WordWolf

I think we've got a bunch of Jeudes worshippers and Jeudes apologists on this thread .

Or a bunch of vpw worshippers and vpw apologists ATTACKING Juedes and getting responses.

Hey, your terms.

Me, I think this labelling business is silly.

Well, if you're going to put it that way (no pun intended) then should the "witnesses" still involved in TWI not be counted as a testimony? I know you would prefer to call them unreliable and deceived but, you can't have your cake and eat it too. ;)

I never said they shouldn't count. Ever.

This "prefer to call them unreliable and deceived" thing didn't come from my posts.

But, hey, if you're better able to handle reading my posts by changing their content, well, that's your business.

Rascal don't you find it a bit unreasonable that someone should swallow someone's claims without having first-hand knowledge of whether it's true or not?

I'll break it down in case you're interested in seeing the difference.

In courts of law, they are almost entirely concerned with reconstruction of exactly what happened at a specific

place and time, both in what occurred, and WHY it occurred, what each person was THINKING.

Every day, in courts all over the world, they do their best to determine this, and judgements are handed down

based on their best abilities to reconstruct what happened.

Except for incidents that bring in videotape, all of that relies on eyewitness testimony in the majority.

========

Since the court is unable to obtain first-hand knowledge of whether any eyewitness' testimony is true or not,

according to you, it is "a bit unreasonable" to suppose they can be relied on to even the smallest degree.

What the court does, is invoke the examination and the cross-examination,

and compare the testimony, examination and cross-examination of ALL witnesses.

Often, it seems amazingly straightforward to see what happened- eyewitnesses that were neutral and have

no reason to lie all agreed to the smallest degree.

This is sometimes based on Biblical injunctions.

Deuteronomy 17:5-7 (King James Version)

5Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

6At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

7The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.

Deuteronomy 19:15 (King James Version)

15One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

Matthew 18:16 (King James Version)

16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

2 Corinthians 13:1 (King James Version)

1This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

1 Timothy 5:19-20 (King James Version)

19Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

20Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

Hebrews 10:28 (King James Version)

28He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

So, according to GOD ALMIGHTY,

it is sensible and recommended, that the testimony of witnesses be considered and weighed,

and when more than one agree, it strengths their testimony.

When 2 or 3 agree, it is to be considered reliable.

In the case of vpw, which you were suggesting,

many, many people have provided direct, first-person testimony.

Under the judgement of GOD ALMIGHTY,

that's considered reliable.

In short, REASONABLE.

The "swallowing" of their claims, that is, the idea that anyone here would automatically embrace any of them,

that's an invention of those who have no desire to examine the testimony of 2 or 3 (or many more)

witnesses, which GOD ALMIGHTY determined to be sufficient, and necessary, to make a judgement.

I certainly didn't begin thinking vpw did evil. However, when MANY, MANY witnessed provided testimony,

I agreed with God Almighty that such things were established in their mouths.

I don't know of ANYONE who FIRST heard the evils vpw did, and, lacking personal experience of them,

said "that's got to be true."

However, it's a convenient fiction-convenient for those who wish to stop their ears to the testimony of the

witnesses- to pretend that happened all the time.

You're delusional, my dear.

So,

it's wrong for a man of God to address errors and hurts among ONE group of Christians

unless he's prepared to visit ALL groups of Christians,

(as characterized by posting about errors and hurts in twi but not ALL groups),

but it's a perfectly-efficient use of a Christian layman's time to post that a fellow Christian is

"delusion",

and this is either harmless or some version of ministering grace to the hearer.

Larry, don`t you find it the least bit incongruous that you defend a lying, adulterous, alcoholic, who treated the people entrusted to him like no more than a resource to be utilized and thrown away when all usefullness was exhausted...a criminal who drugged and raped the young followers who couldn`t be seduced or bullied....

Yet you are relentless in your attack of the people who were decieved, used, and suffered at his hands and under the policies that he enacted?

Doesn`t that strike you as wierd that your contempt is resereved for the people endured the mistreatment, rather than the creep who perpetrated the acts?

See, rascal,

if someone lies and destroys the reputation of someone,

and the person who did it was vpw,

that's perfectly fine.

So, when he did that with women who refused him, kicking them off the field,

calling them possessed, and forbidding twi'ers to have contact with them,

that's ok because it was vpw and he must have had a good reason to do it.

