Did you read the linked article? As a Christian, I rolled my eyes most at the BBC radio headline, "The Higgs boson is another nail in the coffin of religion." This seems like an equal opportunity attempt to offend. It attacks religion, but with an argument that is so stupid that it ought to offend atheists too who might be associated with such asininity. And this is the BBC who you think wouldn't do this kind of thing.
This is illuminating. Most of the time, those who read text that exhibits bad grammar or ambiguities and discern the intended meaning by the context. So, if the message was between two people who had arranged a ritual cannibalistic meal where they ingest the remains of their newly departed, then both parties would know that the meaning is an invitation to eat Grandma's remains.
I am all for good grammar and spelling, but the internet has made common new forms of interaction in the form of text messages. emails and postings like these. Each type of communication is evolving its own set of rules. Older forms of communication such as private speech, public speaking, phone conversations and letters also have a set of rules. We tolerate a lot of error, bad grammar and ambiguity in private conversation because the effort it takes to properly formulate conversation would destroy the immediacy of conversation. Listen to conversations sometime and observe the errors, the "uhs", the "you-knows", and incomplete sentences. Some conversations are nearly incomprehensible to any but the participants who have the advantage of context and shared experience to resolve ambiguities. Formal written letters or public speeches are held to a much higher standard. More people will receive these communications, so accurate grammar and language is important. But these forms of communication are less immediate and less personal. More effort is put into these more formal forms of communication.
The new forms of communication seem to me to fall between the lax standards of private speech and the strict formal standards of formal letter writing or published articles. For example I find that most text messages are normally intended to be quick and informal forms of communication. Various abbreviations (like "k" for Okay) are created to facilitate fast low-effort communication, and poor grammar in this setting is tolerated in exchange for the low level of effort to facilitate the speed and convenience of texting. Internet postings and emails require a higher standard that texting, but these also are intended to be created and viewed and discarded relatively quickly. (This post for example, won't be read much because I am posting in the afternoon from the west coast of the USA after 600+ other comments have been posted. This entry and all of the comments are already history for most/. readers.) As such they are not normally held to the same standard as we would expect from more formal forms of communication. The one exception is the rhetorical flaming of the grammar in order to score rhetorical points against someone with whom you disagree.
So, while I think we should always encourage good writing and grammar, I think less rigid standards are acceptable in some of these newer modes of communication depending on the need for immediacy instead of accuracy.
In fairness to the ancient Hebrews, you should read the whole passage:
2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
A female servant is a concubine and is to be treated as one of his wives. She does not go free after seven years as it is with men because she is regarded as married. To be redeemed means to be sold back to the father. She has certain rights that if not honored means that she is to go free. Feel free to judge them by our modern standard of ethics that our modern ways afford us, but judge them fairly at least.
Frankly, Hebrew laws regarding "servants" or "slaves" seems human when compared with American slavery in the old south where people where essentially regarded as being a type of cattle and where treated as such.
My understanding is that the earliest manuscripts have camelos, and only a few later ones have camilos. But Jesus spoke Aramaic. The aramaic word gamla has two meanings, a primary meaning of Camel and a secondary meaning of a thick rope made of camel hair. Assuming this represents an authentic saying, then it seems likely to me that the original saying used this word gamla and the intended meaning in context was rope and it is easier to thread a needle with a rope that it is for a rich man to enter into heaven. It would also mean that the person who communicated the saying in Greek mistranslated the word.
Your comments regarding understanding "oughts" in terms of personal goals (what is the meaning of life to myself or the player's desire to win the game etc) is all very good. It underlays arguments for moral good based on utilitarianism. But this only helps with the issue of moral epistemology, not ontology. The problem with defining morals in terms of subjective individual goals or meaning to particular individuals is that it makes morals purely relative and robs them of objectivity. (I alluded to this in my Dostoevsky quote.) If it helps you, I will rephrase -- moral goodness (kindness, justice, love, mercy etc.) exists as essential attributes of God which is why they are objectively true and universally applicable standards. Apart from God objective moral values do not exist. This in turn resolves the Euthyphro problem because the Good is not an external standard, but is an essential attribute of God.
