WordWolf

Oh, I ruminated. I just didn't post because I didn't come up with anything worth posting. *looks the list over* How about Captain Ahab?

"I didn't come here to be insulted!" "That's what you think!" "Married. I can see you right now in the kitchen, bending over a hot stove. But I can't see the stove. " "Remember, you're fighting for this woman's honor, which is probably more than she ever did. "

Vanessa Redgrave Murder on the Orient Express Sean Connery (I must say, it's not a bad movie for connecting through.)

What do I think? 1) I think God does have information to give us. 2) I think we are far too quick to label things as information God has for us. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some time ago, we had several inter-connected discussions here. They were on the subject of speaking in tongues, and what we called speaking in tongues, and what they had in common, and what they did not. As the discussions ran their course, and I examined everything said, and everything I COULD say, I changed my position. I have no proof that the speaking in tongues, as mentioned in the Bible, does not occur today somewhere, nor that it is not "available" today. However- I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt, that what we learned in twi, and what is practiced today as "speaking in tongues" is neither the thing from the Bible, nor proceeding from God, but rather a secular activity which is done by actors every day. The only difference is that we THINK what we're doing is from God, and they know they're doing it of themselves. (Likewise, people who think they have to throw themselves on the floor when doing it are choosing to do so, and so on.) So, I don't think that what we called "speaking in tongues" was anything of the sort, or any kind of language. (I can link you to several threads where we discussed this. We split the discussion into different threads, so that someone who only wanted to discuss one thing could find it- and the main discussion kept getting side-tracked so badly that I felt very good points were getting lost. So, we had a thread on the secular practice that performs EXACTLY like what we did, we had a thread on what language is, and so on. To explore ALL of it would take a LOT of reading, which is one reason to look at the threads individually.) So, where would that leave "interpretation of tongues" and "prophecy"? Although I do think that OCCASIONALLY we got an actual message from God through them, the vast majority of the time, I think they were from the minds of the people performing them- which is understandable and to-be-expected under the circumstances in which we learned how to do them. ============================================================ Taking all of THAT into consideration, what would I say about what you're doing? I think it's much the same. OCCASIONALLY, there MIGHT be an actual message from God that gets through. The vast majority of the time, it would be you, thinking about what a message of God is SUPPOSED to look like and say, and producing a message that fits your own notion as to what that would be. That doesn't make you a bad person, nor crazy. It doesn't make you right nor receiving messages from God, either. That's my honest, measured opinion, for all that it's worth. You're free to consider it carefully, or dismiss it automatically, or anything else.

Next song. "Everybody else is just green, Have you seen the chart? It's a hell of a start, It could be made into a monster If we all pull together as a team."

Without a link, we either need the EXACT name of the video, or who posted it, or (preferably) both. A search with only the titles you gave turned up lots of video games and stuff.

That's why I'm thinking SOMETHING was exaggerated. Comatose instead of dead, for example. THINKING he went to Heaven, when there may have been a vision, normal dream, or a hallucination, rather than actually visiting the place. BTW, Raf (a journalist) is not exaggerating about finding the story if you give him what he asked for.

Ok, let's see. I'm thinking "Mary Tyler Moore"-verse. That could meant that show (I doubt the title character was Jewish, and I don't think that was a spinoff of something. It HAD spinoffs, though. I have trouble picturing "Lou Grant" as the one described here. So, I'll go with "Rhoda." (Did we ever see Carlton the doorman?)

(Brad Majors was the guy who stumbled his way through Dr Frankenfurter's mansion in "the Rocky Horror Picture Show." Whenever he says his full name, the audience insults him.) Ok, classic role, since we have a Barrymore and Orson Welles. William Hurt in a classic role suggest something classical and British. Cautious to avoid spoilers, I looked up "Lethal Weapon" and confirmed Danny Glover was the other cop, the one who was getting too old for this. He's African-American. I'm thinking Shakespeare. Although it's not ridiculous to see a "black" man playing a (white) Shakepearean role, it's also not ridiculous for the reverse. So, which direction do I guess? I'm going with the title role of The Moor of Venice. My guess is "OTHELLO." (This was actually an Irish role, spelled "O'thello." Most people drop the apostrophe. ;) )

Another wild swing here. Whenever I don't take the shot, the answer is usually "SOAP". Is it this time?

Wild swing here- "BRAD MAJORS"?

At his burial, she said "He was a mean man" to someone accompanying her. Considering the usual habit of people only speaking well of someone at their funeral, I think that said a lot.

