-to-face from some of the "groovy Christians", the hijacked hippies from the House of Acts.

No surprise THEY weren't high-pressure salesmen- the corps was still in its early development then,

and there was no Dale Carnegie section in it-if they were even IN vpw's corps.

THEY were about enjoyment and blessings.

If twi as a whole had been about that, there'd be no GSC.

Me, I got the later stuff, and my twig was much lower in pressure.

That meant I got to attend a few before they mentioned signing up for "the class."

However, when we had a corps drop in, he immediately began pushing for signups.

When he found out I was the only one there who wasn't "a grad", they practically had to pull him off

me and keep repeating "he's signed up!"

At that moment, I might have been the ONLY person signed up locally, in fact.

What a shame we all couldn't experience the groovy Christians who were the backbone of the

"early twi" experience.

(Actually, the REAL early twi days supposedly would run from 1942-1968,

before there were groovy Christians.

Of that period of over 20 years, we haven't heard any personal accounts,

membership being small enough to barely displace water in a hot tub

across the entire "era".

September 11, 2007

TWI was thriving until the early 80's.

Having spent some time listening to all posters from the earliest days they've posted from, and

read what twi themselves have written, it's a little more complicated.

Despite them wishing otherwise, twi was greatly dependent upon the times and the "Zeitgeist."

twi didn't really exist beyond a double-handful of people-

despite having pfal and the pfal books-

until vpw selected the hippies of the House of Acts in Haight-Ashbury,

and recruited some of them into twi,

and convinced THEM to be his "sales force" for pfal.

Almost everyone who ever posted here can trace back, and back, and eventually point to one of

the handful as they were assigned to different locations.

(For example, if Steve H went to a place, he convinced people there twi had something to offer,

and they joined, and got involved, and THEY convinced people twi had something to offer,

and THOSE people joined, and so on.

That process slowed when the days of the hippie waned, and vpw indoctrinated people out of the

spontaneity and liberty that was once such a draw.

So, fewer people were convinced, and membership growth SLOWED.

However, with so many people now IN twi, a slower rate was STILL a sizeable number of people

joining each year. As legalism got stricter and stricter-which began at the end of vpw's reign

as he put more corps on-location locally. (Many corps absorbed the loyalty and obedience vpw

wanted them to learn, so this served him well when they did.)

Once lcm was in charge, this process sped up a LOT. However, it was already in place.

lcm was a lot more efficient, however, at choking all the spontaneity, joy, and freedom from people,

which led to membership numbers freefalling to current numbers of a few thousand adults where

tens of thousands freely acted and were involved.

Coinciding with LCM running the show, there were distinct changes in the attitude and atmosphere surrounding TWI. LCM's reign marked legalism where obedience to the organization superceded obedience to God. It was more important that the chairs were lined up perfectly than whether the teachings were properly researched. It was more important to have Corps people telling others what to do than following the spirit of God. It was more important to tell people what to do than offer true Christian counseling. It was more important to suppress hurt than to seek comfort and counsel from others.

All true. lcm learned it when HE was in the corps, he passed it on to all the corps when vpw put him in charge,

and he imposed it on EVERYONE eventually.

By this time, he was convinced this was "normal", since he'd spent almost his entire adult life fulltime on-grounds

at twi.

All of the aforementioned items seemed to cloud the importance of God's Word. God magnified the Word above his name, not etiquette or perfect symettry nor how many people got signed up for PFAL nor how much some abundantly shared.

True, and a pity, true it's a pity, and a pity it's true.

Yet, we did hear many great truths in teachings. Let's face it, we were encouraged to believe positively and that did help people accomplish many wonderful things. People did trust God and have tremendous fellowship with God and their fellow believers. Those are not minor things. I am sure God was thrilled by the great love those believers showed him.

I'm confident those were good things.

They weren't ALL things in twi, but those you mentioned were good things.

They meant people's lives, and those are not minor things!

We can't let hurt and bitterness destroy our relationship with our heavenly Father.

True.

So long as you don't say "that relationship=reproducing twi-classic all over again,"

I can get behind this.

Of course, I only speak for myself.

Well, that's where you and I differ. You're working from hindsight and I was working from foresight. I mentioned to quite a few (select) people back in my days that the ministry will fall. I saw the "handwriting on the wall." Some/many just couldn't see it. In fact I remember having one particular discussion with a leader about LCM and what I was seeing and her response to me was: "Larry, why can't I see what you see?" My answer was: "I don't know. Perhaps you're not ready to see it."

