WordWolf

Herbert Little Richard Peabody Nathan Wyeth Tom Keller William Walton Billy Vargas Wynn Scott Sheb Sheppard Alan Raimy Fred Niceman Charles Rothenberg Tony Gateworth Rolo Rockwell Brice Cummings Henry Hollowhead Daniel Clamp A.J. Pattle Derek Mills Goddard Marx John Jeckyll James Jeckyll Rogers Henry Bennett Hale Yuri Moskvin Bill Gates Franz Mueller Richard Behrens Andrew Durbin Ned Miller Verad Dax Samuel Craft Declan Gage Jared Andrews Theodore "Teddy" Maddox Edward Nygma After this, I think the roles jump to "obvious" answers.

Wind swing, "Winona Ryder?"

This could be Bob Hope and Bing Crosby "On The Road To" somewhere, except the year is wrong. I was thinking this was a "Fast and Furious" movie, but it doesn't sound like it with someone 81 and shacks for ice-fishing.

[A) Stop posting angry. Posting in a block with poor spelling, poor grammar and no paragraph breaks makes it painful to even TRY to read your posts. B) Organize your thoughts and post accordingly. If you have something specific to say, organize a thread for that- rather than rudely hijacking one that had nothing to do with your posts. Figure out which forum it belongs in so the moderators don't have to move it for you. (If it's specifically about twi, then "About the Way", if it's Doctrinal, either "Matters of Faith" or "Doctrinal" depending in the specifics- read the descriptions of the forums first.) C) This whole "none of you understand the Bible so I'm going to tell you like it is" thing is not only useless, it is tiresome. If that's all you've got, then you might want to just return to whatever echo chamber you're used to. You're clearly not used to trying to make sense with people who may disagree with you. Finally, you objected to things people here didn't even say to you. Don't lash out at people for what they MIGHT post, or what they MIGHT think while trying to read your posts, it looks very juvenile. You're obviously boxing about your weight-class here, but that's your business. D) If you're going to try to communicate on message boards, you might consider the extra step of organizing your thoughts first. Type them out in a text editor, let it spell-check for you, look them over, rephrase what can be said better, remove what doesn't make sense, and so on. You'll at least look smarter, and people will be more likely to read your posts than if you, say, mash them all together into one block then congratulate yourself for having hit "submit reply."]

[It's almost like someone made a chatbot and loaded it up with twi slogans. This is typical whenever someone just shows up parroting the twi party line. They have no idea that all they do is convince people that we've all come a very long way from that nonsense, and are glad it isn't US posting like that.]