IIRC...... In the final weeks before vpw died, he (vpw) flew to Scotland to cry on cg's shoulder and get him to fawn on vpw and make him feel better, since lcm and the Board were ignoring him now- as per his own strategy of ignoring anyone who retired. Some weeks after vpw died, cg wrote "Passing of a Patriarch", about what vpw said, and how twi, in discarding vpw, was discarding God, and how the Board killed vpw because they made him feel bad- and they were why Mr Superbeliever vpw didn't super-believe and obliterate his advanced cancer from his body with a display of his Super-believing, and get up fully healed. (If they'd still sucked up to vpw, he would have Super-Believed and gotten fully healthy again, according to geer.) When cgeer was done writing this, he went to read this to the Board and to residents on-grounds. When he reached the podium to begin speaking, he took out a handgun, and placed it in the podium, where he could reach it quickly. THEN he began reading his little book aloud. Why, in his mind, was this necessary? I can throw lots of guesses around. Perhaps he liked the feeling of power by intimidating the room. Perhaps he thought that someone would have tried-with violence- to silence him as he read this letter/book thing. Perhaps, having been there, he knew they WOULD offer violence if he didn't preempt the violence himself. Perhaps he thought vpw prophesied he'd need to do that. (And so on, and so on....) There's lots of possibilities. It obviously isn't common nor healthy for supposed Christian groups to have things like that come up no matter the motive.

What was he like as a person? (I don't know about now, so I will go with what he WAS like, and proceed from there.) He wasn't terribly imposing physically. However, it was not beneath him to consider violence as an option-nor threats, either. He was hardly alone in this. I once had a run-in with the late T0m M, years before he committed suicide because he couldn't stop lcm from nailing Mrs T0m M. He was a larger dude, and wanted me to stop an uncomfortable line of discussion (this was at ROA '89, when 1/5 of the previous year's attendees showed, and most of them left twi shortly after that event.) He tried intimidating me physically, and when that failed, he tried to get a rise out of me by threatening physical violence. I bugged him more by simply getting calmer and calmer the more he tried. His final attempt was to try to claim I was unemotional because I wasn't reacting. (No, just smarter and with better mental discipline. Plus, he grew up in the suburbs, I grew up in the 'hood.) Cgeer had no problem similarly trying intimidation OR threats, but was not a physically imposing man nor a trained fighter. So, he didn't default to it all the time, and he needed to use things to accomplish it. Cgeer and lcm (craig) were both the 2 biggest vpw-worshippers in twi. That's why vpw- who loved how they smooched his metaphorical tushie- made them twi elites. lcm was made his successor, and cg went from vpw's bodyguard to in charge of a twi property in a different continent than lcm. (When lcm and the others pushed the retired vpw to the side, vpw ran to cg to cry on his shoulder about how he was being neglected, and how this would destroy twi because they were forsaking Gawd Almighty by ignoring him they way he ignored others who had retired.) cgeer was used to taking care of vpw's dogs (vpw never took care of them), and walking around armed with vpw at public appearances. cg claimed-and I believe he was not lying- that he had been prepared, if necessary, to act as a human shield to take any bullets fired at vpw if something happened. So, how did cg intimidate people? His primary methods were threefold: 1) brandish a firearm, which is a crime in the US 2) use the dogs and menace them (menacing is also a crime in the US) 3) send someone else to intimidate them Others in twi were more fond of the "send others" than cg, but he seemed to like the feeling of power he got when he instilled fear in people by threatening them with a gun or big dog. Mind you, that was 30 years ago, literally. He's 30 years older, and doesn't have the physical power he DID have, such as he had. For someone who only feels secure wielding the power, to live without it is to live in fear. So, he naturally would go into hiding, and lay low or surround himself with security. For someone who is aware of how many lives he hurt, both in acting as a de facto procurer for vpw and in his own capacity to misuse power, he knows there's people who might harm him if they had the change to settle a score, and he's not young. So, that alone would send him into hiding. So, he goes into hiding, and cultivates a sense of mystique about him, making it look like the hiding is anything BUT the cowardice that it is. Mind you, the fact that he was more than a little crazy- and thus unpredictable and lacking self-control- was another issue, and people could be scared he'd go off without warning...which he sometimes did in imitation of vpw. All of that means he's not as scary as he was 30 years ago... and without a gun or a big dog to back him up, he wasn't really scary back then.

Freaking YES!!!!! I even made a reference "TO WIN". (To win? To lose?) Remember the Governor when the press asked his impressions? He did Harpo Marx, then Toulouse Lautrec.

Yes. 2 threads we said this on- 'Might this be why the Moneyhands were M& A?" and "R&R Group: Too Late, cult-sycophants already taken." https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24458-might-this-be-why-the-moneyhands-were-ma/ https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24586-rr-group-too-late-cult-sycophants-already-taken/

There's 2 Frenchmen famous for being short. One was not actually short, and has a connection to neither absinthe nor painting. That one's Napoleon. Who's the other?

