WordWolf

It would be nice to hear from everyone. However, they are well aware of this discussion, and obviously have elected not to participate at this time-not even to issue a press release. (This may of course change at any time.) So, the refusal to make a response is IN ITSELF a response. They prefer to keep their position NON-SPECIFIC, nebulous. They prefer to keep their position OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. The prefer to have people SPECULATE as to their position. That in itself is an answer.

Congrats and congrats! (Plus the guts to admit to the karaoke...)

If you were a teenager when it was airing, you missed a lot. It was a fun action show with some McGuyvering elements (they often improvised very effective technology from what was at hand), and they fired guns and rockets and all kinds of stuff, and managed to stop their pursuit without even one casualty to them, the military, or the episode's villains. George Peppard was Hannibal Smith, who was a disguise expert, & tactician. "I love it when a plan comes together." Mr T was BA "Bad Attitude" Baracus, strongman, driver, and technician. He never wanted to fly. Dwight Schultz was HM "Howling Mad" Murdock, pilot and presumably insane resident of a VA Hospital, and the reason BA hated to fly. Dirk Benedict was Templeton Peck "Faceman", con artist and technician. They had a few different people, not from their original team, who joined as fifth members during the run of the show.

On a different subject entirely, I read a different Christian (Tim LaHaye addressing a pre-Tribulation Rapture) mention this gambit. He considered it a particularly cheap ploy: to claim that noted proponents for one position made a deathbed conversion to the opposite position, known only to one person, and never anyone close to that. He gave an example where one theologian was claimed to have changed his belief in one position, and the only proof was an off-hand comment supposedly made to a near-total stranger, years before he died, whereas he actually continued to teach his PREVIOUS position for several more years, and even his family heard him to hold it til his death. It's an old gambit, to claim soneone SECRETLY held a position different from one he publickly has held, and there is no documentary evidence for, to have him support your position from his grave.

We can't agree that half were. All Kenyon's books were NOT. All Bullinger's books were NOT. "Are the Dead Alive Now?" was from books like ""The Rich Man and Lazarus: An Intermediate State?" and "Saul and the Witch at Endor: Did the Dead Rise at Her Bidding?", complete with the question format. THOSE were SURELY known to vpw-he read ALL Bullinger's stuff. But they were left out when he saw to it the Companion Bible was in the bookstore. Stiles: the casual references to him say NOTHING of the complete transfer of the contents of Stiles' book into "vpw's book", which doesn't even name him ONCE. Further, the early editions of "vpw's book" say a man taught vpw, and later ones say he learned it all without a teacher. Finally, the ONLY reference vpw made to LEONARD was buried in one book and said the man was "not good with The Word", which is a GUARANTEE that twi people will have no interest in him. This was a deliberate lie, as Mrs W later pointed out that he taught them plenty of "Word", and that the "original pfal" class was Leonard's class with vpw's name on it, NEVER MENTIONING LEONARD. Why take Stiles' name off Stiles' book and put your own instead? Why bind 2 books of Bullinger together, strip his name, and put your own instead? Why take Leonard's name off Leonard's class, and put your own instead? INTENT.... INTENT.... (edited to correct the name "Leonard".)

No, that's BA Baracus from the "A-Team." They always had to trick him to get on a plane, usually by drugging him, occasionally by hypnosis ("Eclipse!") or something else.

Sniper got the target with one bullet at range! Sheriff Bart replies to a whispered suggestion from Miss Lilly Von Shtupp with that line. Go, Ca Dreaming!

Correct! Descent PART ONE. Troi got to say the dangerous "I've found something" line and not die (unlike the old redshirts of ST:TOS), Picard revisits his old "Locutus of Borg" name when interrogating a Borg (unsuccessfully), and Data has a poker game on the holodeck with Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, and Stephen Hawking. Stephen Hawking becomes the only person to play HIMSELF on an episode of ST, AND wins a poker hand against Albert Einstein. :) Go, Raf!