BTW, I do not recall saying your are wrong or telling you to shut up. This appeal seems to me to be a rather ad-hominem remark to me. I think your presentation of the Euthyphro problem is stated reasonably well and is a thoughtful comment.
Regarding your claim of special pleading, I don't think you have presented any argument demonstrating that what I have said is special pleading. It appears that my use of the phrase "in some sense" without explaining the sense is where you get this. The use of "in some sense" in this case means "partially". God is the ultimate standard of goodness ("God is Love"), but he is not only the ultimate standard of goodness. (It does not follow that "Love is God').
I did not attempt to define "good" per se in my post. A good definition of what is "good" I think can be defined apart from "God". That is a question of epistemology. The Euthyphro problem is a question regarding ontology. I.e. is the quality of being "good" an existing external standard to which God must conform? I am suggesting that the Good has no objective existence at all apart from God, so we are not referring to any existing external standard. Goodness is an essential attribute of God. By saying this, I am arguing that goodness is not contingent and not arbitrary.
My purpose is to put forth a theistic response, but I would suggest independent research elsewhere for a fuller analysis.
The question, "Does the Good conform to God, or does God conform to the Good?" is a helpful way of illuminating the issue because it posits "the Good" as perhaps existing apart from God as an Ideal of its own. The problem is that "Good" doesn't exist apart from "God". Perhaps we can determine by some type of rule or heuristic what "Good" would be without referring to God or to any law laid down by God. But that only give us a moral "epistemology". The Good only exists because it is part of God's essential nature. In some sense, God is identical to the ultimate standard for goodness (i.e. "God is Love".) If the "Good" is separated from God, any moral codes or laws become arbitrary rules without moral force or ultimate meaning. (i.e. "If there is no God, everything is permissible").
This is not true for me. I get Cox cable internet only. No cable TV at all. Cox service has been excellent. I view all cable companies as evil, but Cox for me at least is less evil than the others.
I have a HD Tivo unit with slingbox which I use to access a Tivo remotely including most recently using an iPad2 with the new slingbox client for my wife who uses it on a treadmill in another room. I also have a Roku box in another room. We have netflix and use the free Hulu and sometimes Amazon video on demand. We will stream a lot to our iMac's, iPhone's and my daughter's iPhone touch. Works great.
The draw of a brick and mortar video store (to me) is that you go there, pick out a movie, and watch it that night.
I agree that this is the best appeal of brick and mortar, but in my case If I want to see and rent something that night, I will get it from Amazon's VOD service and start streaming it within 30 minutes.
I have netflix. A lot of my favorite stuff is streamed from them (Mythbusters and Dr. Who for example). I only get one DVD per month, but when I get something, I rip it and send it back the next day.
I have TiVo and Playon -- Playon allows me to get Hulu and other shows (such as from TNT which has my wife's favorite show, The Closer) on my TV via our WII.
I find all of this more than enough to overcome that same night gratification.
No paying for cable this way, and no Blockbuster late fees.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It is at best a set of arguments that attempt to show that intelligent agency rather than unguided matter better accounts for the development of life on earth.
Only some of these arguments are opposed to evolution. There are many arguments of this type that are completely consistent with evolution which is why a great many Christians such as myself except evolution even though we are not strict naturalists.
The main arguments used against evolution are Michael Behe's irreducible complexity idea and William Dembski's specified complexity idea. Ultimately, I don't think they hold water. Behe's argument reduces to a version of a "God of the Gaps" type argument, and he has not met the burden of proof to show that there exist any genuinely irreducibly complex structures in nature. Dembski's idea says that chance is ruled out when a highly improbable event conforms to a discernible pattern which is given independently of the event itself. He call's this a specified complexity. Such co-joined probabilities are so low that they do not occur by chance. I regard it as an interesting idea, but I cannot see how is could be used to question evolution, because in no case is the evolutionary pattern of an event in natural history given independently, so you do not have a co-joined probability to evaluate. This defers from other cases where we might detect intelligence such as finding ancient tools (which confirms human evolution) or detecting ET signals from space, because in these cases we can specify the pattern independently.
