WordWolf

To say nothing of the fact that he skipped when I addressed an error he made.

I myself had a complete stranger, back in my twi days, invoke this verse as "proof" of the Trinity.

Did they really? When was this? It's almost silly to ask with these guys, but was there any announcement anywhere, or is it a secret as usual?

Correct. The Borg are attacking, the Enterprise, ineffective, is hiding, and Commander Shelby is concentrating on her career track right now.

There's more than one issue here. Here's how I see it. Did satan know the full results of the crucifixion? I believe he did not, and that the verses show this. Let me know if you need me to run through it. Did Jesus know the ramifications of his sacrifice? I question whether he would have carried out his instructions without an extreme REASON. So, I don't have a verse saying he absolutely DID know, but I see know verses saying he did NOT, and my OPINION is that his knowing was the only sensible justification for enduring what he did. As to the Gentiles thing being a surprise to satan, ALL of it was a surprise to him. As to the Gentiles thing being a surprise to Jesus, I see no reason to even suspect it, let alone support it. If vpw taught this-and judging from some of the responses, it seems he did- I find this to be error.

That it's supposed to be "which" is easy to check- just grab an Interlinear. It's "which", not God. So, on that, I'd say Johniam was correct. However, the "forgery" statement was completely unsupported. I myself have taught on this before, and am convinced that it was an ACCIDENTAL MISTAKE by a translator going from the Greek to the English. IIRC, Walter C made the same claim in the Fundamentals of Biblical Research "class" (that it's easy to see it was a mistake, that is.)

"When it comes to this ship and this crew, you're damned right I play it safe." "If you can't make the big decisions, Commander, I suggest you make room for someone who can."

..and, lest we forget, this MLM comes complete with keeping expenses secret, which is the OPPOSITE of nice, healthy non-profit organizations, but is often found among conventional businesses- organizations specifically structured to value MAKING MONEY as opposed to SERVING GOD. Which business model is a trustworthy one for CHRISTIANS? You can answer that for your own consciences, but I have my answer.

Must be the end of "the Naked Now", Tasha Yar to the fully-functional Data. :blink:

I'd bet money none of them's read it in the last 3 years, especially after any discussion of the actual events that are vaguely alluded to in PoP. Every time I look it over nowadays, it just gets more and more surreal, as 20/20 hindsight kicks in.

USA= Reagan + Bush + Clinton = 3 gods Great Britain = Churchill + Thatcher + Major = 3 gods Taco Bell= Mexi-Melt + chalupa + burrito = 3 gods Do you have a SOURCE for your sets? I made mine up just now, but I think that's obvious to everyone. I took 3 names that weren't really connected and called them "3 gods" and suggested they were connected as some sort of "trinity." I know "Babylon Mystery Religion" tossed out a few names and claimed they were Trinities, but those were SO made-up that the author repudiated them in the sequel, and put the blame on Alexander Hislop for just inventing whatever connections he WANTED to see in his hunger to invent every conceivable charge to blame the RCC for.

Christian Slater Heathers Winona Ryder (Thought I was going to do Star Trek 6, didn't you?)

Correct, wasway. Your turn. Go.

Correct. (In essence, he made a 'bandage' for a rock-based lifeform by using quick-drying cement. He was quite proud of that example of lateral thinking.) I can see we have some L337 hardcore Trekkies on this thread. This is going to get brutal..... Go, H29!

*checks* Dale Sides has LMCI. http://www.lmci.org/founder.cfm Michael Rood, http://www.michaelrood.com/

"I'm beginning to believe I can cure a rainy day."

Shelley Winters Pete's Dragon Mickey Rooney

"It's a knockout. If looks could kill, they probably will" "Andre has a red flag, Chiang Ching's is blue. They all have hills to fly them on except for Lin Tai Yu. Dressing up in costumes, playing silly games, Hiding out in tree-tops, and shouting out rude names"

My first thought concerning that clue was that it meant one of the Enterprise crew that met NextGen crew. That would have meant McCoy, Spock or Scotty. However, that second quote was vintage Quark, and Quark's strictly DS9, and NONE of them appeared on DS9. (In the normal sense.) Further, there were 3 different Klingons from TOS that appeared later in DS9. One of them must have made the first statement. I'm betting it was the Dahar Master, who may have been anti-establishment, if memory serves. I think that was Kor. (John Calicos of Battlestar:Galactica fame.) He appeared in "Blood Oath", but Worf wasn't on the DS9 crew yet. So, I'm going to say this was when they searched for "the Sword of Kahless"

Now that's hardly posting with kindness. <_< The following is from the front page of the forums: "please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal. A lively discussions of ideas is both more polite and more relevant." pond, this thread, Sept 8, 2006, 6:26pm Eastern. Now, many people would consider this a vote of no-confidence, since it calls "the Bible a crazy book", and implies the Bible guarantees that EVERY beating of a horse will result in it talking to the hitter. If that's not what you meant, then you might consider the message you sent.

Attica! Attica!

"If looks could kill, they probably will" "Dressing up in costumes, playing silly games Hiding out in tree-tops, and shouting out rude names"

pond, I question whether or not we can get somewhere substantial in this discussion if you're going to keep "banging the drum." I mean, having a strong opinion is fine. Having a closed mind on the subject is technically acceptable. However, having decided that, your ability to CONTRIBUTE to the discussion is therefore limited. I mean, once you've posted once "I don't trust the Bible" (a point you already made with me), "I don't think the Bible addresses this at all" (which means the rest of the discussion is on us to demonstrate otherwise, you're excused until we can demonstrate it) "I don't think it's ever murder" (which we haven't gotten to yet, really) and "I think it should be up to the courts (which is a flat statement of opinion), then everything else is either restatements of same at best, or-at worst- distractions from the rest of the discussion. We're TRYING to discuss what the Bible CAN tell us on this subject. The essence of the discussion, then, rests on 2 things: A) what does the Bible say about when a fetus is considered a human? B) what does the Bible say about punishments for ending a fetus? Those are technically 2 different issues. We've seen some interesting things on both issues so far, but the interruptions we've seen to both have been making it difficult to make sizeable progress. I mean, you don't have to believe the Bible at all, nor respect it, but can you at least respect US enough to allow us to discuss our opinions of the Bible? That is EXACTLY what this thread is about, and that's why it's in the DOCTRINAL forum. We're discussing DOCTRINE. If this thread disturbs you, you can always skip the thread, or skip the entire FORUM. (I skip threads when I think they don't benefit me.) Is it really a lot to ask, to allow us to simply proceed on-topic and see where the search leads us?

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle John Cleese Monty Python and the Holy Grail Let's see if someone can pick the most likely actor out after Cleese....