Hm. The magic of the internet at work..... ==================== http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/august/10.72.html "Bad Judgment Ruling imperils faith-based programs around the country. Just when you think you've heard it all, along comes an even more distorted public characterization of evangelicals. According to a recent critic, the belief held by evangelicals and Prison Fellowship (PF) in the "substitutionary and atoning death of Jesus," reflects "a legalistic understanding of the sacrifice of Jesus, [which] is not shared by many Christians." So much for the central tenet of every historic creed and confession of the Christian church. Where is this critique—in The New York Times? No, it's the finding of U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt in deciding on June 2 the lawsuit against PF brought by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The judge declared unconstitutional the InnerChange Freedom Initiative in Iowa, a program started by PF. Startlingly, the judge devoted a dozen pages to analyzing evangelicalism and PF's statement of faith, apparently determined to separate evangelicals from other Christians. Evangelicalism, he wrote, is "quite distinct from other self-described Christian faiths, such as Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, and Greek Orthodoxy." It is also "distinct from other … Christian denominations, such as Lutheran, United Methodist, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian." Evangelical Christianity, he found, tends to be "anti-sacramental," downplaying "baptism, holy communion or Eucharist, marriage, [and] ordination" as "appropriate ways to interact or meet with God." (The charge of downplaying baptism will surprise my 20 million fellow Baptists.) Moreover, we are "contemptuous" of Roman Catholic practices, a conclusion sure to amuse my colleagues with Evangelicals and Catholics Together. To sum up: Evangelicals are a fringe cult inherently discriminatory, coercive, and antagonistic to other Christians. Ironically, just days after the judge's decision, the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons reported a desperate need in prisons for "highly structured programs which reduce misconduct in correctional facilities and lower recidivism rates after release." This is precisely what InnerChange does. It has a proven record of rehabilitation—8 percent recidivism for graduates, according to a University of Pennsylvania study of a similar program in Texas. This compares with more than 60 percent recidivism nationally. The commission understands the urgency of these programs, because this year, 600,000 prisoners will be released. Within three years, more than two-thirds will be re-arrested. Bad enough that the judge ordered closed a program that has proven successful, imperiling thousands of faith-based programs. Even worse, he expanded the Supreme Court precedent in Lemon v. Kurtzman. A careful reading of his opinion leads to the conclusion that even if state funds are not involved, any close government cooperation with "pervasively sectarian" groups is unconstitutional. Such a broad standard could easily be applied to church services or evangelistic events not only in prisons, but also in hospitals, military bases, or any government facility. But the most alarming question is why the judge chose to write a sociological analysis of evangelicalism—something I've never seen before in any case. And why would he so inaccurately characterize evangelicals as a fringe cult? After all, we make up between 33 and 40 percent of the American population, drawing from scores of denominations, including many millions of Catholics. Whatever the reason, by distinguishing evangelicals from all other Christian groups, Judge Pratt supported his finding that we discriminate and coerce conversions—despite the fact that every inmate testifying in the trial denied any coercion. InnerChange is voluntary; at any time, inmates can drop out. Many participants are not Christians. Think of the consequences if this definition survives on appeal—enshrining in federal law a definition of evangelicals as a narrow, mean-spirited minority. This ruling could be cited in cases where pastors publicly denounce homosexuality or pray in Jesus' name on public property. What will prevent a court from deciding what is and is not legitimate theology, according to the trendiest, most politically correct standards?" (snip) ================== This is under appeal. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/j...y/128-52.0.html "Imprisoned Ministry The future of Prison Fellowship's rehabilitation program, and other faith-based social services, are in the hands of an appeals court." "Last month's federal court decision declaring unconstitutional a prison ministry run by Prison Fellowship has placed the status of other faith-based initiatives in question. Fallout for other Christian social services is limited for now while Prison Fellowship appeals the ruling. The appeals process could reach the Supreme Court. • Related articles and links In 1999, the state of Iowa partnered with InnerChange Freedom Initiative, a biblically based rehabilitation program designed by Prison Fellowship (PF), to reduce recidivism rates. Inmates from nine state prisons are eligible to apply for a transfer into the two- to three-year program. U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt issued his verdict in a 140-page decision following a three-year trial that included a personal visit to the facilities of the disputed program. He ordered InnerChange to disband within 60 days and return about $1.5 million in funding it had received from the state of Iowa. PF president Mark Earley said the organization is preparing to post bond and file an appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, where he is confident the judgment will be overturned. PF says that advocates of InnerChange and its upcoming appeal include Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), Ted Haggard, James Dobson, and Rick Warren. Earley said Pratt overstepped his constitutional bounds by ruling the program unconstitutional even if it accepted no state funds. Earley said the judge ignored the voluntary nature of InnerChange, which allows inmates to quit without punishment. "Based on this judge's ruling, the only way to improve this program is to move it out of the prison," said Earley. "And there are not many escapees that we can minister to." Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) filed the lawsuit in 2003 on behalf of inmates who said InnerChange discriminated against non-Christians. "It certainly makes sense that Christians want to help prisoners," said AU executive director Barry Lynn. "What does not make sense is for the state to pay. The government simply cannot support and promote programs that are essentially religious efforts to provide service and convert people to a particular religion at the same time." Secular service, faith-based approach InnerChange embraces a transformative—rather than therapeutic—model that was developed by Charles Colson. Inmates who participate in InnerChange can attend Bible studies and worship services along with non-religious classes such as substance abuse counseling, and academic and life skills training. In 1997, when President George W. Bush was governor of Texas, he oversaw the introduction of InnerChange in his home state. PF leaders met with President Bush in the White House in 2003 to discuss the results of a University of Pennsylvania study that concluded InnerChange graduates were half as likely as non-participants to be reincarcerated within two years of their release. But when the study sample was broadened to include both graduates and those who dropped out of the program, InnerChange participants were reincarcerated at the same rate as the control group that did not participate in any rehabilitation program. (The program has a 58 percent dropout rate.) After meeting with PF, Bush told then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to look into the possibility of implementing InnerChange in federal prisons. Bush also proposed a $400 million, four-year initiative to reduce recidivism in his 2004 State of the Union address. The Bureau of Prisons is currently running a multi-faith rehabilitation program in five federal prisons, but it has temporarily withdrawn its request to implement a single-faith rehabilitation program in six federal prisons, for which $3 million had been appropriated. Separating out the sectarian Charles Haynes, senior scholar of the First Amendment Center, believes the InnerChange case is "the most significant case to date" for faith-based initiatives, because it may lead to legislation in Congress that will mandate additional oversight. Haynes says state authorities should perform "audits" to make sure faith-based programs are not using state money for sectarian purposes. "Right now, there are a lot of religious organizations that fall into this gray area," Haynes said. "There are programs where it is really difficult, if not impossible, to determine what is the religious and what is the secular part of the program." The state of Iowa funded 40 percent of the InnerChange program. Those funds paid for InnerChange's designated "non-sectarian" expenses such as office supplies, an employee appreciation dinner, and 82 percent of the program director's salary. InnerChange programs in Arkansas—dedicated one day before the Iowa ruling—and Texas are privately funded, while programs in Kansas and Minnesota receive some state funding. About 1,100 inmates are currently enrolled in InnerChange programs. Earley said that the recent ruling strikes a blow to the religious liberty of inmates and emphasized that Muslims, Wiccans, and Druids have all graduated from the program, which does not require inmates to convert to Christianity. "Governments don't have the money or the willpower to provide rehabilitative services for prisoners that work," Earley said. "By definition, their programs are secular. If they are denied the opportunity to partner with faith-based organizations, we are in for a darker future when it comes to the prison system in America."" ================ Prison Fellowship responded. http://www.pfm.org/generic.asp?ID=2416 (PDFs and stuff.)

