WordWolf

If YOU ever resorted to wrath with them, that would not be healthy. If you responded to immature screaming and ranting by folding up and collapsing into yourself, that would not be healthy. If you responded to immature screaming and ranting by returning it, that would not be particularly healthy, but it's better than the collapsing thing. It looks like you can "master" your emotions to a degree. Others can't force you into anger, nor do you resort to it yourself. Those are healthy adaptations to the Unhealthy situations you encountered. Sort of like how the body builds antibodies against germs once it's exposed to them. That's my opinion. When I was on my way out of twi, someone tried to put emotional pressure on me-I responded by separating myself from emotion and continuing to communicate calmly. He did NOT like it. Which, of course, amused me, making it easier to keep it up.

Ah, the link to TAKE the quiz is: http://www.gotoquiz.com/ultimate_bible_quiz

You're welcome. Please save the link for next time. :) This is all based on my current understanding, which is hardly the last word on the subject. Whether or not Jesus pre-existed the rebellion is a matter of contention, and unimportant to the main questions here. As I understand it, Lucifer was an "angel" of great authority, and great ability. Lucifer became envious of God Almighty, and decided that he himself would be set above all other angels, and be like God Almighty, usurping God's rightful authority. To do this, he co-opted 1/3 of the angels of Heaven, and staged a revolt. Michael was an "angel" of great authority, and great ability. When the former "light-bearer" chose darkness and staged the revolt, Michael led the forces dedicated to God Almighty. Michael's troops won. Usual depictions are of him going up against the former "lucifer" and defeating him single-handedly. I don't know either way. I know who won and who lost. After this, satan ("accuser") was cast down to Earth, no longer allowed in Heaven, along with his troops, who numbered at least 36,000. ---- Ok, what was the question again? Right-did God "turn the other cheek" or opt for a regime change. Well, the regime in Heaven stayed the same, with GOD in command. Some positions under him, of course, stayed the same, some changed as God filled the new vacancies. satan was cast out of Heaven, so there WERE consequences. God didn't destroy him, which was very lenient. I'm not sure if this answers your question.

No. You were closer the first time, if at all. I'm sure someone can name it by now.

Why is it when I discuss Galatians 5, I quote the verses, THEN discuss them, but when YOU discuss the verses, you just announce what they "say"? The reason WTH and you keep dragging this in is to ameliorate or palliate penaltiesvpw would face for his works of the flesh. Don't insult my intelligence and claim it's not. Request denied. The topic for discussion on this thread is "forgiveness." Being born again or not is NOT part of that- despite WTH and you pushing otherwise. I'm NOT getting off the topic. You look at people,and subtract the ones who are making the works of the fleshan ongoing concern of theirs. From there on, I leave the matter to God, who neither told me I had to worry about anyone being born again, nor gave me a barometer. He told me to watch out for those who do the works of the flesh- and THAT he gave me a barometer for. A "born again" who screws up people's lives for his lusts is to be avoided, as is a "rank unbeliever" who screws up people's lives for HIS lusts. THAT I'm supposed to watch out for. As to the rest, please note I am confident this entire line of questioning is in the same vein as the Pharisees trying to trip Jesus up. I have answered you anyway- TO A POINT. I do NOT intend to remain off-topic and engage in Sophistry used to obfuscate the issues. In other words, I've given you all the answer NOW on the subject I intend to, and plan on hewing to the actual TOPIC. Matthew 22:15-16. 15Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. 16And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.

http://www.biblegateway.com KJV 3 occurrences of "Noe" in the NT, all in the Gospels, and not what you wanted. No occurrences of "chained" in the NT. "captivity captive" is Ephesians 4:8. I think what you wanted was I Peter 3:18-22. 18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 22Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

Matthew 22:15-18 15Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. 16And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. 17Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? 18But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Matthew 22:35-40 35Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38This is the first and great commandment. 39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

If all it takes to convince YOU that someone is born again- and, presumably, free to sin like all-get-out without consequences- is to see someone lucid begin to speak in a language you don't recognize- then, brother, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you, and it's on sale this week. The Screen Actor's Guild in the US has over 120,000 members, all performers. That's not counting all the actors in Actor's Equity Association, or any actor not in either union. Counting only the members of SAG, nearly every one of them should be able to convincingly portray "speaking in tongues" to a degree that should satisfy you. Certainly, they'd be able to exceed the examples used in the filmed class, where the same handful of syllables CONSISTENTLY kept coming up. (Doesn't that ring a 'suspicion bell' anywhere?) Someone stayed on topic! Imagine that...