I'll take your word for it that you saw it then.

I'm also being honest that anyone looking back and trying to reconstruct thinking in the past

can sound a lot smarter than they would honestly have been at the time, since they can now

suppose they'd happen to have passed judgements that reflected what actually happened.

So, I THINK this would have been obvious to me if I'd been close enough, but since I was not,

I can't guarantee it.

September 11, 2007

I think I might have mentioned (in a previous thread) earlier in my foray on GS that I held the pov that LCM was the wrong choice to take over as President of TWI. His arrogance was obvious to me even back then and what's the Word say about "pride goeth before a fall and a haughty spirit before destruction" or something like that?

It's pretty much a consensus here that there was a least a dozen competent top people who would have

stepped up if asked, all of whom would have been a better choice than lcm.

(Which ones they are sometimes vary depending on the speaker- since some would name cg, some would name vf,

some would name neither, and so on.)

I don't think ANY of them-based on what I've seen since- would have been a PERFECT choice, but a few would have

been very good choices, and most of the "short list" would have been less awful even at their worst when in office.

People who were close have reported that vpw was recommended to a lot of people- none of whom were lcm.

However, he decided lcm would be it despite all considerations offered to him.

He gave one of two answers to the few he answered as to why:

A) lcm was the corps director, therefore, the corps would follow him without question

B) lcm never gave him an argument-whenever vpw told him to do something, he just did it, no questions.

Hindsight is 20/20, but if someone could not give me better reasons than that today, I'd know the organization

in question was steering on a course for destruction.

September 11, 2007

TBone
I guess I kind of understood that.

Having not experienced that, (we are talking about an experience only he has had right?), so its a little difficult to relate. So your saying time is a dimension to us and not to God?

That's pretty much what he's saying, I think. It's essentially one thing I'm saying-

we experience time moving from past thru present to future,

and to God, they're all simultaneous, since He has full Understanding of all of them,

and has the power to act fully in all of them.

Isaiah 57:15 (King James Version)

King James Version (KJV)

15For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

It looks like it from here.

Then again, it's not QUITE the "smoking gun" when King James English isn't relied on,

so it's not exactly fair or honest for us to do so....

Isaiah 57:15 (New American Standard Bible)

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

15For thus says the high and exalted One Who lives forever, whose name is Holy,

"I dwell on a high and holy place, And also with the contrite and lowly of spirit

In order to revive the spirit of the lowly And to revive the heart of the contrite."

I think that, despite this not being a "smoking gun", that we're still representing the concepts fairly, accurately and truly.

Of course he has perfect foreknowlege so why experience a family? Why not just experience it in foreknowledge? (Arghh but that wouldnt be a real experience or not? ) I think the answer to that is God wants a "rest" A place of quiet enjoyment.
Anyways its a bit like entering the Twilight Zone since we have never experienced it right?

Please note that not having the family since He already knows us in the future is not an option-

God would produce a time-paradox, where he prevented events from happening and they happened anyway.

The old example in science fiction you know from Back to the Future-

if you prevent your parents from ever meeting, you prevent your birth, which prevents you from going back

in time, which prevents you from stopping them from meeting,

which means they DO meet, and give birth to you-

so now you can go back in time and prevent them from meeting.....

It can make the head hurt.

So, God, being sensible, doesn't miracle up a prefabricated "family" designed to love Him,

he goes thru the trouble of raising them the slow, old-fashioned way.

He also avoids making paradoxes and other problems.

God doesn't just miracle away things and erase rules He's made (like "past" and "present",

and "cause and effect.")

========

In other news,

I have to take on faith that, to God, we're worth all the energy He's invested in us.

Me, I don't see it. I think He's wasting a lot of energy on some barely-appreciative, and barely-loving, fractious children.

To someone All-Knowing, this makes sense.

So, I'll have to trust Him that we're worth it.

September 11, 2007

How is it you have enuf time to respond with this tit-for-tat but not enuf time to actually address my syllogism?

I already answered that in the past few posts....

Our understanding of "God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all" and "God is love" comes into play, here. The statements themselves are utterly true, IMO. The trouble occurs when we say "therefore."

September 11, 2007

WW I may have been born at night but, it wasn't last night. Your subtlety may fool others but your veiled insults directed towards me have not gone unnoticed.

You know,

if you were less eager to insult me, you might be less eager to perceive insult WHERE NONE WAS OFFERED.