If someone reports that vpw did that,

they they're lying and destroying the reputation of vpw,

and that's wrong.

vpw gets a special exemption from all rules of conduct and doctrine,

and anyone who disagrees is to be shouted down, insulted, or belittled.

it's that simple.

Remember when this thread was about vpw?

Funny how someone keeps changing it specifically into about someone else.

Not in exploring the initial question, either- it's a deliberate subject CHANGE.

Can it be that someone wants to make this thread NOT about whether vpw was a false prophet

or false servant of God, or whether he was actually a good minister?

Maybe.

And this attitude is exactly why I won't waste my time. I'm quite certain that even if I were to bring to the table an example of what I speak of you'll most likely ignore the implication of it or "spin" it to justify the comments.

Or, it would completely fail to support your point, the ridiculous notion that

John Juedes belittled Wierwille for failing to follow his own teaching,

instead of what he did, which was

John Juedes belittled the false doctrine, and said Wierwille's failure to stop the cancer in his own body was proof that the doctrine was false. That's the whole point.

But hey,

if you want to pretend that posts written months ago were written to support the position of an article that wasn't written

until several months after them, feel free.

I'm questioning people's perceptions and recollections.

So,

suggesting that any real Christian minister who posted here at all was neglecting his job,

or that any Christian layman who posted here on twi but not on any other group,

were in some way neglecting working for God or acting inappropriately,

those fit some definition of yours of

"questioning people's perceptions and recollections."

Those are non-standard definitions you use.

Well, you're trying to justify his time spent here.

Actually, I challenged your insinuation that it there is a problem with the fact that

"a full-time minister has ANY time to be here at all."

It seems to me that you implied he comes here during his "down-time" from actually ministering to his flock. I consider that to be the same as saying -- he does it for recreational reasons.

I often can use my discretionary time doing things that directly benefit others.

I think when Juedes does that here, he's benefitting others.

You disagree- or are insinuating you disagree.

(Frankly, I prefer when you say it outright.)

I don't see anything in the Bible that justifies what he's doing.

Others do. They see a direct correlation between Biblical warnings and people using the Bible to warn,

and warn that others are supposedly using the Bible and are not.

He believes it's part of his ministry and I'd like to know where in the Bible does it speak of Christians having such a ministry.

And how did you go in the same sentence from

"part of his ministry" to "such a ministry?"

You went from nowhere to "he believes it's PART of his ministry"

and from there to it being his ENTIRE ministry.

Quite a set of leaps there.

I'm sure you're aware of the passage that exhorts us to redeem our time because the days are evil. Was that an exhortation to expose false prophets or an exhortation to reach out to those who haven't heard of and accepted Jesus as their Lord?

That is correct!

It is an exhortion to expose false prophets

AND to reach out to those who haven't heard of and accepted Jesus as their Lord,

as well as many OTHER things.

Obviously, it's not to you.

Oh, so you're a bit selective in who you wish to help escape from the clutches of false prophets and doctrine. Fair enuf. :)

No, I acknowledge I don't have infinite time, and address what I choose to address.

I cannot help the entire world myself.

I have neither the time nor the skills to do so.

I address that which I have the time and skills to do so, and trust God to raise up others to handle the rest.

I notice you do much the same-you post here and don't spend your days in meetings exposing other groups,

or even on websites doing the same. But when I do it, you're suggesting it's wrong, when you're doing it,

that's perfectly fine.

Now, then,

I said

"Feel free to go to THOSE websites and discuss THOSE topics at THOSE websites.

Or even to make a website that focuses on all three.

Or participate at an existing one that does all three."

and Larry distorted the meaning of that and said that I said

Nice dodge! Translation: Why don't you stfu!

victims of other groups can be served rather practically by him TRYING TO HELP THEM rather than saying

I should be out there trying to help them, trying to convince me to help them, or criticizing me for not

being out there helping them.

He's free to do that. Instead, he turns THAT into "stfu."

That's illogical. And inflammatory.

Sure you are but, let's be honest about it. You're not interested in rescuing people who have been hoodwinked and blinded by false prophets and doctrine.

Yes I am.

And I'm qualified to help those who were hoodwinked and blinded by false prophets and doctrine in twi.

So those are the ones I help there.

I also help OTHER Christians I'm qualified to help.

That's to hear them say it, when they thank me for helping them.

You're only interested in . . . hmm . . . denigrating TWI because of what it DID to you. It's a personal thingy.