"God bless you Household of God. i am LCDIAZ WC 17; " [An introduction thread in the introduction forum would have been appropriate for that. Instead, you jumped right here to post this.] "WHY JUDGE, WHY NOT RESTORE AND FORGIVE AND LOVE AND PRAY FOR ONE ANOTHER; WHY JUDGE: NO ONE IN THE HOUSEHOLD OF GOD HAS COMMITTED THE UNFORGIVABLE SIN: NOR CAN ANYONE ONE BE KICKED OUT OF THE HOUSHOLD SPIRITUALLY" [Who says we didn't pray for her? Oh, right. You. You declared it by fiat because you don't THINK we did. For someone who's against people judging, you sure judged US very quickly. The simple truth is, you're just FINE with judging when it's YOU judging someone who doesn't agree with you, and when it's someone you're kneeling prostrate before, THEN come the pious platitudes about judging. It has all the warmth of the Pharisee who was glad he wasn't the publican he prayed near. We are to walk wary, and not allow predators to harm the little ones. twi did the opposite. You'd know that if you actually spent some time reviewing the horror stories that are many PERSONAL ACCOUNTS of what was done to specific posters. There are more than enough witnesses who came forward to justify the death penalty, according to the OT. Certainly that's enough to judge. So we would put away the evil from ourselves. They wouldn't be out of "the household spiritually" (or "the houshold spiritually"), but as to that, we can let The Lord handle that part. We have to deal with the here and now. And nowhere in the Bible does it say to take someone who spared not the flock, just blow that off, and let them resume harming the flock. But don't let little things like disagreeing with God's Word stop you....] John 8:7 says...he that is without sin among you cast a stone at her. [Thou fool. The CONTEXT was BEING CAUGHT AN ADULTERER. And the woman herself was told to "sin no more." The adulterers who were not caught in the act were left to their own consciences.] "Matthew 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. " [I'll let the Holy Ghost deal with that one, since it's not my job anyway. Just because sin and blasphemy SHALL be forgiven doesn't mean I'm to turn a blind eye to all wrongs. The Corinthian church was blamed because they didn't pass judgement in house, but rather went to the Romans to judge between them. You and Paul are saying the opposite of each other. But don't let a little thing like disagreeing with God's Word stop you....] "Romans 2;1-4; ..Therefore thou are inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest does the same things. 2- But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. 3- And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and does the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? 4- Or despiest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and long-suffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?" [You don't even get what you're reading. Romans 2:2 said the judgement of God Almighty is against them, and of that we are sure. And you're acting as if we can't use discernment to know what He has judged against (as in the relevant verses in Romans 1 to which this refers.). But don't let a little thing like a lack of understanding stop you from attempting to speak on the behalf of God Almighty.] "RESTORE Galatians 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. " [God's concept of REPENTANCE is important for forgiveness. Few of the big sinners of twi have stepped forward and actually repented or even made the facade of pretending to repent. IF they did, we could talk about restoring them in the spirit of meekness. After all, they would have already humbled themselves before God and before those whom they wronged. That's easy to understand if you actually read the whole Bible and understand it. It's not a difficult concept for the AVERAGE Christian. That you miss this so completely demonstrates a need for remedial training. You're sub-par for understanding the Bible for the AVERAGE Christian. It's as someone hand-picked you a few cherry-picked verses, said a few platitudes, and you just came here parroting them with a closed Bible and open mouth.] "FORGIVE Ephesians 4: 24 And that ye put on the new man. which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. 26 Be ye angry. and sin not: 32- and be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you. LOVE 1 Peter 4:8 ...for charity(agape) shall cover the multitude of sins.." [This is for day-to-day living and forgiving the occasional stumble. It's not a blank check to sin as much as you want to, so that grace may abound much more. God forbid! It's not an instruction to take those who destroy lives or ruin lives and just wave away their actions- and any consequences- simply because they're "forgiven."] "PRAY Ephesians 6:18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints." [Praying never hurts. I recommend praying for some wisdom and understanding. In fact, I already prayed for you. You're welcome.] "Thank you for taking the time to read the Word of God the Father has inspired me to write, I pray: He sent his Word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destruction. " [He told me to write that he told you no such thing. You wrote that of your own volition, and forged His name to your words, and thought we couldn't tell the difference. It bore all the convincing marks of a real Message From God Almighty that an alleged letter from home would that was signed "Epstein's Mother", with Epstein pretending he didn't write it himself.]

That's it.

I can only think of a handful of stars who made that many films together. I'm going to guess that this pair was Woody and Diane Keaton. How about "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (but were too afraid to ask)?"

"Dear Sir or Madam, will you read my book?"

Well, it was worth a shot... oh, it was RIGHT? Ok, hang on.....

Um, "Teenager in Love"???????

Herbert Little Richard Peabody Nathan Wyeth Tom Keller William Walton Billy Vargas Wynn Scott Sheb Sheppard Alan Raimy Fred Niceman Charles Rothenberg Tony Gateworth Rolo Rockwell Brice Cummings Henry Hollowhead Daniel Clamp A.J. Pattle Derek Mills

Herbert Little Richard Peabody Nathan Wyeth Tom Keller William Walton Billy Vargas

(Twilight Zone) I assume Bob Wilson was the one on the airplane. Personally, I prefer the episode where he's in the coffee shop in that little town. Ok, I just promised myself, about an hour or so ago, to post this actor next.

THOSE quotes I remembered well. The first set sounded vaguely familiar, but I couldn't place them. The second was trying to zip line over an electric fence or something. The first was Roy Tango yelling, but I don't remember the context. Quote three was Tango in his first scene, with the truck, and the extra yelling "He thinks he's Rambo!" and managing to get the line out without choking. The fourth came up a number of times in the movie. I was surprised to find out FUBAR and SNAFU were both from World War II. We'd all heard of SNAFU but not FUBAR. (Nor BOHICA, for that matter.) George's turn.

No need for the next round. "Buck Murdock" rang a bell. He was in charge of the lunar colony in that movie. So, "Thomas Hooker" is better known as "TJ Hooker." Walter Bascom, IIRC, was from Boston Legal. That makes this that star of the movie "Incubus", Bill Shatner!

Steve Buscemi Big Fish Ewan Mc Gregor

No idea at all. Nicole Kidman? Julia Roberts?

Wild swing- "Kingsman"???

Chick flick? Wild swing- "Jerry McGuire"??