I made a post. You followed it by responding to a post I made days ago.

I'm going largely from the front of the thread to the back, with pauses for what I consider are germane posts on this thread.

So, I'm responding to MOST posts from days ago.

I don't see anyone else perceiving insult in this.

But it's particular with you.

I stated -- If it's all the same to you I prefer you address my last post.

And I was writing a pair of very long posts, and didn't LOOK for your post while I was posting them both.

This may surprise you, but when I post here, it's often to say something, and often that's not necessarily something

YOU find a benefit, nor addressed to you at all, but OTHERS here find the use.

This thread isn't about me- I deliberately stayed quiet for the beginning for that reason.

It's also not about you, OR you and me.

You followed that with another post ignoring my request and when I pointed that out you gave some excuse and said you would answer it when you had more time to consider it.

Your second request-which was NOT a "polite request" but an insinuation I wasn't replying for some reason

or other of less-than-innocent intent- was seen by me after I posted the second of the 2 lengthy posts.

Instead you continued to ignore it.

Actually, it would have been less polite if I just rattled off some quick answer to your question-suggesting

that I didn't think it was worthy of serious consideration. Instead, I said I'd get back to it- so I could address

it with a full measure of attention.

Somehow, you perceive that as an insult.

When you rephrased it, and I saw the rephrasal, it's obvious the question you want specifically addressed is

one of Calvinism, which is not my interest, nor what I'm working on at this time.

I wasn't having any discussion on Calvinism-others were.

I have other aspects of this that I consider warrant more of my attention, and I'm addressing THOSE,

both in my own mind and in the posts earlier on in the thread.

I didn't say I'll NEVER address this, but if I do, it will be when I've dismissed what I consider are higher

priority.

Now what else am I suppose to think but that perhaps you know the implication of my syllogism and to answer it would trap you in a theology that makes you uncomfortable.

So you're admitting that bringing in Calvinism-or those specific questions of Calvinism-

were "to trap me."

The rest of us were having an intelligent, cordial discussion about the knowledge of God.

We're discussing in good faith.

I'd rather complete THAT discussion before delving into trick questions.

I certainly haven't been giving YOU trick questions-I've been giving you questions in good faith and in light

of the posts already here-thus, questions with no surprises hidden in them.

So, you're saying I can't expect the same from you. That's a shame.

If you were less interested in "scoring points" and more interested in the exchange of knowledge,

you'd get more from this thread.

As it is, it's really not supposed to be about you, me, or both of us.

You seem determined to change that, however....

I'll remind you again -- you told me before that I don't have a right to expect people to stay on topic.

Each of us can ASK others nicely to stay on topic- and I do so. Many times, they do. Many times, they do not.

Since neither of us runs this messageboard, we can't do more than that.

This came as news to you?

You did so in a very condescending fashion.

No, just in a matter-of-fact fashion.

I was stating a fact.

I don't couch those in flowery prose, most of the time.

You may have PERCEIVED insult, but none was offered.

Now you're trying to imply that I'm not meeting your standard of discourse and attempting to bully me into complying with YOUR standard.

A) The rest of us are having a nice discussion without anyone having to give any sort of rules.

You just admitted that-while we're doing that- you're upset that you're trying to trap (your words, not mine)

us and getting angry when we're not satisfying your trap.

B) You're the one showing anger and pushing a run of interruptions because we're not posting the way

YOU want and falling into your INTENTIONAL trap.

And you're trying to claim that refusing to do so, and carrying on with a polite discussion,

is "bullying."

How many people do you think you're fooling there?

September 11, 2007

Yes, excellent posts Wordwolf.
From Satan's fall to man's fall, God needs to let all of creation in the universe - angel and man - see that he is just, his judgment is just and his plans are just.

If, after Satan sinned, God had just opted to destroy him, would the other spiritual beings not start to doubt and maybe start to wonder, would not someone else step up and rebel. Instead of enduring an endless cycle of rebellion over and over, it makes more sense to let everything play out, so at the end, when all are gathered up and the kingdom is here, those inhabitants freely worship and walk with him and have no desire to leave his love.

I also read somewhere, you can think of it like this: If someone told you that you could inhabit paradise, utopia, or whatever you want to call it, where everything would be love, perfection, the heaven men dream of; would you go through 5 minutes of hurt to get there for eternity?

I.e., would you put up with some bad (man's free will to do evil) for a moment, to attain the utopia?

