Raf

"On Golden Pond" was correct for mine. I think I know Lifted's, but will wait another hour or two before I answer.

I'll keep providing updates as I get them. Thanks for all your prayers.

Just got off the phone with Diana. She's in relatively good spirits right now. Worried, obviously. Spent the whole weekend in tears, but woke up today determined to get on with her life, whether there's a year or two left or 20. There's really no knowing. Stephen Hawking has lived with this disease for decades, which is highly unusual, of course. And look what it's done to him. But we're hopeful. We haven't yet gotten to the second opinion stage, so that's the next step. It's pretty scary.

Rob and Diana never met. Several years ago, Rob was a newspaper columnist in South Florida. A good man. A Bronx native. We shared memories of our hometown. But Rob missed his adoptive home, Des Moines, Iowa, and decided after a too-short stint in South Florida that he and his wife, Rehka, should return. So they did. They were back in Des Moines for, again, a relatively short time when Rob wrote a powerful and moving column. It was about a visit to the doctor. Many visits, actually. But on this particular visit Rob was told what had been revealed through all the tests of his previous visits. He was diagnosed with a disease called ALS. Lou Gehrig's disease. The illness that cut short a legendary baseball career, a legendary life. Rob was no fool. He knew he had only a few years to live, at most. Once you're diagnosed, life expectancy is two to five years for the majority of victims. The lucky ones live 10 years. The really lucky ones can live as long as 20 years. In a miniscule few, the symptoms reverse. Rob prayed to be the exception, but planned to be the rule. He loved his wife and children, gave them the best effort he could. He wrote about his struggles. He couldn't possibly return all the e-mails and phone calls he received encouraging him to fight on, including mine. He gave his time to the people closest to him. And he gave his time to the cause of studying and possibly someday curing ALS. Rob died in 2006, less than two years after his diagnosis. He was a brave and wonderful man. I wish he had met Diana. Diana was also born in New York. She was a personal trainer, a fitness nut. She's always been one of the most blunt, outspoken members of her family. On Friday, September 28, Diana was diagnosed with ALS. She called her sister, Julie, to break the news. Julie called their mother, Julia. Julia called her son, Diana's brother... me. Please pray. [Thread title changed by request]

Sorry: been stunningly busy lately. Hmm.... "So, I heard you turned 80 today." "Is that what you heard?" "Yeah. Man, that's really old." "You should meet my father." "Your father's still alive?" "No, but you should meet him." *** "A canoe! Just like the Indians used." "Actually, the Indians used a different grade of aluminium."

Policing your thoughts is a lonelier job than repairing Maytags. We debate historical issues in terms of what caused them and what effect they had. We don't debate whether they took place, especially when we know they did.

Because you are. And those who aren't are gullible to the point of shocking stupidity.

Ah, this one I know. Quiz Show

Tom knows.

Oh, COOL set of clues! Tom, you got it. Spill it!

I still like "Shut the front door!" It's a great expression because when you say it, it sounds like you're about to say something else. ;)

I think more people saw Traxx

That was a strange one. Meanwhile, this one will be Humberto if it develops.

Believing is a law. As one believes, he receives... This law of negative and positive believing works for both Christian and non-Christian. When we believe, we receive the results of our believing regardless of who or what we are. Can you show me where it says Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were not afraid? I'll tell you right now, if I was being thrown into a furnace and the guys who threw me in were burnt to toasty crisps, I'd be at least a little bit worried, at least until I realized the heat was not affecting me the same way. We dehumanize these three great men when we claim that they fell into the furnace without any fear. The Bible does not teach this. Of course, it doesn't say they feared either, so I can't say with certainty that they did. My point is, a statement like "if they had feared they would have burned" is unsupportable. So I agree with those who came to the "uncertain" conclusion. As for Job offering sacrifices for his children and comparing that to Hannah in I Samuel, I think we're trying to draw a parallel where the Bible draws none. Let's clear some things up about Hannah first: look at the order of what happened. She was barren. She was mocked. She fretted. She remained barren. She continued to be mocked. She continually fretted, this time before the prophet. The prophet turned her eyes on God. She turned her eyes on God. Deliverance. Notice the order: Her being barren preceded her fretting about it. Thus, her fretting could not have caused her barrenness. However, when she took her mind off that and placed it on God's deliverance, she had her child. This idea that Job was fretting continually about his children is NOT IN THE BOOK OF JOB. It says he did this "continually," but told us also the conditions of "continually": he did this whenever they had a birthday party that lasted several days. Whenever that happened (not daily, not weekly, not hourly, not continuOUSly), Job offered sacrifices "just in case." The idea that there was constant, crippling fear has to be read into it. The only thing the Bible says is that Job was righteous, rich and blameless. The offering of sacrifices is not criticized in the slightest, explicitly or implicitly. Does God call him a worrywart? No. He calls him the "finest man in all the earth." Satan, so it goes, has to ask for a "hole in the hedge of protection." Had Job's fear and constant worrying opened a hole in the hedge, there'd be no need for ol' Splitfoot to get God's "permission" to go to town. Job's sacrifices are a compliment. VPW presents them as evidence of fear. Nonsense. Job's "great fear" was the natural cry of despair of a parent in mourning. VPW presents it as a confession of responsibility. Nonsense. MHO.

It's real simple: Do you believe no harm befalls the righteous? The book of Proverbs says so. But of course, harm does befall the righteous. The statement it a truism, not a mathematically exact and scientifically precise law. And a wise person knows the difference between a maxim, a truism, a proverb and a steadfast "this is always true and there are no exceptions" kind of statement.

