WordWolf

The "inbuilt" firewall-which is it? It's not that Microsoft Windows one, is it? If so, you don't exactly HAVE a firewall. You have a pretend-firewall. That thing's job is to lower the chances of infection while you download and run a REAL firewall.

Yes. A) Run an online scan for any viruses it mcaffee missed. http://www.trendmicro.com B) Download the latest versions of AdAware and Spybot:Search and Destroy, update them, and run them both. That, on top of changing your passwords, should be enough. You DO have a firewall, right?

Allow me to throw in another idea, one not so revolutionary. The problem is he's bored because Kindergarten is partly learning, and partly babysitting, and the 2nd part is putting him to sleep. I had the same problem in Kindergarten. For some bizarre reason, they let me make the decision on this. As ridiculous as it sounds, looking back, I think my solution WAS the best solution. I went to First Grade in the morning, and Kindergarten in the afternoon. Yes, I was doing both grades of work each day. No chance of being bored THAT way! Too much to do! Eventually, I decided to just stay with 1st grade, since I was up until 8pm some nights doing homework. This way, I eased into 1st grade and didn't have "culture shock". Did I end up insufficiently educated for my age? Well, for reasons unclear to me, my parents switched my school at the end of first grade (rather than starting 2nd grade at the new one.) I had about a month at the new school, and I made the Honor Roll, after which I settled in nicely. (Although they bored me from time to time also, just not so often.) So, it's possible that may work for him, without restructuring the school board this semester.

It wouldn't hurt to give them a copy of the e-mail, too....

I also see you were edited-get over it. Paw doesnt OWE you an explanation. If you don't like the way he runs things, leave and post elsewhere. No 1's forcing you to eat here.

Was Question 8 the famous "faith-blasters" thing that was effectively a photocopy with one or two words moved around? Does someone have those links handy with the side-by-side comparisons, for the benefit of those of us just tuning in at home?

I don't have time to get into this now, and just happen to be looking at a related concept (but I'm not done). I think the answer is in the rest of that verse, and in thinking like the audience 3000 years ago. We're thinking like Greeks or modern people. We need to think like Isaiah's audience did.

Actually, in this case, based on the results, I'd be comfortable calling it "rebellion", or calling it "High Treason". (wordnet dictionary) 'High Treason: a crime that undermines the offender's government." (hyperdictionary) "High treason: treason against the sovereign or against the state, the highest civil offense." "Legal Definition of treason: A breach of allegiance to one's government, usually committed through levying war against such government or by giving or comfort to the enemy. The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power. Treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy, and rendering him aid and comfort."

Good point -- but Jesus was the "judge and jury" in that particular case. I hear what you are saying Berry, and I have mixed emotions about it too, though I do think the correct sentence was handed down. Actually, Jesus 'sentenced' Paul to a life of hard labour and a martyrdom at the end. Depending on how you look at it, he either DID get death, or got L-WOPPed (Life WithOut Possibility of Parole). Also, Paul "was consenting" to the death of Stephen- he didn't personally strangle the life of an expectant mother. Finally, premeditation counts for a lot.

Good point. Hadn't thought of it. Thank you. Actually, my guesstimate was that between ROA 1988 and ROA 1989, 80% of the people in as of ROA 88 had jumped ship as of the opening of ROA 89. (That was based on attendance being roughly 20% of the previous year's ROA.) This figure, BTW, was backed up later, so I thought that was pretty good. Mind you, significant #s of people who were in as of ROA 1989 left before ROA 90, and attended that one to finish personal business. (Welcome back a WOW, finish a WOW year, raid the Bookstore.) So, I'd say twi lost 80% of 1988's membership by 1989. I don't know how many they lost 1985-1988 as a result of POP, nor 1989 or later, as a result of lcm being an increasingly bigger sanitary napkin as time progressed.

Or, as I said earlier, you can look at the copy on the GSC site. It IS coded so it can be read as html documents with your browser instead of as a pdf.... (Your choice.)