Basically, everyone questioned, said, of course.

What we consider a long time, is but a blip on God's timeline.

Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 (NASB)

13The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person.

14For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.

===========

Now, how about a partial answer as to why God doesn't just smash all evildoers NOW like some masked vigilante?

Matthew 13:24-30. (NASB)

24Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field.

25"But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away.

26"But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also.

27"The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?'

28"And he said to them, 'An enemy has done this!' The slaves said to him, 'Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?'

29"But he said, 'No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them.

30'Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."'"

Matthew 13:36-43. (NASB)

36Then He left the crowds and went into the house And His disciples came to Him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field."

37And He said, "The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man,

38and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one;

39and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels.

40"So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age.

41"The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness,

42and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

43"Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father He who has ears, let him hear.

We're addressing now what may be considered a great mystery to some people, but it can become obvious when asking

the right question while looking at the right verses.

Jesus said the servants of the evil one weren't removed and destroyed NOW because there would then be a risk

to the sons of the kingdom. One might ask why there would be such a problem, since God can see who is His and who is not.

The answer is actually pretty simple.

God knows- but he relates to us not necessarily with all He knows about us, but only what we have done up to the present.

Some people, at different times, whether through foolish choices, horrible events, or the malignant intent of others,

can SEEM to freely choose to serve the evil one- at least for a time.

If a sudden judgement was upon us at that time, we would have no time to reform, to turn and walk the paths of

righteousness, to serve God.

If a sudden judgement was upon us and reflected our later decisions, it would be unfair, since it was based on what we

haven't DONE yet. (It would be like being jailed for a FUTURE crime when you haven't even CONSIDERED committing

a crime...)

Some of us children of God have traveled harder paths, traveled darker paths. God allowed us to turn to Him when WE

were ready, and did not "rush" us. God's allowed us to leave those paths on our own time, and did not render a

summary judgement BEFOREtime.

God operates on GOD's schedule, which is often FAR too slow for our tastes, especially in the era of microwaved foods,

airplane travel, overnight mail, and e-mail. However, He operates on a schedule with more than our whims taken into

account. ALL is taken into account, eventually.

Once it IS taken into account, things will be different.

Revelation 21:1-4 (NASB)

1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.

2And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.

3And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them,

4and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.

September 11, 2007

Translation: I can't answer your syllogism, so I'll bury it with a bunch of words.
I'm cool with that.

Translation translation: I didn't get the answer I wanted, and I want to draw attention from

refusing to dialogue equally like WordWolf pointed out, so I'll throw out an accusation that

WW COULDN'T answer me, and insult him for posting at length.

I'm not thrilled about that,

but if that's where you're at, that's where you're at.

I wish you wouldn't pull this on a thread with a productive discussion on this, however.

September 11, 2007

1:"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."

2:"What sort of taxes and fees are you referring to?"

1:"For example... on a recent shipment of Karemman Fleece, a four percent surcharge was added to pay for inspecting the cargo for 'changeling infiltrators.'"

2:"What?"

3:"You never know where they might be hiding."

1:"Another three percent of the shipment's value was lost due to 'unforeseen' currency fluctuations."

3:"There was a run on the Bolian Credit Exchange... played havoc with the markets..."

1:"A six percent tariff was imposed to help offset the 'lost income of Tarkalian sheep herders.'"

3:"Hardworking people... you have to feel for them..."

1:"Should I go on, Captain... ?"

2:"No... I think you've made your point..."

"Sensor range was limited, so we learned to use an old active-scan system to navigate."

"It works by echo-location... we send out a modulated tetrion pulse, and if it reflects off the hull of a ship, we can approximate its location."

"Won't these pulses give away our position as well?"

"We'll have to alter course and speed after each one."

September 11, 2007

Was this "Freejack"?

Had a time machine, stepping into the shoes of another,

and almost nobody seeing it.

I didn't see it, but I did read "Immortality Inc" which was the inspiration for the movie.

September 11, 2007

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.

September 11, 2007

"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.

September 11, 2007

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.

September 11, 2007

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.

September 11, 2007

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 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.

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.)

September 11, 2007

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.

anotherDan:

'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.

If you look at that link explaining Flatland, you may notice that the bottom of the page

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.

September 10, 2007

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.)

September 10, 2007

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....

September 10, 2007

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.

September 10, 2007

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 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.

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

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.)

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.

September 10, 2007

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.]

September 10, 2007

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.