I expect (and would appreciate) the admins moving this to the DECAF forum in a day or so. "..a Federal Judge ruled Evangelicals not a legitimate branch of Christianity in September.." I can't ask the person who made this comment, since they don't read or post here. However, I ask YOU guys. Has anyone HEARD such a thing? It sounds like nonsense to me on the face of it. I'd like whatever news or even vague second-hand reports any of you can pass along.

I have nothing useful to add here. I hope you consider at least some of us here "family", but I'd expect you to maximize your remaining time with your (genetic) family. I'm glad you at least have some time to reach closure on a few things, since not everyone has that chance.

If JAL was REALLY unaware of this discussion UNTIL YOU E-MAILED HIM, my view of how well-informed he is of things he should be aware of would drop again. As it is, I think he was already aware of it, and you've prompted a response, which is to the better. Maybe THIS time he'll stay and DISCUSS, rather than make a "drive-by post" like he did the LAST time, announcing that he would refuse to engage us in dialogue here or on any other board, and only communicate PRIVATELY. JS, I have no knowledge of him on which to base a comment, and he has never posted here. (Or at least not under his own name if he HAS, which is his privilege.) Looks like JS is refusing to engage in dialogue as well. This does NOT reflect well on them OR the organization. What's his explanation so far (which looks to be ALL the answer he's giving?) "Don't believe everything you read, and buy my book." We also have confirmation that they really WERE running the railroad by means of this "personal prophecy" thing at least for some time, since there was a "Prophetic Council." Complete with an acronym. They've been using it for HOW many years, and NOW it's being studied more closely? I have an off-topic question that I will spin off into a new topic (not CES/STFI related.) You can examine the letter of how a doctrine is defined. You can study the accounts in Scripture (to see if they apply AT ALL and/or are being applied CORRECTLY.) You can review how a doctrine is being disseminated. You can review how a doctrine is being PRACTICED. And BEFORE putting one into practice, you can examine its official definition, study the accounts in Scripture, state how it is to be taught and practiced. Seems THOSE steps were glossed over in CES/STFI regarding personal prophecy- or else we wouldn't be having this discussion..... This bears repeating.

[WordWolf responds in boldface.] [The only questions I have would be PUBLIC ones, and you've already said you WON'T reply to those. This may be just me, but I've noticed what may be the beginning of a trend so far. Twice we've heard from people claiming to represent CES/STFI as insiders (JAL before, SirValiant now) and BOTH times, they claimed in their initial posts to eschew public discourse and would ONLY communicate when they could control the microphone. (I am excepting Jeff, who is an obvious exception who might prove to argue otherwise.) Do they really think this will end discussion, and is this a healthy way to run a railroad?]

It being about a week, I'm posting one. "Woman, please! I am not from Havana!"

"Captain. I think I've found something." "Transmit another copy of Starfleet's ship recognition protocols, and tell them to read it this time!" "I am Locutus of Borg. You will respond to my questions." "The uncertainty principle will not help you now, Stephen. All the quantum fluctuations in the universe won't change the cards in your hand. I call. You are bluffing and you will lose." "Wrong again, Albert."

One thing I've read-and agree with- is that God will REPEAT messages to you. The Old Testament didn't have a guidebook on dream-messages because they were not COMMON. Dreams were common, but messages from God IN a dream are not. This does not mean they are unheard-of, just that most dreams are NOT. I would agree that MOST dreams are the subconscious clearing out the previous day, or otherwise addressing issues to itself. One key to understanding if a dream is a message from God, however, is that God will use more than one avenue to communicate a message to you. Did you get a dream and think it was from God? Well then, pay attention. OTHER information will arrive from OTHER avenues if God is trying to communicate to you. Otherwise, it was just a cool dream.

"Captain. I think I've found something." "Transmit another copy of Starfleet's ship recognition protocols, and tell them to read it this time!"

Fun and games on Ceti Alpha 5! This was "Space Seed." The first quote was the explanation of Khan's parting comment upon exile. "Have you ever read 'Milton'?" The second was Khan demonstrating his brilliance with manipulating people.

