WordWolf

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.

Is this "King of Kingsman-the Secret Service"?

I do, but would prefer to add "unable to rot" to that, and change "liable" (awkward word) to either "not ABLE to decay" or "not SUBJECT to decay" or "not ELIGIBLE to decay." I can easily see someone stumbling over "liable" and vpw would certainly have gone off on how that meant it was LEGAL to decay or something. (Thank you for not going the lazy route and saying "unable to corrupt" and calling it a day.) Anyone else on "incorruptible"?

As for lcm, his background has him as a "dumb jock" who was of insufficient skill to make it to the big leagues after college, who also was a Christian in college. From there, he went straight into twi full-time, with no pauses for a normal job or life like any normal adult. (That's why it was so hypocritical when he and vpw complained about other people who didn't show up for MORE time at twi and work MORE for free than they already did. Neither had any experience with real jobs and real lives, so didn't realize how unrealistic that was for people who want to keep a real job- and how unrealistic it would be to quit a job every 50 weeks to work for free at twi, then return home and look for a whole new job every year just to satisfy their unrealistic expectations.) Anyway, despite having a Bachelors, lcm neither understood Psychology nor people. (Someone falling down and becoming incoherent isn't someone "going gooney-bird", and most laymen could at least give a BIT more accurate descriptions than that.) Lacking life experience outside college and twi, it would come as no surprise if he never matured past the varsity team in socialization- and it seems to me he did not. (Hey, just remembered, since he played on his college's varsity team, he exceeded vpw's athletics accomplishments ALSO.) So, where an athlete might have knee-jerk reactions to homosexuals and call them names and criticize them to other athletes, he would do exactly the same- and to twi, since he controlled the microphone there and had captive audiences every time he wanted to just monopolize free time for others. Add to that how he was replaced in his marriage that way, and there's plenty to make lcm feel insecure about homosexuality right there. Rather than deal with that, he turned around and "kicked the dog" to make himself feel better. With continual reminders facing him, he kept lashing out and obsessing over homosexuality. Other than the above, there's nothing that he HIMSELF ever said or showed that said he was interested in other guys "that way". In the absence of any reason, it's possible to speculate without cause- but I'm more honest than that and won't do it. (I've seen others who won't stop there, though, although not as posters at the GSC that I know of.) I know it's considered "de rigeur" to accuse guys who freak out about homosexuality to all do so solely because they're closet homosexuals or homosexuals in denial, but really, there's other possible reasons they may freak out as well. I'm not saying anyone's right to freak out, but those freaking out have reasons, whether or not anyone else would consider them GOOD reasons or any justification for freaking out.

"I was just wondering if the Fellow-Laborers program had any military style training? " Hey, Waysider! This one's apparently for you. IIRC, you were the FL survivor here.

Welcome back to posting here! I can't say I've made the same choices as you, but then I don't have your reasons for making them. If it's working for you, then fine. I also think Pope Francis is tops. (Frankly, I would have rather he gotten the Papacy rather than Benedict last time.) I think he's just what the RCC needs.

Right. We expect there to be a difference between murder (he tried to kill him and succeeded) and manslaughter (he didn't mean to kill him, but it happened anyway.) But twi never looked close enough-it saw what it wanted to see, The End.

My best example of that was the pro-abortion doctrine. Until we "take our first breath", we're not born, and we die when we "take our last breath" (ZERO VERSES SO FAR.) The one verse that comes up is when Gabriel spoke to Mary and said that "the holy thing" that would be born of her would be called The Son of God. So, before Jesus' birth, he was a "thing." But that's only in the KJV. The other versions render that 'holy one" or "holy child" or otherwise. A quick check of the Greek shows that this "THING" thing only occurs here, and the same word for "holy thing" here is translated either "holy one" or "saint" EVERYWHERE ELSE. For consistency, read them all as "holy one/s". Then twi's sole verse for "not a person" vanishes. Worse, we see that other verses show a 3rd trimester kid can react and show emotion. (Elizabeth about John, when Mary arrived.) AND he was called a "baby." At 6 months. We don't know when that all applied, but it was true by that time, which is 3 months earlier than twi said. And this is not hard to find if one is looking. And even after I posted all the verses that said that, vpw fans still posted right after that saying the "thing" thing.

Ok, can we start trying to get some definitions going, or does everyone want another few rounds before we start?

Both are wrong. They're both victims of their own methodology. They got out of twi, but twi has not gotten out of them. They can't help but use the same techniques that damaged themselves and others in twi- but made them both feel special. I think that one antidote to twi is HUMILITY. Otherwise, one is subject to being lifted up with pride...

twi did that quite a bit. My usual rule is that- if twi based a doctrine on one verse or no verses, the doctrine should be presumed error until proved otherwise. So far, it's worked. I had a thread somewhere about doctrines entirely built from one verse, I think.