It's HARDLY personal. I rarely discuss "what it did to me."

And when I do, it's with the purpose of passing along information, or in a dialogue that passes along information.

Sometimes, I even conclude that something that might have been complaint-worthy actually was NOT.

I started at least two threads where those were the conclusions.

Which means that we learned some things that DIDN'T denigrate twi.

I also have posted on threads that don't denigrate twi, and have posted posts that don't.

But feel free to ignore them if they trouble your worldview so...

Oh! Are you saying this is a recreational moment for John? :)

I don't know.

You questioned the suitability of a full-time minister to have any time to post here at all.

Larry:

I find it interesting that a full-time minister has ANY time to be here at all.

WW:

Any person, no matter how busy, can usually fit in a few free moments across a week.

Any minister who just bulls on infinitely without any downtime will be unable to help his

congregation due to insufficient rest.

So, whether this is recreational, solemn, both, neither, or somewhere in between is a non-issue.

WW, make up your mind. One time you speak of the flexibility of these discussions going on in different directions and then you speak of it being important that we stay on topic.

I pointed out it wasn't relevant to what happened.

Larry:

I would like to know what scriptural support such a full-time minister has for justifying a ministry of attacking any ministry which has a doctrine contrary to his own.

Anyone who just supposed it just HAPPENED to sound like you meant it to refer to Juedes when you were discussing him a sentence

ago is just imagining things, I suppose.... <_<

I pointed out it didn't apply to him at all, despite your interest in INSINUATING it did so.

=======

If you are speaking of those who are "ordained" ministers I'll agree with you. But don't kid yourself. Some people here have made it their "ministry" to attack other ministries. In particular TWI.

This site is dedicated to only exposing TWI.

I'll agree with you there.

Now ask yourself this question: Of all the cults out there which one has the greatest following? The Mormons. The Jehovah Witnesses. If you're really interested in exposing false doctrine and reaching out to those who have succumbed to it -- then obviously you're overlooking cults that have a great following.

No, we're just not focused on THAT at THIS website.

Feel free to go to THOSE websites and discuss THOSE topics at THOSE websites.

Or even to make a website that focuses on all three.

Or participate at an existing one that does all three.

I'm free to do all of those as well-but I exercise my freedom NOT to do them instead. :)

Dr. Juedes wrote the following:

That is simply not true. PFAL was a series, the foundational class being the foundation. That being said, it wasn't the whole story. When one studies the advanced class materials, and B.G. Leonards writings from whence the materials came, one discovers quickly that God is very much involved in the operations of the manifestations.

Which has NOTHING TO DO with how vpw described the so-called "LAW" of believing.

Don't change the subject off of the so-called "LAW" of believing.

Dr. Juedes accusation on this point is a sham.

He didn't do his homework.

Or, he stuck to documenting his subject, the so-called "LAW" of believing.

Or, deliberately left out information he knew about.

When I write anything, I leave out lots of information I know about,

since it's not relevant to the subject.

In this case, that's the so-called 'LAW of believing.

For example it is interesting to note that Dr. Juedes doesn't mention anything about B.G. Leonard in his "Wierwille's Sources" chapter.

You might address that to him at some point- but bringing it up at this SPECIFIC point makes it look like you're

trying to obfuscate the issues by changing the subject.

How is it "exonerating" someone when you belittle them for being unable to follow their own teaching. Instead of saying how sad it was for VP to have died from cancer most people I seen here have used it to denigrate the man. It reminds me of those people who went to the funeral of a fallen soldier to protest against the Iraq war.

You're ignoring the meaning of the word "exonerate".

Belittling someone or not belittling someone has nothing to do whether or not they are exonerated.]

If you were accused of killing a man by stabbing him to death in a street-fight,

and you were found to be innocent because it was believed you could not POSSIBLY have prevailed in a street-fight

with him as it was reconstructed,

and they found the man they believed did it-who was able, and the evidence points to him,

then you would be EXONERATED.

If you came along and said "What a minute! They claimed I was physically weak and a lousy fighter!

How is it 'exonerating'?"

that would demonstrate you ignored the meaning of the word "exonerate" while you were, in fact, being exonerated.

Juedes exonerated vpw of being directly responsible for his death by his own believing- which is the logical conclusion

of applying vpw's own explanations of the so-called "law" of believing to his own situation.