Name the character. Jose Ferrer Vincent Menjou Cortes John Leguizamo (No, this one should not be easy, but I thought I'd try a short round in between some others.) Not a Spaniard, and he wasn't painted as a nobleman in any version of him that made it to the theaters. Peter Sellers (sorta) Règis Royer Mel Brooks (sorta) (I didn't think this would be so hard to win.... ) Other than the previous clues I dropped, Mrs Wolf said to mention "THE GREEN FAIRY" (which is a nickname for something.) She got it from the first 3 names plus a guess- then again, she's been around me and hearing what made me think of this character/real person. For the curious, Peter Sellers played a character who dressed as him, and Mel Brooks played a character who intentionally did an "impression" of him. Actually, he did 2 impressions- one of Harpo Marx and one of this person. Even if that reminds you of nothing, at least look back at the 3 clues I dropped before mentioning "the green fairy" (absinthe) in the preceding posts. Guessing this Frenchman is NOT a tall order.

No, and guessing this Frenchman is NOT a tall order.

Now I have to sit down and listen to the whole song. The lyrics are a lot more interesting than the chorus.

"Don't you know we're riding, on theMarrakech Express? Don't you know we're riding on the Marrakech Express? They're taking me to Marrakech. All aboard, that train! All aboard, that train!" (My guess on the band would have been CSN/Y.)

If you want to get into some thoughts about how they MIGHT apply, I recommend this book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1426320.The_Shining_Sword https://www.christianbook.com/the-shining-sword-charles-coleman/9781933573052/pd/573058 "The Shining Sword," by Charles G. Coleman. It's a work of fiction, and an allegory. It's written for children, but it's readable for adults who don't mind reading books written for children. (Some adults are fine with that, but other adults have issues with that.) In one chapter, we see someone getting outfitted with the full armor of Ephesians 6, in verse order, with each piece explained to him as he receives it. My favorite part is that the shining sword comes last, along with its explanation...but then he's advised there's ONE MORE. He's handed a silver trumpet, on which is written the word "PRAYER". (Ephesians 6:18.) An explanation follows that one as well. We do see some of the gear in use in the book, notably the sword, shield and trumpet. It's not authoritative, but it's a nice presentation of some ideas on how that could apply. Also, with the exception of a single sentence in the entire book, you won't have a problem between the allegory and your personal theology.

That whole "needs and wants parallel" thing was more from the "God is a magic genie" ideology, and NOT from the Bible. Notice no verses were ever used to discuss it? Anecdotes, but not verses. We've discussed some of the wrong things/errors in pfal in a few different threads around here somewhere, along with threads about the errors in the Blue Book (which includes the "needs-wants" thing.

Actually, he did 2 impressions- one of Harpo Marx and one of this person. Even if that reminds you of nothing, at least look back at the 3 clues I dropped before mentioning "the green fairy" (absinthe) in the preceding posts.

Ephesians 6:10-17 (KJV) 10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. 11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. 13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; 15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: Ephesians 6:10-17 (NASB) 10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. 14 Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. =================================================== This is pretty straightforward. The words translate as you'd expect them to- sword from "sword", and so on. In Eph 6:11 it even begins with the "whole armor"- Greek word "panoplian", the soldier's full battle-gear and kit. Eph 6:11 and 6:13 say we're to be fully-equipped soldiers, prepared for battle. In these verses, we see a soldier with armor protecting his upper thighs (a big target for Roman-era weapons in that same era), a breastplate, greaves (armored boots, in essence), a shield, a helmet and a sword. All of that clear, none of that ambiguous, and all of that straightforward. What did lcm do? He talked walter into some nonsense (and walter went along with it like a good corporate stooge) where he rewrote some of the meanings. They said that the "shield" wasn't a shield, but a thrown target like some people trained with- which lcm later claimed was a discus. They said that the "sword" wasn't a sword, but a spear- which lcm later claimed was a javelin, athletic equipment and not a weapon. Later lcm swapped out the "helmet" for a garland wreath with no Scriptural justification. When vpw wanted to claim something, he claimed it and ran extensively- then had walter or others construct the rationale to support it no matter what it was. lcm did the same thing. He wanted to say we were athletes, so he said it- and assigned others to construct the rationalizations, no matter how flimsy. (Back then, once I looked up "panoplian", I pretty much knew this couldn't hold water.) Do you want to claim we're any of these things? I suppose you can, with "soldier" having more reason than most, and certainly more than "ambassador" since that only came up once. Me, I'd try not to stress ANY of them too much. Each MADE A POINT and was probably not meant to be taken further than that.