Regardless, none of this is substantial enough to constitute anything close to a scientific theory or alternative to evolution. Venter's accomplishment is irrelevant.
No, not really. The most important consideration for the ancient Vatican documents is an exact and accurate replication of document image. If you have an document fragment from the third century, a proper reading of the document may hinge on how a particular letter fragment is reconstructed. To do this work properly, you need as exact a replication of the original as possible. It seems that FITS is designed to do just that. DjVu is not. DjVu works with modern documents and is focused on creating high quality readable documents that minimize resources so they can be made available on the web. In some respects, this kind of imaging is more like digitizing astronomical data than it is digitizing documents.
That would be nice if it were true. It's not. Abuse rates are much higher in public schools.
The church is held (as it should be) to a higher standard. I blame the celibacy rule for the priesthood which creates a cadre of leadership that is totally insensitive to the needs of families to protect their children and which creates an inviting environment for pedophiles giving them access and cover.
Man, If I had a nickle...For everytime I wished I had Wifi when I was at McDonalds... I'd have the exact same amount of money I do now.
I will be accumulating a few nickles I think. I am often on call and far from home. Also, I have young children who are sometimes with me. So, if I get a call I can go to a nearby McDonalds -- they are perhaps more ubiquitous than Star Bucks -- and let the young ones play in the play area while I VPN to my work -- that will be great.
My wife is home schooling our three children half-time. We have them enrolled in a school where they attend classes three days a week and are home schooled two days. The parents are all highly engaged with their children's education, and the children are are exceptionally orderly and cooperative. The teachers have an interesting enforcement mechanism -- if a kid is causing issues, they are simply sent home to be home schooled for a few days. It seems to be working very well. Most classes are a good year or two ahead academically as compared with their public school counter parts.
I guess it would be fair enough to characterize this as the ulitimate in cherry picking with respect to private schools, but it also seems to be nearer the Asian model with shorter class time, but much more home study time.
His bet is that killing off Microsoft as a monopoly will not kill of Microsoft. It is a good bet considering that the leviathan that Microsoft slew -- the IBM monopoly -- is still the largest and most profitable information technology company on the planet.
Honestly. The vision described in TFA will take years to unfold -- if it does unfold that way. By that time media like DVDs will be outdated. Purely local editing of video and music content without a network connection may be rather difficult at that time just as many Games are today.
Plus, who says just because there is a browser on the BIOS that you can't boot into a regular OS if you want to? TBH, the browser OS will probably be the optional OS on a PC, not the primary (though it could be!). You know, hit it when you just want to brows the web sort of situations. I know I'm often there, I just want to look something up, or check my favorite news-aggregation website, etc.
Agreed. Beyond that, Many legacy programs can be packaged into virtual machine appliances that are launched locally from a browser window. A traditional OS might be running within the appliance, but the user never needs to actually see it or interact with it.
5. The Narada didn't seem to suffer any damage from the Kelvin when it activated it's warp core on impact.
The crew of the Narada had 25 years to make repairs before Spock Prime arrived from the future. It was a huge ship, so presumably even the warp core blast only damaged it, but did not destroy it.
The scientific problem I had the most issue with was the "super-nova" that destroyed Romulus, enveloping it. Was it in the same solar system? If so, then Spock would destroy the Nova by turning the Romulan Sun into a black hole!? Or, was it in a different system? If so, then the Nova was so huge that the mass of the star could expand over distances of light years and envelop a planet in a different star system!? It made no sense at all.
In spite of that, and the various contrivances, I still liked the movie very much.
In the last year there was an episode of Law & Order named"Rapture" where something like this happens. One of three Christians who were supposed to log in didn't due to losing internet access, another of course because he was murdered. So, in the world of the show, emails were sent that were not supposed to be until after the rapture.