Sorry I'm late, it's been a rough week. George was correct. The giveaway was "Mr Lawrence" distracted at seeing Daniel and Miyagi enter the dojo. John Kreese was shouting at his students like he was a drill instructor.

I have started addressing this subject/these subjects in the thread, " What Happened in Genesis 1?" https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/25660-what-happened-in-genesis-1/ Time permitting, I will continue addressing it/them.

The position that the " creative days" refers to periods of time is a position that has some thinking behind it. After all, the Bible does speak, at times, of a " day" not as a period of 12-24 hours, but as an event. (" I was in the spirit on the Lord's day..." ) According to this position, Genesis 1:1 is an overview, and the rest of the chapter is exposition. There's a flat statement that God created the heavens and Earth, and then a partial breakdown of how He did it. Any such description will be " partial" and will leave out things that are not germane to the account. If we were doing a scientific breakdown, Genesis 1 would probably be longer than our modern Bible, and it would only be understandable now. ANY account of anything focuses on specific things, and leaves out things that seem not to matter to that specific account at that time. (" Tell me everything that's happened." " Well, first the earth cooled. Then the dinosaurs came. But they got too big and fat. So, they died and turned into oil. Then the Arabs came, and they bought Mercedes-Benzes...") So, there's a breakdown. First, Genesis 1:3 gives us the " creation" of energy. Then Genesis 1:5 gives us linear time. Genesis 1:7-10 gives us the " creation" of what we consider the Earth (including the atmosphere, etc.) Then Genesis 1:11-12 gives us plant life, " whose seed is in itself, after its kind". An interesting description, considering what we now know about plant life. Thousands of years later, Gregor Mendel originated the science of genetics, and made much the same observations about " kind". Well, I think it's interesting, at least. Genesis 1:14-19 give us some verses on atmosphere, astronomy, and things along those lines. Genesis 1:20 gives us aquatic life, and avian life- in that order, again, after their kind. If I were an atheist scientist, I might find it interesting that the Bible actually had the order right- plant life, then aquatic life, then avian life, all without archeologists providing the text. For a guess, it's a remarkable SPECIFIC guess and it's correct. (Or I might not. Since I'm not an atheist scientist, I can't speak reliably to what they think.) Genesis 1:24-25 gives us the land animals, later than the aquatic and avian life, also after their kinds. Finally, man appears in the account. Considering how " creation myths" go, it almost sounds scientific in description. I've read a story of how coyote " created" man and tricked all the other animals in doing so. That sounded like a tall tale in a manner this does not. (Of course, someone can disagree, and I am, admittedly, biased in favor of the Bible, so that can color my opinions, certainly.) To someone who considers this the correct understanding of the account, there's a lot to say in its favor. It matches the observations of scientists. It matches a reading of the Bible. Both seem to proceed in a linear fashion together. It's a sensible method that doesn't require any outside aid to support it, but it supports outside understanding. So, that's one position. I'll get to the other as soon as I can.

One of the things I find interesting about Genesis 1 is what it says, and how there's room for it to be understood more than one way. Although I like science, I do NOT currently hold to the position- taught by twi- that the Bible is meant to teach us science. I think the Bible was meant to give the plan of salvation and give light to the simple. I don't think it was meant as a scientific textbook that would have been opaque to readers for thousands of years until relatively recently, when we learned enough science collectively to understand it. Obviously, then, one question would be, what's Genesis 1 for, anyway? As I see it (this is my opinion, and, for the argumentative out there, I'm pointing it out because it's an opinion and not the last word on a subject), the Bible is meant to give us some basic ideas. In the case of Genesis 1, there's plenty to explain to us here, in terms of " WHY are we here" and " why is religion the way it is after Genesis" and so on. I think it speaks more to PURPOSE than to the exact MECHANICS of " HOW we are here." There's a creation, and there's a Creator. That's critical to understanding. One thing I find interesting about the specifics of the "days" is how different this account is from "creation myths". In some religions, we get a giant dismembered, and the giant's body parts are disassembled and made into the Earth. Others match this in colorful descriptions. They're interesting, but I find they lean heavily towards the fanciful. Is the Genesis 1 account similar? It is similar that it is an account of things happening, that are done by a God, and that they are big and miraculous. They differ heavily in how mundane they are. There's energy, then matter, then lower forms of life, then larger forms of life, and man shows up at the end. What a boring account compared to some of the others! Now, I find the next 2 positions I will address to be interesting, and I think that both offer much to consider for Christians who examine them, including those who disagree with a position. With one, we will discuss the " creative days" as periods of time, and with the other, " the gap theory" which most of us heard in twi. (Since I have a life outside this board, I doubt I will have time to run through all of this now, and will probably have to come back to do these topics justice.)