This is perhaps the first time in history that a MAN has interrupted a conversation with a WOMAN to quote back something she said six months ago without providing the context. I'm familiar with WOMEN pulling out an old argument to refight it, hopefully after he's forgotten all the details. (Had it pulled on me EXACTLY ONCE, too. When she realized I could recite the incident back from memory, give the context, and show she misrepresented it, she never tried it again. Later, a friend warned me that would happen, and when I told him how I handled it, he toasted me and bought the next round.) So, oldies went OUT of this conversation, to pull a statement out of its context, and made it look like rascal JUST said that. He didn't MISQUOTE rascal, he intentionally MISREPRESENTED rascal, by making it look like she said NOW in THIS discussion what she said LAST YEAR in a DIFFERENT discussion. Naturally, he thinks this was perfectly fine, and anyone who thinks this is unfair unless he represents the comment as having been PREVIOUS has a meritless complaint. Oldiesman owe someone an apology? He'd have to have REGRET and REMORSE. Oldies' doctrine claims having EITHER and being born again is WRONG because he's born again and that's a free pass to do ANYTHING. That IS what we're discussing. Interesting, no?

Hebrews 10:30-31 "30For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. " Don't worry, wing, there's always one justification or another, so some people will QUICKLY say this doesn't mean that the judgement of God on His OWN people is something the mere THOUGHT of should be enough to get one to refrain from works of the flesh. You began your post summing things up nicely. For some of us, it's ALL about VINDICATING vp. It was ONCE about claiming he never ruined people's lives, or did the works of the flesh. Since that failed, NOW it's about "Well, he did it, but that's ok. He's still the man of God for his day and time, and he really DID hear from God and taught things new that weren't current for nearly 2000 years." It's true of VERY few of us. For example, I don't think Johnny Lingo makes those claims. (I may be wrong, but if he believes that, he's being more tactful on the subject, at the very least.) Even when I was a twi-er, I believed it was an improvement to take everything we could learn in twi, and could learn from other Christians, filter out error from BOTH, and take all of that to another level. Some people are clear that other Christians just don't have much "truth", and if it wasn't vpw and twi- or sources they endorsed like Bullinger- then there's no point even cracking a book open. "Stop saying those things about vpw. Let me say nice things about him only..."

I'm having trouble finding quotes, and am forced to rely on memory. This limits the number of non-giveaway quotes. This set SHOULD do it. "I was waiting for the universe to dispense some justice but sometimes the universe is just too damn slow. The effects of putting Nair in someone's styling gel, however, only take a few minutes." "I haven't experienced life!" "I've experienced life, and I'm here to tell you it's overrated." "I am only a lowly cog in this woman's life. Pity me." "When will you learn, if it doesn't apply to me, it doesn't matter?" "I come in peace!" "..I take it you're going with 'I come in peace' again..." "My head is spinning..." "Of course it's spinning. It's revolted-your brain is probably trying to twist its way out of your head!" "C'mon guys, I'm missing '2 Stupid Dogs' for this." "...that bleeping little Dutch boy...." "We are in court-you will need to read that EXACTLY as you wrote it." "That IS the way I wrote it. Look." "'That bleeping little Dutch boy...'" "That means WE are the art!" "I want a Miles Silverberger!" "People don't name sandwiches after executive producers. Look, I know you like hot dogs-let me get you a Fontana Frank." "Oh, great! Now we know what they teach in the Louisiana school system in sophmore year instead of Spanish!" "...This is a gay bar." "A gay bar? Jim owns a gay bar? That means-oh my God- Jim is GAY?" "CORKY! Jim and Doris have been happily married for over TWENTY YEARS!" "Do you think she knows?" "And that's ALL'S I know about politics."