This reminds me of a preacher on the Radio -- Dr. J Vernon McGee. He started a Bible teaching radio program featuring himself teaching through the Bible. You can listen to it today on any day of the week, or even download his podcasts.
Here's the thing -- He's been dead since 1988. The current organization just keeps playing his tapes over and over again.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you read the linked article? As a Christian, I rolled my eyes most at the BBC radio headline, "The Higgs boson is another nail in the coffin of religion." This seems like an equal opportunity attempt to offend. It attacks religion, but with an argument that is so stupid that it ought to offend atheists too who might be associated with such asininity. And this is the BBC who you think wouldn't do this kind of thing.
I am all for good grammar and spelling, but the internet has made common new forms of interaction in the form of text messages. emails and postings like these. Each type of communication is evolving its own set of rules. Older forms of communication such as private speech, public speaking, phone conversations and letters also have a set of rules. We tolerate a lot of error, bad grammar and ambiguity in private conversation because the effort it takes to properly formulate conversation would destroy the immediacy of conversation. Listen to conversations sometime and observe the errors, the "uhs", the "you-knows", and incomplete sentences. Some conversations are nearly incomprehensible to any but the participants who have the advantage of context and shared experience to resolve ambiguities. Formal written letters or public speeches are held to a much higher standard. More people will receive these communications, so accurate grammar and language is important. But these forms of communication are less immediate and less personal. More effort is put into these more formal forms of communication.
The new forms of communication seem to me to fall between the lax standards of private speech and the strict formal standards of formal letter writing or published articles. For example I find that most text messages are normally intended to be quick and informal forms of communication. Various abbreviations (like "k" for Okay) are created to facilitate fast low-effort communication, and poor grammar in this setting is tolerated in exchange for the low level of effort to facilitate the speed and convenience of texting. Internet postings and emails require a higher standard that texting, but these also are intended to be created and viewed and discarded relatively quickly. (This post for example, won't be read much because I am posting in the afternoon from the west coast of the USA after 600+ other comments have been posted. This entry and all of the comments are already history for most /. readers.) As such they are not normally held to the same standard as we would expect from more formal forms of communication. The one exception is the rhetorical flaming of the grammar in order to score rhetorical points against someone with whom you disagree.
So, while I think we should always encourage good writing and grammar, I think less rigid standards are acceptable in some of these newer modes of communication depending on the need for immediacy instead of accuracy.
In fairness to the ancient Hebrews, you should read the whole passage:
2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
A female servant is a concubine and is to be treated as one of his wives. She does not go free after seven years as it is with men because she is regarded as married. To be redeemed means to be sold back to the father. She has certain rights that if not honored means that she is to go free. Feel free to judge them by our modern standard of ethics that our modern ways afford us, but judge them fairly at least.
Frankly, Hebrew laws regarding "servants" or "slaves" seems human when compared with American slavery in the old south where people where essentially regarded as being a type of cattle and where treated as such.
My understanding is that the earliest manuscripts have camelos, and only a few later ones have camilos. But Jesus spoke Aramaic. The aramaic word gamla has two meanings, a primary meaning of Camel and a secondary meaning of a thick rope made of camel hair. Assuming this represents an authentic saying, then it seems likely to me that the original saying used this word gamla and the intended meaning in context was rope and it is easier to thread a needle with a rope that it is for a rich man to enter into heaven. It would also mean that the person who communicated the saying in Greek mistranslated the word.
Your comments regarding understanding "oughts" in terms of personal goals (what is the meaning of life to myself or the player's desire to win the game etc) is all very good. It underlays arguments for moral good based on utilitarianism. But this only helps with the issue of moral epistemology, not ontology. The problem with defining morals in terms of subjective individual goals or meaning to particular individuals is that it makes morals purely relative and robs them of objectivity. (I alluded to this in my Dostoevsky quote.) If it helps you, I will rephrase -- moral goodness (kindness, justice, love, mercy etc.) exists as essential attributes of God which is why they are objectively true and universally applicable standards. Apart from God objective moral values do not exist. This in turn resolves the Euthyphro problem because the Good is not an external standard, but is an essential attribute of God.
