WordWolf

TLC: "Given that mankind is sick (and not what God intended), I've actually come back around to liking "dispensation," when thought of in terms of a dispensary. If you pick up the wrong prescription (perhaps the right medication, but with the wrong instructions) at the pharmacy, not only is it not going to do what it should (or what you think it'll do), it might even kill you. " WordWolf: "A) If there's a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking, please share it. Otherwise, it looks like you made an analogy and ran with that- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery." TLC "Surely you know and recognize that "dispensation" is not a translation that is made up. Just exactly why do you suppose they used that word? Do you not think the scholars of 1611 viewed it as a "dispensing" of... something? " WordWolf: "That's not "sharing a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking." That's supposing it matches what the translators of one or more versions were thinking without actually presenting any evidence for it. It still looks like you made an analogy and ran with that- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery." TLC: "Actually, it's the 1611 KJV and 1881 RV , which (as far as I know, and as I presume you know already) were collaborative translations done by some of the (if not the) most extensive group of highly qualified language scholars ever assembled to translate the texts into English (in use at that time.) So, I just don't see it as something to be taken lightly, and not bother to look at it in light of that particular nuance. " WordWolf (new posting): So, that's still not "sharing a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking." That's supposing that your thinking matches what the collaborative translators of the 1611 KJV and 1881 RV were thinking, without actually presenting any evidence that's what they were thinking. It still looks like you made an analogy and ran with it- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery.

"Let's see....he could start by calling out Islam for what it really is, an ideological, political force intent on enslaving the world ( would probably trigger a 'holy war' tho !! )" EXACTLY. He's trying to make the RCC a group of COMPASSION. Starting a new crusade isn't exactly going to help- or work, for that matter. It will get the RCC AND Islam vilified, which will be bad for the RCC AND its members. "He could put an end to the church 'forbidding to marry' priests." They've been talking about that for decades. No consensus has been reached. And all the new ramifications would have to be covered. I think that they should expand the deaconate and promote that for those who feel they could not meet all the requirements of the priesthood but feel a calling. That would alleviate some of the issues caused by lower numbers of priests. Eventually, the RCC will come to some sort of consensus on celibacy and the priesthood. "He could sanction the use of contraception especially in third world countries." No, he couldn't. The RCC has a big issue with contraception and think it violates God's Will. They're not going to say "God disapproves but this decision is popular so we're going to run with it..." They think that we can resort to mathematics when preventing childbirth, but not physics or chemistry. I don't agree with them, but I see where they're coming from, and they ARE more about responsibility than about taking any of this lightly. " Heck, the RC church has enough money to supply the contraception" Not unless they sell off their stuff. They have some expensive things but not gobs of liquid capital to swim in. Money comes in-and flows out. "BUT, they still have the same mindset as muslims...increase converts by breeding. " That's not their reasoning, and it's sad to misrepresent them that badly, then turn around and announce you can solve their problems easily. In fact, his reluctance to change to what's popular rather than traditional argues AGAINST "the latest designer causes". "This is just for starters." Thanks for replying, Allan. However, I hope you're getting the idea that it's not all as simple as you made it out to be.