Juedes said "believing doesn't work that way, therefore wierwille didn't kill himself with believing,

or fail to save himself from death by refusing to use believing."

That means Juedes said wierwille has been accused of killing himself directly- and that wierwille did not, and here are

the reasons he did not. That is "exonerating."

====

Contrasting this with your hypothetical dead soldier who went to Iraq....

If a soldier was claimed to have shot himself as a desperate escape from the war,

and someone showed the caliber of bullet was from a rifle, and that rifle was not in use by his army,

and the rifle could not be fired at the angle the bullet entered him if he held it himself,

then that man would show the soldier did not kill himself.

In other words, that man would "EXONERATE" that soldier in his own death.

Whether or not anyone LIKED his death, or used it for their own purposes, has nothing to do with whether or not

that soldier was EXONERATED in his own death.

I thought you were concerned with the PROPER use of logic and language....

I find it interesting that a full-time minister has ANY time to be here at all. :)

Any person, no matter how busy, can usually fit in a few free moments across a week.

Any minister who just bulls on infinitely without any downtime will be unable to help his

congregation due to insufficient rest.

I would like to know what scriptural support such a full-time minister has for justifying a ministry of attacking any ministry which has a doctrine contrary to his own.

After all, we don't have any full-time ministers here who have

"a ministry" of "attacking any ministry",

let alone one for "a doctrine contrary to his own."

We do have many posters who are discussing doctrinal errors or what they think are so-

and many posters who expose the practical evils of supposed ministers.

I also would like to know when John had determine that PFAL was full of errors. Was it before he took the class or after?

Perhaps it's worth asking.

Then again, the errors in pfal were there long before he first heard of pfal,

and they remain there to this day,

so timing is interesting on a philosophical level but not a practical one.

Although I must vehemenently disagree with Dr. Juedes and some posters on the current issues being discussed. I think the word "law" in the "law of believing" is being used by some posters and Dr. Juedes to accuse brethren of not abiding in Him, not making their prayers, "prayers of faith" in Him but ones of the "power of the mind", seeking something without God, like as if it were witchcraft. I do not believe this and repudiate this accusation. I think it's a misrepresentation of the way things were taught and applied.

I've noticed how sometimes anything that wasn't written line-by-line in the books supposedly doesn't exist,

and sometimes what IS written line-by-line in the books is meaningless because it ignores what was NOT written in the books.

The books-and the pfal class- have vpw saying that if a man says that by a certain time next year,

he's going to be dead, then, if you're a betting man, put your money on him dying, because

"GOD WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE" to stop him from dying by that place and time.

It says "FEAR IS NEGATIVE BELIEVING" and "FEAR IS BELIEVING IN REVERSE",

and those don't count either....

The class talks about the woman who killed her son with her fear by causing a car to hit him.

"It was the FEAR....in the HEART....of that woman....that killed him."

Rascal, I'm curious as to who stopped posting because of Bumpy's input ??

Personally, I'm not aware of Bumpy SPECIFICALLY stopping someone posting because

of the "input" of Bumpy SPECIFICALLY. Perhaps rascal knows of one such person.

I AM aware that some people have left the GSC because they've gone on with their life and feel no need to come here any more.

I am ALSO aware that some people have left the GSC because of personal attacks, character assassination and a general

contentious environment. I suspect rascal was thinking more of them, but she may also know someone who

SPECIFICALLY left due to Bumpy.

If anything, it's the little clique group that gets there panties in a knot because someone challenges them with moving on in life instead of dwelling on the past that's driving people away, same ole' people same ole' argument.

who begin new threads specifically for the purpose for condemning anyone who challenges their idyllic view of

vpw ("you spend all your lives attacking a great man" and things along those line).

There's also people who DO come here for help, and in no time, there's people who get on them for challenging

their idyllic view of vpw.

I'm not aware of ANYONE who believes in "telling the truth about vpw's rapes and plagiarism" who is NOT

dedicated to people "MOVING ON IN LIFE" BY WAY OF people coming to grips with the truth about vpw.

"If anything."

Let me ask you in all honesty, what has it done for your own life to keep going back there and rehashing TWI days......................yea yea yea, I know it's helped some innies by reading the stuff, but what good has it done for your own life?

I can only answer for myself.

As for me, the main reason I post about "the other side of the story".

It says so.