BTW, I do not recall saying your are wrong or telling you to shut up. This appeal seems to me to be a rather ad-hominem remark to me. I think your presentation of the Euthyphro problem is stated reasonably well and is a thoughtful comment.
Regarding your claim of special pleading, I don't think you have presented any argument demonstrating that what I have said is special pleading. It appears that my use of the phrase "in some sense" without explaining the sense is where you get this. The use of "in some sense" in this case means "partially". God is the ultimate standard of goodness ("God is Love"), but he is not only the ultimate standard of goodness. (It does not follow that "Love is God').
I did not attempt to define "good" per se in my post. A good definition of what is "good" I think can be defined apart from "God". That is a question of epistemology. The Euthyphro problem is a question regarding ontology. I.e. is the quality of being "good" an existing external standard to which God must conform? I am suggesting that the Good has no objective existence at all apart from God, so we are not referring to any existing external standard. Goodness is an essential attribute of God. By saying this, I am arguing that goodness is not contingent and not arbitrary. My purpose is to put forth a theistic response, but I would suggest independent research elsewhere for a fuller analysis.
The question, "Does the Good conform to God, or does God conform to the Good?" is a helpful way of illuminating the issue because it posits "the Good" as perhaps existing apart from God as an Ideal of its own. The problem is that "Good" doesn't exist apart from "God". Perhaps we can determine by some type of rule or heuristic what "Good" would be without referring to God or to any law laid down by God. But that only give us a moral "epistemology". The Good only exists because it is part of God's essential nature. In some sense, God is identical to the ultimate standard for goodness (i.e. "God is Love".) If the "Good" is separated from God, any moral codes or laws become arbitrary rules without moral force or ultimate meaning. (i.e. "If there is no God, everything is permissible").
This is not true for me. I get Cox cable internet only. No cable TV at all. Cox service has been excellent. I view all cable companies as evil, but Cox for me at least is less evil than the others. I have a HD Tivo unit with slingbox which I use to access a Tivo remotely including most recently using an iPad2 with the new slingbox client for my wife who uses it on a treadmill in another room. I also have a Roku box in another room. We have netflix and use the free Hulu and sometimes Amazon video on demand. We will stream a lot to our iMac's, iPhone's and my daughter's iPhone touch. Works great.
The draw of a brick and mortar video store (to me) is that you go there, pick out a movie, and watch it that night.
I agree that this is the best appeal of brick and mortar, but in my case If I want to see and rent something that night, I will get it from Amazon's VOD service and start streaming it within 30 minutes.
I have netflix. A lot of my favorite stuff is streamed from them (Mythbusters and Dr. Who for example). I only get one DVD per month, but when I get something, I rip it and send it back the next day.
I have TiVo and Playon -- Playon allows me to get Hulu and other shows (such as from TNT which has my wife's favorite show, The Closer) on my TV via our WII.
I find all of this more than enough to overcome that same night gratification.
No paying for cable this way, and no Blockbuster late fees.
The souls would be subject to quantum entanglement so no travel is necessary.
Cha! Bozits omicrit zalai bon!
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It is at best a set of arguments that attempt to show that intelligent agency rather than unguided matter better accounts for the development of life on earth.
Only some of these arguments are opposed to evolution. There are many arguments of this type that are completely consistent with evolution which is why a great many Christians such as myself except evolution even though we are not strict naturalists.
The main arguments used against evolution are Michael Behe's irreducible complexity idea and William Dembski's specified complexity idea. Ultimately, I don't think they hold water. Behe's argument reduces to a version of a "God of the Gaps" type argument, and he has not met the burden of proof to show that there exist any genuinely irreducibly complex structures in nature. Dembski's idea says that chance is ruled out when a highly improbable event conforms to a discernible pattern which is given independently of the event itself. He call's this a specified complexity. Such co-joined probabilities are so low that they do not occur by chance. I regard it as an interesting idea, but I cannot see how is could be used to question evolution, because in no case is the evolutionary pattern of an event in natural history given independently, so you do not have a co-joined probability to evaluate. This defers from other cases where we might detect intelligence such as finding ancient tools (which confirms human evolution) or detecting ET signals from space, because in these cases we can specify the pattern independently.
