All Activity

"The problem is all inside your head she said to me"

I've found three movies with this quote. I'll take either one. "Revenge is a meal best served cold"! Bragging rights is you can name two.

No.

Con Air? George

Human got five right, WW got four. (Jan and Dean were not in the first group.) The whole lineup: (they were inducted in alphabetical order) Chuck Berry, James Brown, Ray Charles, Sam Cooke, Fats Domino, The Everly Brothers, Buddy Holly, Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard (Pettiman), and Elvis Presley. George

Adrien Brody Paul Gleeson Jarod Leto Elias Koteas Ben Chaplin Tim Blake Nelson Thomas Jane George Clooney Woody Harrelson John Cusack John C Reilly

Fats Domino Ray Charles Sam Cooke The Everly Brothers Chuck Berry

OK, taking a stab at this.....here's my best guess. Elvis Presley James Brown Little Richard Buddy Holly Jan & Dean

The duo counts as one name. If you don't know them, there are nine other choices. Give five. George

It'll be my wedding night. After all the years (and my engagement) that I lost to TWI. Walking back to happiness with a lovely kind man.

Well, I can tell you what I will be doing on Saturday night in exactly 15 weeks time. Walking Back To Happiness ~ Helen Shapiro

But we don't need to necessarily name that duo, do we George. Just give five names?

OK, that was a tough one. it was a V-2 rocket, in 1944. Let's try an easier one: The first ten inductees into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame were inducted on January 23, 1986. Nine were individual performers, and the other was a duo. Name FIVE of them. George

Adrien Brody Paul Gleeson Jarod Leto Elias Koteas Ben Chaplin Tim Blake Nelson Thomas Jane George Clooney Woody Harrelson

TWI's attitude to giving is so against what the Bible teaches and the way God operates that it is unrecognisable. And what they teach about tithing isn't recognisable either. To whom were the tithes given, tithes of what, where to be presented, and when. And why (that's a big one, and not one that TWI has ever touched on) (it's not what you might think). You can research it for yourself. It is absolutely wrong to be checking up on people's incomes to make sure they tithed/donated any money. It's between individuals and God. Here are the words of Jesus (yes, I know in the gospels, and only for our learning, hahahaha, as not part of the NT according to TWI) as recorded in Mt 6: when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Now just how private, how secret, is your giving supposed to be, if (hyperbolically) your left hand doesn't know what your right hand is doing? Your left hand can't know, but your twig leader can? Huh??? We were badly taught. But I do believe that God respects those who did give (even if from dishonest teaching).

WordWolf: twi keeps track of their members/"followers" and their tithes/money given under compulsion. Try giving less than 10% and see how long you go before someone starts giving you static. Ha! My fellowship commander was faithful to this practice, even though he renounced TWI for deviating from "the original" - the word as it was given to THE Man of God, victor p wierwille. (Bless his heart.) It had been said that my fellowship commander and his wife lived near the poverty line. They themselves never admitted this. Regardless, I always contributed generously to any social event at their house. (This is just my nature with anyone, and I was ridiculed for it.) If I asked what I could bring, they would answer, and I would provide plus plus - happily, it's just how I do it. Over time, with increasing frequency, I took on the role of host - cooking, cleaning, making cocktails, store runs - in THEIR house. (Later I suspected I was manipulated into this because of my generous nature.) Now, these parties were by invitation, but they were not optional. If they said what they needed or wanted, I enthusiastically fulfilled the request. And they were grateful, but not enthusiastically grateful. When it came to giving at fellowship, boy, oh, boy! I usually gave whatever cash I had on me, which wasn't much because who carries cash anymore. However, if I had 3 twenties, a fiver and three ones, I would only throw $8 in the horn. (If I had $60 on me, that money was likely already allocated for another purpose.) Somehow he knew. Probably because my then wife told him. Or maybe he knew exactly what to expect every week from the other regular attendees, as they always gave the same amount. Likely both are true. He never said anything to me directly, but the subsequent daily emails to "the family" and the next week's fellowship "teaching" were all about tithing, abundant sharing and II Corinthians 9:7. The passive-aggressive message to me was clear: I was not a cheerful giver, and God does not love that.

A very insightful post that demarcates the difference between what "the Word" says and the organizational practices, which is the STORY of how the Word is actually communicated by way of do as I say, not as I do.

Very recently (in March 2025, I believe) Leor Zmigrod published a book on The Ideological Brain: the Radical Science of Flexible Thinking. In general (so far) she addresses religious AND political thinking but doesn't suggest she favors one side or another. This book, IMO, is germane to this thread's discussion because IN PFLAP we were indoctrinated to think according to how Victor Wierwille taught the bible. In the nearly 40 years since I left TWI, I've changed how I think about both religious and political subjects and values. I will not reference any such subject as if I believe what I used to hold as true is particularly wrong, or even right or correct. But I do now hold that the entire notion of private interpretation of "God's Word" is inherently NOT valid because I believe humankind is unable to authoritatively make such pronouncements due to our inherent neurological, emotional, social or otherwise psychological limitation. Nevertheless, carry on with the discussion of TWIs view of private interpretation of the bible. Rather, my view is encapsuled in the wisdom (of Solomon?) in Proverbs 2:1-5.

Yes, both of those quotes are pretty recognizable for The Shining. George

If you don't get the actual title, I'll accept the way it's usually referred to: Oh, I can see There ain't no room for me You're only holding out Your heart in sympathy If there's another man Then girl, I understand Go on and take his hand George

Another example of why literal, word-for-word translations are not helpful and lead to confusion.

And then there is grammar to consider. HEH!

That was fun. I am reminded of the word STUDY.

This is why I've gone from a stance of NEVER privately interpreting to recognizing that private interpretation may be the essence of communication. You can't simply learn a bunch of words in another language and think you are qualified to communicate that language properly. Communicating involves so much more than words. It's knowing how to use them, when to use them, where to use them, how to pronounce them etc. Shakespeare offers great examples. A passage I once thought I understood may have a completely different twist when understood in light of what the author was communicating. (Hour to hour becomes whore to whore.) Try THIS on for fun.