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/main2/about-us.html

"Our mission is to provide information that tells the other side of the story about The Way International and its trustees. Our hope is that GreaseSpot Cafe serves as a place where those who have been impacted by The Way can make connections with people and information which will support their particular process of recovery.

We want people to be able to make informed decisions regarding their past, present, and future affiliations with The Way International (TWI). Whether you are standing with TWI, thinking about leaving, trying to help someone else get out, or looking for support from others who have left, we believe the information here is highly relevant and well worth considering."

"Consider the longstanding patterns of conspiracy at the trustee level, questionable doctrines and practices, ongoing cover-ups, and sexual abuse of numerous women at the hands of certain TWI leaders. It's no wonder that TWI is desperately trying to shield their followers from this information by warning them off the Internet. We think that if you give this information an honest reading, you'll see that you haven't been told the whole story."

"The opinions expressed here are often passionate and while disagreements are not uncommon, the online Ex-Way community is a great arena for conversing and connecting with others. You may get caught in a food fight now and then, but unlike TWI, GreaseSpot Cafe is a place where questions are encouraged and people make up their own minds."

=====

So,

my PRIMARY purpose in posting here has been to provide information,

and participate in dialogues that provide information.

Funny you should ask at this moment, since I just started a discussion about God's knowledge a few days ago,

and will be part of that discussion very, very shortly.

=======

What is the deep, personal benefit I derive from posting here?

Well,

who said I must derive some deep personal benefit from posting here, reading the newspaper, watching television,

listening to the radio, playing video games, or anything else I do?

Sometimes I derive benefits from each. Sometimes I derive GODLY benefits from each.

I post on messageboards- or stop posting on messageboards-for my own reasons.

If you MUST hear about some benefit, I've gained considerably in understanding history and human behaviour

in analyzing the processes that went from plagiaristic sex maniac by himself to multinational organization.

I can also spin fascinating dinner conversation for more conventional Christians.

(If they pick up the check as a result, you can consider that an immediate personal benefit as well.)

Isn't there a scripture somewhere about not dwelling on the past and reaching forward?

Alexander the coopersmith. Which is preserved for eternity by God Almighty.

Neither of those verses recommends spending the entirety of one's life on any one subject.

Of course, the people exposing the evils of vpw don't spend the entirety of their lives posting at the GSC,

nor exposing vpw's evil. Did you mean to suggest they did, or was that accidental?

I betcha if I came back hear in 10 yrs that little clique group would still be here rehashing the same stuff,

Is there a membership list for "that little clique group"?

If so, I bet we've had rotations over the years.

I can name a number of posters who don't post here regularly (or in years) who WOULD have been considered

part of this list, in all likelihood.

doesn't there come a time in your life when you say enough is enough?

Cowgirl

Sure-

when twi's gone, or possibly when everyone who COULD benefit from the information here HAS benefitted from it,

and when the people who keep trying to rewrite history and make vpw a great humanitarian who never

plagiarized, raped, etc. stop doing so.

In case you're wondering, we DO still get new posters who are posting and freely claiming to benefit from the GSC

as it's stated and as we envision it. Every time they say so is more proof we're benefitting SOMEONE,

whether or not YOU perceive it.

Hey, we're all adults here.

Some of the time, we're here to socialize, some of the time we're here to dialogue, some of the time to

provide information. We can choose to leave, return, or leave for good whenever we wish.

Thank you for your concern, but we're not exactly "trapped" here.

"Offer me money."

"Yes."

"Power too-promise that!"

"All that I have and more. Please."

"Offer me everything I ask for."

"Anything you want!"

"I want my father back, you son of a b*."

I find it interesting that John stirs up the pot and then let's others defend him. :)

I find it interesting that a full-time minister gets blamed for not being here all the time continually countering

the attempts of people to discredit anything he says that they don't like.

If he was here all the time, naturally, he would be blamed for neglecting his flock.

If he wasn't a minister, naturally, he would be blamed for not doing something positive and cultivating the flock.

In short, it's determined-by a few- that disagreeing with vpw-and especially, providing documentation

when he contradicted Scripture in teaching or conduct-

makes one a bad Christian, and then after that, the pretexts, justifications and accusations are

assembled. No matter WHAT he did, some here would be indicting that minister.

General rules-of-thumb around here about giving away someone's name...

If you want to, you can give out your first name, full name, or any parts thereof.

Some of us recommend you do not, simply because of the "Google" factor-

if you ever end up with a cyber-stalker, or have a job interview, this information

will be found and someone may use it against you in some way.