*reads* Well, I'm sure he hasn't read Bullinger. (If he HAS, he disagrees sharply with him on the identity of the "fallers".) This guy's relying on "the Bible Code" and secret messages concealed in the Bible. This guy's also operating entirely upon the assumption that the Hebrew cubit was a STANDARDIZED UNIT OF MEASUREMENT, and many of us, if not most of us, know that's completely not true. He's also completely departed from all historical documents that actually cover the construction of the pyramids, including accounting reports on the workers and logistics like food and so on. (The workers dragging the stones making up the pyramids had bread baked fresh on-site. That's just one piece of minutiae on the pyramids' construction.) According to him, the Egyptians couldnt have the brains to construct the pyramids. History says they did it anyway, so by definition they apparently DID have the brains to do so. I was surprised to see Clarence Larkin's name pop up in his citations. Anyone else remember that name? From what I saw, I suspect he took some observations made by Larkin and constructed an entire theology around it. (I may be wrong-it's possible Larkin taught this nonsense.) *reads the initial post* OMG-this guy graduated the 11th corpse???? Well, that possibly explains the Larkin connection, but it makes the anti-Bullinger stuff baffling. Sorry, Eagle, I for one can't see any redeeming qualities in this thing, going from the website and the author's own words. For all of me, he doesn't have to teach anything even vaguely resembling what Bullinger taught, but he's relying far too much on insufficient scholarship and building far too much on "gray areas" that have already been filled in by the work of others. In hindsight, I wish the corpse had actually had some courses up to at least community college-standard at the Way C. of E. ... It might have saved Patrick Heron from writing and releasing this collection of wild guesses. Depending on his audience, he may well sell many copies. Heck, Sylvia Browne and a number of "psychics" have thriving businesses due to the patronage of the gullible and poorly-educated, perhaps he can capitalize on that as well and turn a tidy profit. (I'd be less blunt about the lack of skill evidenced here, but he IS selling these things for money and supposedly completed research on the subject.)

Can you give us a vague notion about at least one of the "good argumemts" or a conclusion drawn from one of them? Otherwise, this strikes me as more of an ad for a book than a "discussion" thread. (If you want to post an ad, that's allowed, but I am of the impression that's not quite what you had in mind.)

George,Then why do you bother at all with these doctrinal threads? I mean you don't give a hoot about the Bible - so what's the point? Don't you think you have rubbed our noses in your disdain for the Bible enough times by now? I agree. I think that exhortations to critical thought have their place in the GSC, especially to newer arrivals who have has limited exposure to them. Some threads, in fact, recommend skeptical thought and discussion from that perspective. However, not every thread DOES, and it can be an unnecessary distraction from the discussion. We ARE trying to discuss "dispensationalism" (aka various things) in this thread.

I'll look again later, but I didn't happen to stumble across it last night. (Again, it's posted in the GSC Documents.)

Actually, you can just skim the copy on the GSC main page, which is what I did when you asked what predictions I meant. That's when I noticed all the "I served vichysoisse that evening, and steaks medium rare" stuff. Every time I read the thing over the years, it slowly gets spookier and spookier. What's REALLY disturbing is I know Paw isnt changing the document-it's my perception that's changing each time.

And where would that be? Which Epsitle and what Bible mentions an "administration of grace". Not the King James. Not the NIV. Not the ASV. The words "administration of grace" do not appear in any Bible that I am aware of. Paul does however write in Epehsians 3:2: Eph 3:2 2If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: Is this talking about an "Administration" as defined by Wierwille/Bullinger/et al - as in a period of time? No. In the context read verses 7 & 8: Eph 3:7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. Eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; Paul is simpy saying that he was given grace by God by allowing him to preach and minister to the Ephesians (Gentiles). To pull a time framed "administration of grace" out of these verses is absurd and sloppy interpretation and is not reading it in the context. Dave said elsewhere: Huh? What "actual words" are you taking about?After posting a diatribe of TWI Doctrine and Wierwillian theology, Dave then writes: LOL! Hey Dave have you ever closed your PFAL Book and your TWI materials are actually read anything else? I kinda doubt it. Maybe you should unclutter your mind of strict adherance to Wierwille's teachings and study the works of some true Christian scholars. You are making a false presumption that folks who disagree with TWI doctrines do so becasue of resentment and anger. Not so. You see some of us have actually studied outside of PFAL and TWI materials and have through objective study found them seriously flawed and wanting - broken cisterns that can hold little water. So get off of the anger and resentmet horsepucky - ok ? It doesn't cut it around here. Oh, and welcome to Greasespot! I think this is what Goey was referring to...

Did he say anything about Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon"? (Has he ever played it during the movie?)