TLC: "I have a hard time seeing exactly which (or what kind of) covenant you might say or think applies to us in this day and time. I guess I just don't see it written and/or referred to as something applicable to us in anything that Paul wrote. Care to explain you thinking on this?" WordWolf: " Covenants? I think of this: Hebrews 8 King James Version (KJV) 8 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. 3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. 4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: 5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. 6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: ============================== [So, there's the covenant made to the 12 tribes, and the covenant which was promised to follow. Jesus us the mediator of that better covenant. From what I've seen dealing with devout Jews, I think the old, outmoded covenant still does what it did before. It sure is better than no covenant. However, it is outmoded and outdated since the new, improved model left the factory, so to speak." TLC: "Yes, there's no question that certain covenants are spoken of, most notably to Israel. And yes, Paul does speak in Hebrews (which I believe he wrote) of a new (better) covenant, but it appears to me that this new covenant relates rather specifically (and certainly most directly) to Israel. In fact, given Paul's concern for all of Israel (and not just those that had accepted Jesus as Lord) and his background, Hebrews offers an highly advanced and powerful insight into both the historical and future covenant relationship between God and Israel. I just don't see the church of the body of Christ brought up or mentioned anywhere in it. Neither do I see the terms of any covenant between God and Christ (or his body.) And as for 1 Tim. 2:5, I'm not convinced that having a mediator necessary implies or mandates a certain need for a covenant." I didn't quote I Timothy 2:5- which says Christ Jesus is mankind's ONE mediator. I quoted Hebrews 8:6, which states outright that Jesus is the mediator OF that better covenant. As for that covenant referring to us, it's the same comparison as in Galatians 4. Galatians 4:24ff (KJV) 21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free." ================================================================ To make Hebrews AND Galatians exclude born-again Christians is to slice us out of a LOT of the Epistles. Hebrews was addressed to Christians of a Jewish background, and Galatians was addressed to Christians living in Galatia. That some of them would have Jewish personal histories or just plain know Scripture (Philip witnessed to a non-Jew reading Scripture in his chariot) is not much of a jump. Paul said one covenant corresponded to the bondwoman's covenant-and that one was "Jerusalem which now is" (Judaism.) The other is ours, which is "children of promise." ==================== Ok, I can't get the freaking thing to stop underlining. I hope my point was clear despite that.)

TLC: "Given that mankind is sick (and not what God intended), I've actually come back around to liking "dispensation," when thought of in terms of a dispensary. If you pick up the wrong prescription (perhaps the right medication, but with the wrong instructions) at the pharmacy, not only is it not going to do what it should (or what you think it'll do), it might even kill you. " WordWolf: "A) If there's a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking, please share it. Otherwise, it looks like you made an analogy and ran with that- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery." TLC "Surely you know and recognize that "dispensation" is not a translation that is made up. Just exactly why do you suppose they used that word? Do you not think the scholars of 1611 viewed it as a "dispensing" of... something? " That's not "sharing a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking." That's supposing it matches what the translators of one or more versions were thinking without actually presenting any evidence for it. It still looks like you made an analogy and ran with that- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery.

Bumping up the other thread about the AOS- "Satan's Alley" connection.

Bumping up this thread about the Travolta movie with "Satan's Alley" in it...

Glad someone else thought of that as well! As it turns out, Deuteronomy says that if the prophet missed, they are to be killed for speaking presumptuously for the Lord. As it turns out, vpw saved us the trouble by dropping dead on his own in that time-frame..

It didn't start with a full-scale production. When he was in college, lcm was an athlete and was in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, where the phrase "athlete of the spirit" was mentioned here and there. After getting full-scale into twi, lcm had a small production done with the name, with Haywood and Murphy as the leads. After lcm was in charge, he saw the Travolta movie "Staying Alive." He decided to plagiarize the "Satan's Alley" scene of the musical they were performing in the movie. So, he padded out the old thing and ended up with something that wasn't several minutes long, but 2 freaking hours. In doing this, he also had Ephesians 6:10-17 completely rewritten with athletic imagery and said this was ok to do- an "expanded translation according to usage." He said we were athletes and that replaced the "soldiers of the Lord" (and skipped all other imagery like planting and watering.) Anyway, he wasn't in the original little presentation, but when he expanded it, he made sure he filled 2 roles- narrator on-set and male lead despite having no rhythm and no dance experience. Those who were walking around the grounds at the time can get into specifics again.

But the market places were open places. Restricting access to them would be bad for business, and contrary to the culture. People LIKED the freewheeling feel of the market places. We modern folk may dislike them for what those people loved about them, but those were THEIR market places, not ours. Our malls are a LOT more sedate by comparison- except for Black Friday, say. Thanks, both of you.

lcm was NOT the star of the 1.0 presentation. However, when it was expanded, it was during lcm's "I have to be the center of everything" narcissism swing. He was on High Country Caravan, he appeared at the beginning of the "Many Ways" music album explaining what it was about, and so on, If something went on in public, he had to be in the photo OR ELSE. So, lcm kept being around until some suck-up wondered aloud why he wasn't in the front of THAT as well- and lcm found the excuse he was waiting for and pushed Haywood down and took his role. I liked the thing at the time. But, at the time, I was young and stupid.