Usual rules on the entire internet are to recommend against posting ANYTHING by which

you can be personally-identified,

which means no name, no phone#, no address, no Social Security# or government ID#,

no specific name-of-company-you-work-for or school-you-go-to",

and so on. Identity theft is another big internet issue, and one criminal industry on the internet

is trying to get your personal information ("phising" and so on.)

You will never see ME posting my name online.

You'll see me post the city I'm from, with no other information to track me down.

If you can single me out like that from among 9 million people or so,

then you deserve to find me.

(Imagine your disappointment in doing so-I'm not a rich target by any means. You'd waste a

LOT of time doing something that would be of little use to you.)

As to information about other people, it's not permitted-unless they give permission- to post their

full name. (The staff does not always CATCH all instances, so it might be gotten-away-with despite

being not permitted.) Using initials or blocking out part of the name is permissible- things that would

stop, say, a Google-search on their full name showing that post.

For example, if you knew the first president of the US personally, you would not be permitted on

the GSC to type his name as "George Washington" unless he posted here using his full name.

(There's more to this a little later.) You could instead type in

"G***** W*********", but that's a little confusing unless you were saying something else specific to him.

You could type "Ge**** Wa********", or substitute some letters, like "G30rg3 W@$h1ng+0n."

Would you have any problem reading that name as-is? However, that version won't trigger a Google-search.

A few names get creatively re-imagined. For example, one fellow who pushes the twi party line even when

it's a lie to someone's face-including the debt policies- has been referred to as "Moneyhands", which is not

QUITE his last name, but is close enough that you can identify him-and seems pretty apt.

The exceptions are the public figures.

Thus, we've generally agreed that members, past-and present, of twi's board are fair game for posting,

as well as a handful of people who are universally-identifiable, like Mrs W,

trustees of the alternate sites (CG and RC, for example), are also fair game.

Even then, just as a general policy, I rarely do so without knocking out a letter, although I COULD.

Overall, it's not a tough policy, and the long-term benefits for all whose names are used are not that

hard to picture once it's explained.

*wild swing*

"Fight Club"?

=======

And those of you, who, like me, object to subscription radio,

can always STREAM radio stations through your internet connection.

You don't need anything more complicated, than, say, Windows Media Player

or the equivalent.

AFAIK, most radio stations you can pick up SOMEWHERE on broadcast also have an

internet stream to pick them up on. I keep getting surprised NEWS stations have one.

Me, I sometimes listen to a radio station in CANADA I like.

Don't know a title, but sounds kinda like a Goo Goo Dolls tune. One of my daughter's played lots of them a few years ago, and they have been to the Memphis in May Music Festival a few times. Their music was pleasant, got to where I could sing along with some of them. Just never knew song titles.

Suda

Suda being the first to correctly name the artist,

and since it's obvious nobody's going to get the title at this point,

I'm passing the baton to Suda.

The artist is the Goo Goo Dolls, the song is "Slide."

(I was hoping the last quote would trick a memory, since I dropped a quote just before one of the

places the word "slide" appears.)

Serves me right for breaking my "pre-1986" personal rule.

Ok, Suda, your turn.

I'll give it one last chance. Maybe someone will get the title as well.

"Do you wake up on your own

And wonder where you are

You live with all your faults"

"I wanna wake up where you are.

I won't say anything at all.

So why don't you...."

"I'll do anything you ever dreamed to be complete,

Little pieces of the nothing that fall.

May, put your arms around me.

What you feel is what you are and what you are is beautiful"

*wild swing*

"TURK 182"???

I want to wait a bit before adding my opinions to this discussion.

I want to give posters a fair change to present THEIRS without me interfering.

That's why my opening post was so neutral.

It would be appreciated if you could provide the verses for your assertions

whenever there are verses-

especially if you could post the actual verse.

That's not a rule, but really a request, if you please.

Ok, we haven't discussed this in a long time, if ever.

There's different schools of thought about God's knowledge.

What does God know, and when does He know it?

Whenever I think of this, I keep flashing back to a classic Doonsbury,

where someone said to one President.

"Sir, as your special counsel, I have to know what you knew and when

you knew it."

It was a jigsaw puzzle, and-when assembled- it missed one piece-

which was the President's reply. Which was apt.

So, that's what we're discussing-in theory- here.

What does God know, what did God know, and when?