First, WTH tried to say any lives vpw ruined didn't matter, and are a non-issue, since WTH THINKS that vpw MIGHT have had some sort of "death-bed regret" which completely negated the harm he did in the lives of others. So, he raised the trick question, "what makes you think he DIDN'T repent?" I pointed out what repentence includes (the acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and attempts to make amends for it), and asked him when he saw any of that. You replied by ignoring both acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and attempts to make amends, and instead said "I saw him be a nice guy some of the time. That's repentance." Which, of course, it's nothing of the kind. Then YOU brought up the non-issue of "well, if he's born again, it doesn't matter if he ruined the lives of other people." I indulged the nonissue by pointing out a strong case could be made either way- as if it makes a difference in whether or not he ruined the lives of others. I know a "rank unbeliever" who's spent a lot of his life doing his best to help others. He's kept his life, for the most part, morally straight, even by Scriptural standards, and NOBODY can say he's ruined their lives. I know a guy-let's suppose he's a "born-again believer" who spent at least 1/2 his life using Christianity as a tool for money, comforts and sex, who put on a pious display in between PRIVATELY being a man who practiced-regularly-the works of the flesh. If God doesn't account for that in the SECOND case but "throws the book at" the unbeliever in the FIRST case, there's a LOT of people who are going to consider God "unjust". And they'll be able to cite verses to prove He is being unjust. This whole "define 'born-again for me' adds nothing to a discussion on FORGIVENESS, and, as I see it, is an attempt to needlessly overcomplicate whether or not someone did wrong in the first place, and needs to be forgiven. What I've been hearing is "he doesn't need any forgiving the rest of us don't need", which, to those of us who have refrained from the works of the flesh, rings hollow. I've been hearing "being born again is a free pass and there's no penalty for sinning after that and God doesn't have an accountability for it", which vpw taught, and doesn't that strike you as amazingly convenient that all the arguments that absolve this wrongdoer from DOING wrong all come from his own teachings, and are unique in Christianity? From Scripture, I see God telling me to live correctly and not sin. I've also been hearing "holding people responsible for wrongdoing is bad for them and comes from religion", which, considering people have been quoting Scripture to support their claims, was either poorly-considered, or intentionally false. Now someone wants to discuss definitions. I don't think this is an HONEST attempt to get closer to the truth in this. I'm reminded of attempts to debate the meaning of the word "is".

Luke 19:8.And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord: Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold. I notice how you changed the subject from "this is what repentance is" and "when did you see repentance" to "did you ever see vpw act like a nice guy?" A) Whether he had a "40+ years teaching ministry" is a matter of opinion. It could also be called a decades long embezzling, defrauding, raping ministry. That tends to discount calling his actions IN BETWEEN them a "teaching ministry." At least, to anyone except vpw fans, it does. B) You weren't in among his intimates for 15 years. You saw him ON STAGE, and you saw him as MANAGED in the corps. Anyone could put on a good show for all of that time. According to lcm's own account, when the cameras were off, he was loud and petty. C) You DID spent about a month with him June 1984. At that point, he was aware he was going to die. He was also older, and may have learned some things about conduct. Small surprise his act was cleaner. He also lacked the energy to rape women at that point. He wasn't "a different man" one day raping one woman, then "a different man" the next day at the pulpit talking about the love of God. He wasn't "one man" when he said he loved people, and "a different man" the next MINUTE when he screamed because they didn't put the plywood the way he wanted. He was ONE man who, some of the time, evidenced the works of the flesh in LARGE amounts. Hey-most of the time, JOHN WAYNE GACY was a pillar of his community. He only OCCASIONALLY molested and killed young boys. That's about the same standard you're pushing- most of the time, he was a nice guy, and when people saw him, he was nice. That's not a "contradiction", that's just doing LESS evil. D) "He may have seen the error of his ways and asked God for forgiveness and moved on." I saw this when discussing Jimmy Swaggart embezzling money. "God has forgiven me-why can't you?" "Makes sense. Send him Billy's college fund money." Seems the whole "making amends if you actually MEAN you're sorry" thing is outside your paradigm. Without that, anyone can put on a convincing show of SUPPOSED repentance or being a nice guy. E) If he taught the truth, his character is a non-issue there. HOWEVER, if a man with an ulterior motive teaches something, his teaching is suspect. A sensible person is careful reviewing vpw's work-since there's pitfalls to harm the unwary. (Documentable ERRORS, too.) F) As for whether or not he's a Christian, I've seen arguments for and against. I started out thinking he WAS, but as the discussions have rolled on, I think a stronger case can be made that he was a fraud from Day One. I'm not CERTAIN either way. But inheriting the kingdom of God, whatever that means, appears to be outside what he'll get, according to Galatians 5. So, in conclusion, you have seen nothing where he attempted to clean up the corruption he sowed in twi with the lockbox and casual sex doctrines, or anything else, and you never saw him approach victims to offer amends or blood money. So, you saw no REPENTANCE. What you saw was some occasional "being a nice guy." Which can be faked. Thanks for playing.