Regardless, none of this is substantial enough to constitute anything close to a scientific theory or alternative to evolution. Venter's accomplishment is irrelevant.
No, not really. The most important consideration for the ancient Vatican documents is an exact and accurate replication of document image. If you have an document fragment from the third century, a proper reading of the document may hinge on how a particular letter fragment is reconstructed. To do this work properly, you need as exact a replication of the original as possible. It seems that FITS is designed to do just that. DjVu is not. DjVu works with modern documents and is focused on creating high quality readable documents that minimize resources so they can be made available on the web. In some respects, this kind of imaging is more like digitizing astronomical data than it is digitizing documents.
That would be nice if it were true. It's not. Abuse rates are much higher in public schools.
The church is held (as it should be) to a higher standard. I blame the celibacy rule for the priesthood which creates a cadre of leadership that is totally insensitive to the needs of families to protect their children and which creates an inviting environment for pedophiles giving them access and cover.
I will be accumulating a few nickles I think. I am often on call and far from home. Also, I have young children who are sometimes with me. So, if I get a call I can go to a nearby McDonalds -- they are perhaps more ubiquitous than Star Bucks -- and let the young ones play in the play area while I VPN to my work -- that will be great.
Yes, I understand that better integration with Wii gaming was desired, so the New DSi will have Wii personal options and will be called the Wii-P.
My wife is home schooling our three children half-time. We have them enrolled in a school where they attend classes three days a week and are home schooled two days. The parents are all highly engaged with their children's education, and the children are are exceptionally orderly and cooperative. The teachers have an interesting enforcement mechanism -- if a kid is causing issues, they are simply sent home to be home schooled for a few days. It seems to be working very well. Most classes are a good year or two ahead academically as compared with their public school counter parts.
I guess it would be fair enough to characterize this as the ulitimate in cherry picking with respect to private schools, but it also seems to be nearer the Asian model with shorter class time, but much more home study time.
It is working well for my family.
Oh! Lisp. Yeah. I get it now. You misspelled "Parenthesis". A Lisp book author of all people!
Thanks.
His bet is that killing off Microsoft as a monopoly will not kill of Microsoft. It is a good bet considering that the leviathan that Microsoft slew -- the IBM monopoly -- is still the largest and most profitable information technology company on the planet.
What's a DVD?
Honestly. The vision described in TFA will take years to unfold -- if it does unfold that way. By that time media like DVDs will be outdated. Purely local editing of video and music content without a network connection may be rather difficult at that time just as many Games are today.
Agreed. Beyond that, Many legacy programs can be packaged into virtual machine appliances that are launched locally from a browser window. A traditional OS might be running within the appliance, but the user never needs to actually see it or interact with it.
The crew of the Narada had 25 years to make repairs before Spock Prime arrived from the future. It was a huge ship, so presumably even the warp core blast only damaged it, but did not destroy it.
The scientific problem I had the most issue with was the "super-nova" that destroyed Romulus, enveloping it. Was it in the same solar system? If so, then Spock would destroy the Nova by turning the Romulan Sun into a black hole!? Or, was it in a different system? If so, then the Nova was so huge that the mass of the star could expand over distances of light years and envelop a planet in a different star system!? It made no sense at all.
In spite of that, and the various contrivances, I still liked the movie very much.
In the last year there was an episode of Law & Order named"Rapture" where something like this happens. One of three Christians who were supposed to log in didn't due to losing internet access, another of course because he was murdered. So, in the world of the show, emails were sent that were not supposed to be until after the rapture.
This reminds me of a preacher on the Radio -- Dr. J Vernon McGee. He started a Bible teaching radio program featuring himself teaching through the Bible. You can listen to it today on any day of the week, or even download his podcasts.
Here's the thing -- He's been dead since 1988. The current organization just keeps playing his tapes over and over again.