I never said he was perfect. No Pope can satisfy everyone. (I've seen one person who thinks that his only acceptable action would be to immediately dismantle the RCC and hand out all its assets.) What, precisely, do you think he SHOULD be doing that he's not doing? Remember that he's got the entire RCC to run, and if he just announced a complete inversion of the group, he'd find himself the victim of a sniper.

We sure came far afield in this thread. I wanted to talk about vpw's plagiarism when I started it. These things sure go wherever once they're started...

A) If there's a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking, please share it. Otherwise, it looks like you made an analogy and ran with that- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery. ============================================== Covenants? I think of this: Hebrews 8 King James Version (KJV) 8 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. 3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. 4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: 5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. 6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: ============================================ So, there's the covenant made to the 12 tribes, and the covenant which was promised to follow. Jesus us the mediator of that better covenant. From what I've seen dealing with devout Jews, I think the old, outmoded covenant still does what it did before. It sure is better than no covenant. However, it is outmoded and outdated since the new, improved model left the factory, so to speak.

Since this is a DISCUSSION FORUM, would anyone (especially the original poster) care to share something about the guy in the video, or the content of the video? I'm not a big fan of a video link dump with no explanation as to why I should watch it or even how long it is.

I might have gotten it from the really obscure actors. I might have recognized the actors for the 2 relatives, but I'm not sure. I would definitely have recognized DL as WA. WOuld you believe I was one of the last kids my age to see this movie? When my family decided to go see it, I got sick, bedridden. They decided to go anyway. I managed to stay standing in line, but lay down and slept for virtually the entire movie. No, they never went to see it again. I finally saw the actual movie on VHS later. I knew plenty of the story because, for one thing, I had the novelization. (From time to time, I look back, and think that my family may not have liked me that much.)

Matthew Broderick Glory Morgan Freeman

Some of my best friends are humans. Generally, people who spend all their time talking about one topic (regardless of the topic) tend not to make that list. "Like Rocky said, we are all human. I guess some people just never grow up in certain areas." You had other reasons at the time, which illustrates my point. You've also grown up and apparently don't need to yell or hit when disagreeing with someone or disliking someone or something. That's actually an un-twi thing to do. It's been said before (here) that people in twi tend to get frozen in their development while in twi. So, if they joined twi at age 18, they remain as mature as an 18 year old until sometime after they leave twi, and so on. People who joined later looked more mature- but only because they were frozen at a more mature age. lcm got in during college, and remained stuck as an immature jock for his entire twi experience- and beyond, if evidence is representative. Perhaps NOW he's grown beyond it. I hope so. I'd hope he could have at least a few years as an adult, relatively free of twi, than spend all of it as its thrall, down to his final hours.

"Is this actor the guy who played the priest (Bishop, Pastor,) in There Will Be Blood?" No. He did, however, wear glasses and a forehead scar for 8 movies. "I assume it's the young man who has played Harry Potter in the recent series. As I have seen none of them, I do not know his name." Yes. BTW, in "Victor Frankenstein", one character has no name, but is assigned the name of someone who is never around, so he later called "Igor Straussman." That's why it's not the character's actual name, but what he's called.

I totally went in the wrong direction on the "buddy film" clue.

Any of those 3 is SO a giveaway.. That was when Peter Cushing decided he could act while wearing slippers. And he was right,

Black Snake Moan Christina Ricci Addams Family Values

Wild swing- "Legends of the Fall"? I'm trying to picture what Brad Pitt was in and possibly one other. No, wait- "FIGHT CLUB", right?

Yes, and seriously, anyone who wants to can take the next round. FREE POST! Just read the rules on page 1 and post accordingly.

Wild swing- "The Beast Must Die"? I know Cushing was in that one.