Actually, most Christians I know manage just fine refraining from: "adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like." And those that have ANY problems with ANY of those at least have the honesty to admit God doesn't approve, and they're going against His will whenever they approach it. So, HER interpretation of Scriptures mandates a minimum of conduct- don't make a policy of anything on that list. Anyone COULD live up to that, and EXCEED it. When someone REPENTS of something, it means they acknowledge what they did was wrong, and they seek to make amends for it, to redress the greivances they incurred. IF vpw repented, THEN he acknowledged what he did and sought to make amends. We've asked throughout the years. Not ONE person has come forth claiming they were wronged by vpw in any of the ways on that list, and he even APOLOGIZED, let alone attempted to make amends. There was no "we will need to clean the morals of the ministry, starting right here" attempt from vpw. All he would have needed to do is say it any time he was at the microphone. People would have IMMEDIATELY taken it as a dire warning needing IMMEDIATE action. There was no finding any of his personal victims and asking forgiveness, or offering of amends. There was no sign of ANYTHING that accompanies actually REPENTING of something. What makes you suspect he MIGHT have repented them? The closest he got was, in his final few days, claiming he was trying to figure out where he missed it-where his believing was off. That's nowhere near even admitting he did ANY of the things any NEUTRAL observer would object to. Who are we to judge him? We are Christians who believe the Bible- and therefore, we exercise our senses to discern good and evil. If a man performs evil-and makes a POLICY of it- the man is evil, and we can discern that. If a man claims to be "in Christ", and also claims to be a proud member in good standing of NAMBLA, the organization of child molesters, then that man is evil, and we can discern THAT. Or would you say that it is NOT fair to claim that a man who claims to be a practicing Christian, and a practicing child molester is evil? Please be honest-if you HONESTLY believe we are in no position to call such a man "evil", then say so. How much internal consistency do your beliefs have? ========== A) The only reason anyone says Romans is "foundational" compared to Galatians is that vpw said it. You have failed to establish his credibility on this. Therefore, your claim Romans is more "foundational" is unsupported. B) I believe that we SHOULD spend some time in Romans. Romans 6: 1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. 12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. 13Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. 14For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. 15What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 17But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. 19I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. 20For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 21What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. Romans 8: 12Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. 13For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. According to Romans, we have the grace of God. AND CONDUCT COUNTS. WE ARE TO AVOID SIN. AND WHEN WE DON'T, IT IS WRONG. WORKS of the flesh, please. If WTH does everything he can to hide that God wants us to do right actions, can you forgive him for that? I can. It doesn't make that any less WRONG, but I can forgive him for it.

"I was waiting for the universe to dispense some justice but sometimes the universe is just too damn slow. The effects of putting Nair in someone's styling gel, however, only take a few minutes." "I haven't experienced life!" "I've experienced life, and I'm here to tell you it's overrated." "I am only a lowly cog in this woman's life. Pity me." "When will you learn, if it doesn't apply to me, it doesn't matter?" "I come in peace!" "..I take it you're going with 'I come in peace' again..." "My head is spinning..." "Of course it's spinning. It's revolted-your brain is probably trying to twist its way out of your head!" "C'mon guys, I'm missing '2 Stupid Dogs' for this." "...that bleeping little Dutch boy...." "We are in court-you will need to read that EXACTLY as you wrote it." "That IS the way I wrote it. Look." "That bleeping little Dutch boy..." "That means WE are the art!"

Here is what WTH SAID: I said this in reply: WTH said originally, "If people's opinion of him didn't mean a d*** thing to him back when he was alive" In plain English, that means WTH said that vpw didn't care what people thought of him. Now WTH claimed that he never said that-that coming away with this is failing to read what's written, or having a low reading comprehension. Sadly, WTH is unable to reconcile WHAT HE MEANT TO SAY with WHAT HE SAID AND I REPLIED TO. And his frustration with being unable to do so results in his tantrum and insulting me. It's sad, really, but what can you do? I can't educate the man. He could easily have responded "What I MEANT was..." and then been correct.