No harm befalls the righteous, But the wicked are filled with trouble. Uh huh. That's always the truth, no exceptions, the law of righteousness.

No, I wouldn't. Not if the sayings are presenting themselves as sayings and not as "immutable laws of life." Read the book of Proverbs. Can you honestly say that everything in it is true always? Of course not. They're not SUPPOSED to be blanket statements that cover every circumstance described. Sometimes you train up a child in the way that he should go, and when he is old, he sticks his middle finger up at you and goes his own way. Doesn't make the proverb untrue; it makes the kid a jerk. "The woman of folly is boisterous, She is naive and knows nothing. She sits at the doorway of her house, On a seat by the high places of the city, Calling to those who pass by, Who are making their paths straight: “Whoever is naive, let him turn in here,” And to him who lacks understanding she says, “Stolen water is sweet; And bread eaten in secret is pleasant.” Is there a woman somewhere who really sits at her front stoop and says "Come on in, naive people! I've got stolen food for you!" Of course not. And the Bible is not saying there is. These are expressions. The woman doesn't say those things, but the Bible treats it like she might as well say those things. The proverbs of Solomon. A wise son makes a father glad, But a foolish son is a grief to his mother Ok, so a foolish son is NOT a grief to his father, and a good son doesn't make his mother proud. Right? The LORD will not allow the righteous to hunger, But He will reject the craving of the wicked. Wanna know who the unrighteous are? Look at the hungry. God will not allow the righteous to go hungry, so if you spot someone who's hungry, you've found an unrighteous man. Right? Of course not. A gracious woman attains honor, And ruthless men attain riches. Okay, so the ruthless men attain riches, but they don't use them for food, because only the unrighteous are hungry. Right? Of course not. There are six things that get on my nerves, seven that really tick me off... Wait, is it six or seven? It's a proverb, ferpete's sake, you don't have to get all bent out of shape about it! The book of Proverbs contains wisdom: God-breathed wisdom. Granted, it's more authoritative than "early to bed, early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise," but the bottom line is not every proverb in the book of proverbs is meant to be some kind of blanket statement that covers every scenario that fits the description.

Johniam, don't misrepresent me. I have no problem with YOU calling "the law of believing" hyperbole. I have a problem with you or anyone else saying that's the way Wierwille saw it and presented it. He didn't. He was not exaggerating when he called it a law. There's nothing to suggest that he was. As for God superceding ANY law, I leave that to His power. That doesn't make it any less a law. And no, hyperbole is not "anything exaggerated." A hyperbole is an extreme example of exaggeration. It's the difference between "I'll bet a hundred bucks the law of believing is bunk," vs. "I'll bet all the money in the world the law of believing is bunk."

Well, yes, some people do say that. Hey, Oldies, speaking of proverbs, I think of "believing equals receiving" as just that: a proverb, not a law. What is a proverb? It's a blanket statement that is generally true but does not apply in all situations. Example: train up a child in the way that he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it. Generally true. Always true? Of course not. But often true. Same thing with "confession of belief yields receipt of confession." Catchy, I like it. Apply it as much as I can. It's useful, and helps maintain a positive attitude. So what if it doesn't work 100% of the time? It's not a law. My theological framework doesn't have to fall apart because of it. "If you can dream it, you can do it." That's another good one. It's inspiring, encouraging. Always true? Good heavens, no. No matter what I dream, I'll never be able to fly without the help of something: a hang glider, an airplane, a rocket pack... SOMETHING. But hey, it's a nice dream. Proverbs. Truisms. Maxims. All these things are generally regarded as true with the understanding that they won't always apply in every situation. Laws, on the other hand, apply in every situation. That's why they're laws. The law of gravity always applies. The effect of gravity may be negligible, depending on your distance from an object. On earth, I weigh... more than I want to. In space, I weigh nothing. The gravity of earth still has an effect on me, but because of my distance from the earth, that effect is negligible. If you wanted to calculate it, you could. But why? There is no "law of believing." There's faith in God. There's believing His Word. There's "the power of positive thinking." But believing doesn't work with the kind of mathematical exactness or scientific precision that laws do.

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...mp;hl=holocaust

There are threads on this. Let me see if I can dig them up and link them.

Well, this is a puzzler, isn't it. Will it or won't it? Will it or won't it?

By the way, even if Job DID blame himself, that doesn't make it doctrine! What else did Job say? "Cursed is the day I was born... Why didn't I die at birth as I came from the womb? If I had died at birth, I would be at peace now." Does that mean it's better for people to die at birth so they don't have to deal with life's sufferings? No! He was expressing grief, for Pete's sake, not doctrine.

Where does it say his fear caused it. Wierwille took Job's expression of grief and turned it into an admission of culpability. It's horsehockey. A crying parent lost his children and said "the thing that I greatly feared has happened." But did it happen BECAUSE he feared? No, that is Wierwillian fiction.

There we go again with Job. Job is NOT criticized in the Bible for being fearful. The example of him offering sacrifices for his children is presented as a COMPLIMENT to show how righteous and upstanding he was. Job's fear did NOT, directly or indirectly, harshly or softly, contribute to what happened to his children. That is Wierwillian FICTION. Job had the natural fear of every parent that something might happen to his children. VPW took a natural expression of Job's despair and turned it into a crippling fear that brought calamity on his family. It's hogwash. The greatest fear of any parent is that something horrible will happen to their children. It is NOT something that causes these things to happen.