So, MAYBE vpw, who planned out, orchestrated and committed evil acts abusing his office as a man of God (think Hophni and Phineas for a more extreme example than vpw) repented on his deathbed. (We know he didn't repent sooner because he made no attempts to make restitution to any of his victims, which would have been the bare minimum proof he repented.) The only possible evidence that has been offered that vpw made a deathbed repentance is that MAYBE a prophecy was spoken about him that said God thought he did a good job. Granted, God loves all His children, but saying they're "well-pleasing" to Him is not something He casually throws around. We know He said it to Jesus Christ, The Son of God, The Messiah, The Redeemer, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the Bright and Morning Star, The Way, The Truth and The Life. We're NOT familiar with God just tossing this statement around often. In fact, that's the SOLE person we know He said that of. John the Baptist and Paul didn't even get that treatment. However, I'm supposed to seriously consider that this was a genuine prophecy, and disregard outright idolatry and worship of vpw, such as statements like vpw being the only other human besides Jesus Christ who faced off with The Devil outside of the Garden of Eden, and how his believing, all by itself, was somehow protecting the entire United States while he was alive. Sorry, my memory's not that selective. ============ True, you may believe whatever you choose to believe. I think you've failed to make even an arguable case, let alone a strong case, that vpw repented even upon his last breath. Or that such a repentance would cut a lot of ice with God.

I agree you'd be allowed to attend with a mortgage. However, I think the bottom line is, they want the money that attendance brings more than retaining their error-ridden doctrine of "no mortgage". Greed triumphs over principle once again, business as usual.

What predictions? Well, I'm not counting the nicely ironic comment at the end of Part I, where vpw is reported to have said, of his own son Don, that "Perhaps he has done more to harm this Ministry than any other single man in its entire history." (Sayeth the rapist/molester/plagiarist who, apparently, didn't really harm said ministry, not to mention his hand-picked protege, who was twofold the child of hell he was.) (That was third paragraph from the end.) I WAS referring to the beginning of Part 2, starting in Paragraph 7. More stuff slandering Don, supposedly from his father. "Son, I need to warn you, when I am gone what will happen is that Don will really 'flourish'. He will look like he is coming into his own and really developing. He may even start to talk like a Biblical man.....They will say that he has come into his own, but that won't be true. I will finally be out of his way, and there will be no one to stop him from running things with sense knowledge and without God...Son, it has cost me my friend and will end up costing us the Ministry." A few paragraphs down.... "...but it looks to me that unless we have a major change spiritually we are going to lose to the IRS." Going in reverse order, twi's tax-exempt status was restored- you remember when it was announced. Don never had a big public turnaround, Don never put on a public display of any kind. Further, the idea that Don would be running things should have been silly. About 11 paragraphs from the bottom of Part 2 ("About then we got back into the archway...") is when vpw... "...he told me that the only two men whom he felt still had maintained their spirituality were Craig and me...." lcm was one of the top 2 most spiritual back then? I could name a handful of people in the upper tier who were better- Limb/Region or program coordinators. lcm's chief "virtue" was extreme loyalty to vpw-the one trait he shared with cg. BTW, in skimming the entire document now, I find it curious that so much attention was given to the exact food items prepared and served. (There's several mentioned specifically, on multiple occasions.) Supposedly, this was about the destruction of a ministry- why did it matter what the menu was?

Actually, I find comparisons of twi higher-ups to wolves to be offensive. To the wolves. Wolves care for their own, and are indifferent to everyone else. twi higher-ups cared only for themselves, whoever was needed to keep their own lusts going, and everyone else was to be TOLD loving things while taking their 10-15% and providing nothing in return. I AM still aware that analogies are FIGURES OF SPEECH, and, as such are NOT LITERALLY TRUE TO FACT. Therefore, most of the time, I leave it alone. The offense exists mostly in my mind.

Changing the word "WITHOUT" to "WITH" reverses the meaning of a sentence, since "WITH" and "WITHOUT" are antonyms, and thus mean the OPPOSITE of each other. This requires illustration???? I'm typing WITH a computer. If I was typing WITHOUT a computer, this message would never make it to the messageboard. "Cleaning up language syntax" was more the excuse used when trying to make the tortured logic of Session One work. That was used when trying to make "your needs and wants must be parallel" work and make sense. Which, it does, if you completely rewrite what vpw wrote and add lots of stuff. "WITH distinction" and "WITHOUT distinction" are opposites. Ask anyone who ever served in an armed forces. If someone's record says they served "with distinction", that means they did a GREAT job, and EXCEEDED expectations, they were ABOVE-average. If their record says they served "without distinction", that means they performed their job ADEQUATELY, and MET expectations, they were AVERAGE. Is there something confusing about their syntax? Does that need clarification?

Don't think that business about the same boat doesn't give me a chill. Just because I was younger and stupider once, and didn't watch my back, doesn't mean I'm blase about it.... Perhaps he is thinking and considering, perhaps not. Me, I'm not sure coddling him while he learns those hard lessons will make them easier-perhaps he will decide he doesn't need to confront his OWN suppositions that way.