Here's what Paul said in Romans 7:16-25, so neither I nor WTH have to be trusted on it. 16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. Is this Paul saying he was fornication, engaging in lascivious acts, idolizing something other than God, being a drunkard, revelling, etc? Obviously NOT-because then Galatians 5 would have excluded him. To those whose conscience is asleep, this will come as news. To many of you, this will be a "no duh" type of incident. When I was younger, I pondered an action I had taken, and was wracked with guilt over it. A total stranger asked me why I was upset, and I told them as much. Having only known me for a few minutes, they said it probably wasn't something most people would freak out about. They were 100% correct. If someone ELSE had done it, I would have forgiven them easily. It was MYSELF I was the harshest critic on. Someone once started a thread where they wanted to discuss things WE had done wrong. So, they volunteered a "wrong action" of their own- they had taught the Bible, and "run long" on time. Now, most people would not make that an issue. If you're a harsh critic on yourself and have very high expectations, this will bother you. I've recently been adding to my skill-sets. An instructor reminded me recently to remember to HAVE FUN. I was focusing so hard on trying to get perfect that I was losing sight of the entertainment value of learning fun things. But, I'm my own harshest critic, generally. Some of you would say the same of yourselves. ("It's no surprise to me, I am my own worst enemy...") Now, Paul was raking himself over the coals about not being PRISTINE, about not being completely ABOVE IT ALL. Was it serious? If it was, it would have been in the other categories. To an outsider, it was probably incidental at most. To Paul HIMSELF, it was a big deal. ======= Now then, did Paul do "bad things" after getting born again? If one's going by the harshest scales, yes. If one is allowing for humans to occasionally be short-tempered at a bad moment (as opposed to much of the time), or less-than-perfect (but still civil) conduct to pass muster, then NO, Paul wasn't PERFECT, but what he did wasn't THAT BAD. Someone cuts someone else off on the freeway. Someone rams his car into another on the freeway, then shoots the driver. Did both do something "bad"? Yes, technically. Would you send both to jail? For the benefit of those who don't get it, NO, you send the FELON to jail, and you caution the other driver, "Sin no more." (Or equivalent.) And these imaginary "self-righteous hypocrite preachers" WTH invented don't even have to enter the discussion. We aren't talking about removing grace. We are talking about people using the freedom God gave them RESPONSIBLY, CHOOSING to do right, and-when they choose to do wrong, facing consequences, whether that be losing respect, or going to jail for committing a felony. I certainly don't trust (NOW that I've seen that they exist) Christians who blow off responsibility and consequences. If they have no conscience, I don't even want to be in the same ROOM with them. If I were to encounter Christians who match WTH's claim of those sort of Christians, I wouldn't want to be in the same room with THEM, EITHER. Actually, we're discussing those who do THE WORKS OF THE FLESH.Galatians 5:19-21. 19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. My terminology's just fine. I'm talking about people who are making it their POLICY to do stuff God said is bad to do. If someone's saying they're "in the flesh" because they are referring to those who do "works of the flesh", well, unless we're refining doctrinal points, I consider criticizing it SPLITTING HAIRS, since we both know EXACTLY what is being meant: the people who make it their PRACTICE, their POLICY, to do really bad things. Funny how you swapped "HATE"-which is a strong emotion- for "DISLIKE"- which is the absence of an emotion that's not so strong. I dislike being caught in traffic. I do not spend emotion on the subject. I dislike being caught in the rain. I do not spend emotion on the subject. I dislike like Karl Rove. I do not spend emotion on him. In dislike posters who lack the wit to understand the difference between HATING and DISLIKING. I don't get emotional about them. Now, darkness or confusion is a more pressing problem, say, if someone wants to say acts of evil are good, or someone who chronically did evil was a good guy. It's also bad to take someone who, say, only pointed out evil, and claim that by doing so, THEY are doing evil. Proverbs 17 13Whoso rewardeth evil for good, evil shall not depart from his house. 15He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD. Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Swing and a miss.