Got it on the first try. The belief system, founded by vpw, is a Word-Faith variety. That means you alter reality by your "believing." You speak it, and God's REQUIRED to bring it to pass. So, if bad things happen to you, first of all, your believing was deficient, which is how the bad thing arrived. If it stayed, you failed to believe sufficiently to push it away. So, it's always your fault. They're more flexible on this at points, since vpw had a chronic problem with alcohol that led to his death. However, a lot of local legalism can make for a "dry" area. Of course, if the local leader is a boozer, then, by golly, it may be all right in that area... I named the books above. They've quoted from them. And yes, the kids really DID reduce a Holocaust survivor to tears and called her a liar. They were "carefully taught." That would stop the money coming in. The money MUST keep coming in.... If you're not giving 10%, "God won't even spit in your direction." You're expected to exceed that- 15% or 20% is more common, although it's not a mandate on paper. (Most stuff isn't actually a mandate on paper-it's still expected.) It takes years of educating someone that way...

Re: "The Two Babylons", by Alexander Hislop. I personally did not see them promote this SPECIFIC book in the bookstore. However, it is the basis for the later book "Babylon Mystery Religion", by Ralph Woodrow. That book, heavily footnoting Hislop's book, is basically a much lighter version of Hislop's book. Years later, Woodrow discovered there were many errors in Hislop's book, and wrote a sequel "The Babylon Connection?", which repudiates the previous book. ("I was wrong, and here's why...") People in twi probably can still quote "Babylon Mystery Religion" but are unfamiliar with the sequel, since it contradicts their theology. Both vpw and lcm (Presidents 1 & 2) hated the Roman Catholic Church, and could rant at length about it. (lcm, for example, announced the Pope had an aircraft carrier and was getting ready to convert everyone to Catholicism at gunpoint. This was about a decade ago.) The antisemitic books promoted-and carried by-twi include "Myth of the Six Million." This claims the Holocaust never happened, or was wildly exaggerated. So does "the Hoax of the Twentieth Century." "The Thirteenth Tribe." This book claims all the "Jews" are actually Khazars, and the current Jews are not related to the Jews in the Bible. (This has been disproven with genetic tests.) That's not directly anti-Semitic, but it's used as justification by antiSemites.

That would be something like "I did not mean to offend you. I offended you nonetheless and I am sorry." That's an acknowledgement that my action, well-intentioned though it was, was incorrect in some fashion-or at least offensive. I've gotten those other apologies, and they're always indictments, as in: "I'm sorry you're unable to control your emotions and not be offended while I do what's right." twi and ex-twi aren't the only ones who do this, BTW. I HAVE, however, spotted this more among the religious than non-religious contexts and peoples.

In other words, WTH's trying to sell you on the "LAW of Believing" again.

If they don't show any remorse for their past misdeeds, it's clear they think they were justified in doing them. That says a lot.

That's one reason not to trust self-professed MOGs. Or we expect people to adhere to the law, and find it UNACCEPTABLE that an erstwhile teacherwill be so arrogant as to pass off another's works as his own, so lazy as to fail to cite his sources, so vain he will break the law and think nothing of it. You may call that naivete if it makes you happy. I call it "having standards", or "character", depending on the context. No, it's finding out someone committed a crime and exposing it. Charisma and MOGs have nothing to do with exposing crime. Continuing to expose lies-especially lies others try to hide, whitewash, or get others to believe-is an ongoing process, with its own end. Labelling it doesnt make it less valid. It DOES, however, telegraph one's OWN agenda- "distract from the plagiarism". It's not a SERMON, it is a warning. You know, like lots of guys all over the Bible gave. God seems to like when His people are warned. Feel free to sleep all you want- but some of us consider it high time to wake from sleep.

That's avoiding undue risks, but to not use an antivirus and firewall to me seems to be skipping what I consider the bare minimum for security, even with the updates. I like making it as hard as possible for someone to intrude. (And I manage it with freeware.) Presuming trained user, and presuming the external firewall with stateful packet inspection, I expect the risk would be less. I would STILL use a firewall/antivirus, though. At the minimum.