WordWolf

I don't believe every single poster we've ever had, or even every one we have now, has answered all the hard questions, but I think most of the GSC survivors have made it through. Did most of us get some kind of benefit while in twi? Most of us got SOMETHING, otherwise we would have left (everyone except the kids who were stuck in because their families were in.) Once again, I'm glad i got IN, and I'm glad I got OUT. Most of us understand now that twi was neither a safe nor healthy place or experience. We were hurt by people- not the least of it by being taught how to hurt other people (inside or outside twi) and being told that's what God wanted. So, whether we meant well or not, people got hurt, not the least of which were ourselves. Most of us will never have a chance to apologize to every single person we hurt, accidentally or otherwise. We will need to deal with the inconvenient truth that we did so regardless, and that they deserve an apology. It's healthy to reach a moment, IMHO, where one wants to apologize to God for one's failings in that regard. We meant to do well, and we hurt people and disobeyed anyway. One way or another, we all need to accept that's part of our past, especially if we want to stop hurting people in the present. (After all, one common response to having been hurt in the past is to lash out in the present and try to hurt others.) I don't think authors who write about the dangers of twi mean to suggest those who were in twi, including ourselves, weren't responsible at SOME level when we were in. The FIRST questions and topics are how twi was/is dangerous. Later topics include what we did as part of twi. One can't address that at all if one's still skipping around, saying that twi started out as a wonderful place that lcm came along and ruined. (Or worse, saying it's always been ok and is still ok.)

I attempted to watch episode 1. I was unsuccessful. I consider myself a good barometer as to whether something is really funny, mildly amusing, etc., as I will smirk, chuckle, and so on. I didn't react at all. That's usually the sign that something is painfully unfunny. The only thing of note for me was that we were promised that Part II would include "Hitler on Ice" and, apparently, we got it in episode 1. It wasn't funny, but we got it.

This was on MTV? "IN YOUR WILDEST DREAMS." The Moody Blues' biggest commercial hit was in the 80s, "Sur La Mer." This was one of the 2 hit singles off of it. (The other was "I Know You're Out There Somewhere.")

It would, but the artists sound nothing alike, musically.

Nathan Fillon Suicide Squad (2021) Margot Robbie

If you asked Alice, she might tell you the correct name of the song was "WHITE RABBIT." But you knew the song, so we'll proceed with your clue.

I kinda know the group. The lead singer has been referred to by one critic as a "veteran cosmic rocker."

He hadn't previously READ the New Testament. Actually, he asked me to pass him a Christian Bible so he could read through it. (Back then, finding a spare took work.) Since this was not the internet age just yet, it was books or nothing- no digital Bible. I didn't ask him what he thought of it. In his case, he initially brought up the Trinity as an insurmountable object for discussion- which proceeded once he processed my response. I do agree that Jews would be more open to discussion with Christians who are not Trinitarian than Christians who are. I don't think it would result in a flood of conversions, but more civil discussion is not a bad thing, as I see it.

That's it. The music video's visuals are "Alice in Wonderland." Sometimes I picture the Mad Hatter as looking like Tom Petty.

SInce it seemed a sensitive subject, I didn't dig. The impression I got is this- all Jews await the messiah who will rule. Some Jews may also await a different (lesser, non-reigning) messiah to suffer, and some Jews may believe that messiah already arrived, suffered, and died 2000 years ago. I don't know how many Jews would be in any category.

I think we can agree, with 20/20 hindsight, that the Jesus People/Jesus Freaks movement was a genuine movement of God's people (for those who believe in such things) that was partly strangled by greedy and jealous religious folk who worked hard to get the movers to give up their callings as primary and subordinate them to the task of becoming the recruitment arms of their organizations. They were still SOMEWHAT effective there, but with all sorts of religious claptrap being tacked on, became progressively less effective, thus prematurely ending something that might have significantly changed the public landscape of the USA.

Ok, next movie. "You're all mad!" "Thanks very much!" "And who is this lovely creature?" "Um, my new favorite." "What is her name?" "Um." "I believe your name has slipped the queen's mind." "Her name is Um, idiot!" "From Umbridge."

A long, long time ago, I had a series of conversations with a devout Jew. (I will report what he said at the time.) He said that, if he had the opportunity, he would speak nothing but Hebrew all the time, period. His religious convictions ran deep, and not just because it was what he was taught. (Looking back, I would have a different preference in our conversations, and would ask very different questions. There's a lot I don't know.) We had some interesting comments on Scripture. I volunteered to call the Old Testament "the Torah" because they named it that first, so it was fair the name should count. He volunteered to call the New Testament "the New Testament" because that's what I called it. We proceeded from there with some guarded statements without "this is The Truth" statements, and respected each others positions. Ok, to the relevant point (For those still awake.) He mentioned that there was a position among some Jews that there would be TWO messiahs- one would be the messiah everyone mentions who would reign, and before him, a messiah who would suffer for the people. (I didn't say the obvious response to him out of respect- he knew what I was thinking, so I had no need to say it. It had more impact if I just let him think on it in his own time rather than just made him get defensive.) So, I never followed up on this, but took his statement at face value. (BTW, this "what Trinity?" business helped us communicate a great deal. One online test once listed me as a "conservative Jew" and not a Christian because one question divided on the basis of the Trinity.) As regards to one of the last points in the discussion, I think there are actual Jews who believe in two messiahs, and would question (privately) whether Jesus was the messiah who would suffer for the people. I think the Trinity doctrine is still a major barrier to Jews to considering Christianity as a better answer. For them, the remaining question would be- can both messiahs actually be the same messiah, coming once to suffer, and once to reign? I don't know how many people there are to whom this would apply. (Now, if you all will excuse me, I'll step back out of the thread. That's all I had to add.)

You're both right. Whichever of you who logs in next should take it.

Dick Van Dyke Night At the Museum Ben Stiller

"I've given up, stop. I've given up, stop. Ah, ah, ah, ooh-ooh I've given up, stop, you tangle my emotions. I've given up, honey please, admit it's over."

"One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small"

"Kentucky Fried Movie????"

No one here is likely to imply or state that, mostly because it isn't even a reasonable request. However, I can easily be a FAIR judge. I can give positions with which I disagree a fair hearing, and evaluate them on their merits, or lack thereof. One should expect a FAIR judge. Naturally, a judge can hold an opinion, but that's not the same as requiring any evidence or side otherwise to be changed to match his opinions or even his convictions. A judge should be able to hear all sides FAIRLY, and proceed accordingly.

https://pdsh.fandom.com/wiki/Superman?so=search

"Hotel California", the Eagles.

Ok, that last line.... "Some Like It Hot"?

If you're working out some sort of concept, and people keep posting verses that fly in the face of your concept, then you have 2 real choices. A) Ignore the opposing verses and call people names for bringing them up and just post your pet idea B) Look over the opposing verses. Either explain how they actually agree- SENSIBLY- with your idea and incorporate them into a more polished idea, or accept that your idea is error-ridden and drop it. Most people here have an opinion on which you will choose.

Ok, next question, new category. Ok, so there were these 2 Jewish guys who came up with the idea of a superhero. He was mischievous and extremely wish fulfillment/ anti-bullying. One of their earliest stories to hit print had him end a war between 2 countries by kidnapping their presidents and putting them in a boxing ring to fight it out and settle their differences (given the choice, they declared peace instead.) This was actually their second concept for the character- they had tried him as a villain, but that idea failed and was largely forgotten. So, who was this character? (Bragging rights for his name as the villain, or the names for the 2 Jewish guys.)