Here's how the quotes went. My diagnosis is that you're overworked and suffering from extreme stress and borderline exhaustion. As for my prescription... come with me." "Karvino juice... Lorvan crackers... a holosuite program... a jumja stick... and gambling tokens." "Now, at least two of these items must be used and fully enjoyed before you can leave this facility." Kira was seriously overworked and overstressed. Dr Bashir ORDERED her to relax. The second speaker was Quark. (As we know from a later episode, she never used the holosuite, so she must have finished 2 of the food-items, since Quark promised he'd give Bashir a report, and Bashir said they'd do that EVERY night if Kira didn't do it then. Ok, remember, Thomas Riker was masquerading as Will Riker. He wants to get the Defiant, and avoid the people who know Will Riker WELL. "Is there anything I can do for you while you're here? A look around the station... maybe a tour of the Defiant? Chief O'Brien's working on her polaron deflector this morning... I'm sure he'd love to show you around." "Thanks... but to be honest, the last thing I want to do on my vacation is look at polaron deflectors." He refused an offer for Chief O'Brien to give him a tour of the ship, and made it sound to Sisko like he DIDN'T want to see the ship in the process. "I have nothing to say to you, Chief. And I think you know why." "Maybe we should come back another time." "What was that all about?" "It's a long story. And I'd rather not get into it right now." It is a SHORT story. Thomas just said that to get rid of O'Brien FAST-and it worked. O'Brien left, wondering what he could have done to upset Will, which kept him OCCUPIED and FAR AWAY. And he didn't explain because he HAD no story to tell Kira. "I hope you're not here for another loan. Don't tell me you've forgotten who staked you three strips of latinum when your winning streak ran dry?" "Oh, my God... of course. Sorry... most of that night is still a blur." Dax was there the last time Will was on DS9. Thomas had to improvise and pretend he remembered the encounter. "You think we'll have a chance to take a look at that new starship of yours?" Thomas scamming Kira, small-talking her until he could make a CASUAL request to see the ship. Your turn, George!

It is. The episode is simply called "the Defiant." (Silly name, but there you go.) My one complaint was that, as soon as the deception was no longer needed (he removed the fake beard-sides, revealing he had a goattee), he didn't change out of Will Riker's uniform. He was trying to distinguish himself, so I thought he'd have a problem maintaining the disguise longer than he HAD to.

That song was, what, 7:15 or something? I thought some of the lyrics were great for twi survivors to listen and consider. "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss." No names, but I said that back when I left, and it reminds me of some "new bosses" in some places. dooj, please pass us another! :)

So, I shall address oldiesman's comments, which I provided the relevant posts for, in the interests of clarity, and added the verses in Galatians for good measure. I think it really is not a big jump to think that Galatians 5's list of the works of the flesh, and the people having no inheritance in the kingdom of God, SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES PAUL, and rascal didn't need to say it. Apparently, some of us are unable to see it, so I will spell it out for those of us who need the help-files enabled. Galatians 1:1-3. 1Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) 2And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: 3Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,. God's giving the warnings of Galatians by WHOSE hand? Everyone see it? PAUL. Is God Almighty going to give THE warning about people who will not inherit the kingdom of God DIRECTLY THROUGH someone who is not going to inherit the kingdom of God? Well, I suppose some of you may have difficulty seeing what's apparent to most, so I'll answer my own question. God Almighty did not entrust His Word to incompetents, and it was neither written nor delivered by the hand of the unbeliever, the faithless, the men or women of the flesh. Did Paul's actions before his new birth displease God? Yes. Did God Almighty exclude him from the kingdom of God on that basis? Obviously NOT- Jesus Christ HIMSELF showed up and Paul got the chance to show that he was not all about the works of the flesh. Paul repented of his past deeds, and spent the rest of his life serving God, and NOT serving himself, and pouring out his own life for the brethren. For him, that's no exaggeration. Paul exhibited "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance". He "crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." Therefore, he "was Christ's." On the other hand, Paul COULD have taken his chance and committed adultery, fornication, lasciviousness, unclean acts, worshipped and served HIMSELF, spewed hatred at times and exhibited wrath, envied the rich and been a drunkard. As Galatians 5 tells us, they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. The apostle Paul did not do that. If you want an account of a man who did all that, you will have to look at a DIFFERENT man.

Galatians 5: 16-24 (KJV) 16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. Oldies had to pull this from several months ago on another thread, but here it is. What rascal said on THIS thread, in THIS discussion, THIS week, was: oldiesman felt the need, rather than continue THIS discussion, to go here: rascal, still having THIS discussion, replied: As we see, that IS what she had said.

"I was waiting for the universe to dispense some justice but sometimes the universe is just too damn slow. The effects of putting Nair in someone's styling gel, however, only take a few minutes." "I haven't experienced life!" "I've experienced life, and I'm here to tell you it's overrated." "I am only a lowly cog in this woman's life. Pity me." "When will you learn, if it doesn't apply to me, it doesn't matter?"