Among Christians, there's any number of beliefs about the events in Genesis 1, with a number of justifications about the different positions. I'm going to try to run through the basics of the ones with which I am familiar, without making a "Thou must agree with me" on the subject. I know what I believe and why, but there's room to disagree, and, from what I've observed, discussions on these subjects tend to start with one position and just wave away all the others with a dismissive insult. I'll try not to do that. (If I fail at that, sorry.) ===================================== Now, then, one thing I want to mention is that one division is whether or not the Earth is old, and how that affects our reading of the Bible. Whichever position someone holds doesn't determine whether they believe or not- there's people of faith holding all positions. I've noticed that "young earth Creationists" tend to be dismissive of anything else- as if to say otherwise indicates a lack of faith, and shut down discussions there. I don't think that science holds all the answers, but I think the OBSERVATIONS of science have much to teach us, whether or not we agree with any positions held by a scientist. Then again, scientists aren't required to believe in a religion allegedly from the Bible, and I am not required to believe in a philosophy allegedly based on science alone (whether or not it's actually anything of the kind.) Regardless, I'm not prepared to completely wave away actual scientific observations no matter what conclusions are drawn by people after me. In this particular case, I'm referring to the age of the Earth. To all competent scientific observation, the Earth APPEARS very old. I'm not concerned as to the exact numbers, and different measures may suggest different numbers, and over time spans that huge, it's no wonder. Some people use that as an excuse to dismiss what's observed, which is a shame. So, the Earth is observed to APPEAR to be very old. It may be in the millions of years, or billions of years, or trillions as far as I know and care. All I personally need to know is that it appears to be from a VERY long time ago. I'm aware that there are Christians out there that CLAIM the Earth is only a few THOUSAND years old. They base that entirely on a direct addition of all the ages of the men mentioned in the book of Genesis, then add 6-7 days for Creation, and call it a day. There's no guarantee we were MEANT to try to calculate the Earth's age this way. Further, people with this position who even address science after this tend to do so with either a misunderstanding of what's observed, or go along with what was written or said by someone whose grasp of science is notably weak. So, to young Earth Creationists, I would point out that there's at least 2 more positions held by Christians, and they are no less faithful to God than those who hide from scientific observations. So, the Earth can reliably said to APPEAR very old. This means that one of two things is true. Either A) The Earth is very old, or B) The Earth is not very old, but APPEARS so because it was created to appear so, it was created with the appearance of age. As to the second position, it's entirely a faith-based position, so there's not much to have to say about it. I will address that one first. We know that God Almighty certainly CAN create things in an advanced state, both in general and in specifics. In the miracle of the loaves and the fishes, the miracle produced fish that was ready-to-eat, not fish eggs nor tadpoles. So, to those of us who believe in God, this position is certainly possible. Its limitations are obviously its lack of limitations. It can't be PROVEN in any way. All observations will point to an older Earth, and a young Earth was designed to APPEAR so. This limits its contributions to discussions. It it's true, then it can't add much to the discussions. Again, it's entirely faith-based, not observation-based. Further, there's no verse that states it outright. So, for those who have faith, it's possible, but impossible to prove. All evidence to the contrary are evidence that also supports its existence. For a scientist, this is frustrating because it is not "falsifiable". That is, there's no way to figure out something, and say "if this is true, then that is false." There's also no evidence that exists that says this is definitively true. (Let me know if something irrefutable turns up like God's Message To His Creation or something, that might settle this one.) So, discussions often proceed that the Earth is old, and that Christians deny that, and that Christians don't know their science. Well, that can be said of certain Christians, but that does a disservice to other Christians. For the sake of discussion, I will skip further discussion on "young Earth created with an appearance of age" because there's nothing else to say about it, really. (Unless a verse shows up that settles the discussion among Christians, since no evidence will be able to do so short of a planetary miracle.) That means the Earth appears old, and I'll address the Christians who say as much. These Christians generally hold one of three positions concerning Genesis 1. 1) The Bible is unreliable, so I look to my church for what to believe. Genesis 1 doesn't matter. 2) The Bible is reliable, and the "days" are period of time in the stated order. 3) The Bible is reliable, and there is a large time-gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. I'm going to skip over the first position, as, again, it will add nothing to the discussion.