WordWolf

"I'm in the hi-fidelity first class traveling set And I think I need a Lear jet." "Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash. New car, caviar, four star daydream, Think I'll buy me a football team."

"Yeah, man, he had an accident-he fell backwards on a knife 27 times." "Father, you and your wife owe me 28.50." "I have this gun here. I'm gonna take the gun out, and I'm gonna shoot a lot of holes in the door. If you are standing in front of the door, what can I tell you? Some of those holes are gonna be in you." "In this neighborhood, driving a Mercedes is 'probable cause'. " "Tell him I said 'hello'. " "Oh, no! The man missed the answer in Jeopardy because he did not know what Deuteronomy was.....Oh, muvvah! Will you put more petite marshmallows in my hot cocoa, muvvah? Gotta go, bye!" "Calling all cars! UFOs landing on Michigan Avenue!"

Here's a triple. In this movie, a lawyer faces reprisals from an insane former client of his who was convicted, but now has been paroled. He attempts to evade the ex-convict- by accompanying a gonzo journalist on a road trip. Then he celebrates his family's survival by taking them on a trip to a city he visited with the journalist. Stars Robert De Niro, Nick Nolte, Juliette Lewis, Johnny Depp, Benicio del Toro, Chevy Chase, Beverly D'Angelo, and Randy Quaid.

BTW, you all are aware that this entire " "Christmas" is short for "Christ massacre", celebrating the deaths of the holy innocents or of Christ himself" thing was completely made up, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the name "Christmas", right? There's lesser holidays like "Michaelmas" and "Candlemas". That one doesn't celebrate the deaths of the candles, just that candles are used AT THE MASS ONE IS EXPECTED TO BE AT FOR THE RELIGIOUS HOLIDAY. I grew up Catholic, so I was expected in church every Christmas, to attend a MASS on Christmas. Here's Candlemas: http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/common/candlemas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentation_of_Jesus_at_the_Temple Here's Childermas: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/prayers/view.cfm?id=520 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents For the curious, the mass on Childermas (December 28) really IS a mass about the Holy Innocents Herod slew in Bethlehem to try to kill Jesus. Here's Michaelmas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michaelmas Here's a breakdown of the name "Christmas." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas#Etymology ""Christmas" is a compound word originating in the term "Christ's Mass". It is derived from the Middle English Cristemasse, which is from Old English Crīstesmæsse, a phrase first recorded in 1038, followed by the word Cristes-messe in 1131. Crīst (genitive Crīstes) is from Greek Khrīstos (Χριστός), a translation of Hebrew Māšîaḥ (מָשִׁיחַ), "Messiah", meaning "anointed"; and mæsse is from Latin missa, the celebration of the Eucharist. The form "Christenmas" was also historically used, but is now considered archaic and dialectal; it derives from Middle English Cristenmasse, literally "Christian mass"." ======================== "Christmas" was never a celebration of death. Nowadays, a quick online search can show that, for those who need it said outright. As for "Ho-Ho" songs, we did them in my fellowship decades ago, when we met. I went along because I thought it was funny-which is probably why we all did it (in my group).

We know it was SUPPOSED to mean "PHYSICAL ABUNDANCE" because the beginning of the pfal class- and thus the beginning of the Orange Book- makes that transparent. vpw said he was dismayed that non-Christians were demonstrating more "ABUNDANCE" than Christians. Yes, twi's practices, in any practical sense, made it a LOT harder to achieve physical abundance than not following them or just plain ignoring them. But the people on top of twi, as always, they're living the abundant life, aren't they?

That's certainly true. He often had a clever turn of phrase and could say things in a memorable fashion. Often, however, it SOUNDED right but was actually incorrect. With his audience convinced ahead of time that he had a special, inside track to God Almighty, and a great track record with God Almighty, they were primed to treat his every utterance as the last word on a subject and never open to disagreement or discussion as to whether it WAS correct.

"Yeah, man, he had an accident-he fell backwards on a knife 27 times." "Father, you and your wife owe me 28.50." "I have this gun here. I'm gonna take the gun out, and I'm gonna shoot a lot of holes in the door. If you are standing in front of the door, what can I tell you? Some of those holes are gonna be in you."

John Cleese Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets [#2] Kenneth Branagh

Jesse "the Body" Ventura Batman and Robin Uma Thurman

"Pure Imagination." The name may not ring a bell. Here's the lyrics: "Come with me And you'll be In a world of Pure imagination. Take a look And you'll see Into your imagination. We'll begin With a spin Traveling in The world of my creation. What we'll see Will defy Explanation. If you want to view paradise Simply look around and view it. Anything you want to, do it. Wanta change the world? There's nothing To it. There is no Life I know To compare with Pure imagination. Living there You'll be free If you truly wish to be. If you want to view paradise Simply look around and view it. Anything you want to, do it. Want to change the world? There's nothing To it. There is no Life I know To compare with Pure imagination. Living there You'll be free If you truly Wish to be."

God Almighty CAN do that whenever He wants. WHY SHOULD HE? Why even believe in God at all if He can't protect someone who jumps off the pinnacle of the temple and trusts God to protect him from a fall? God Almighty CAN do that whenever He wants. WHY SHOULD HE? You're asking the wrong questions because you're looking at the wrong thing. First of all, it's clear you're talking about a TITHE of 10%. That's a subject that's been covered in the Bible-with different conclusions than in pfal/twi. Christians have NEVER been required to tithe, or even REQUESTED to do so. Go ahead, check the entire New Testament. There's requests for donations to help other Christians on a one-time basis. There's a warning AGAINST required monies. There's no required tithe. So, to ask why God Almighty doesn't give you the results you specified on an action you specified He had to give results on- whether it's a tithe or anything else- is no different in substance than a foolish Jesus falling to his death from the top of the temple because he would EXPECT God to do whatever, whenever. Chapter and verse, please. What verse says that Christians are required to give the Tenth/Tithe and that God will guarantee to bless the other 90% if they do? It was a self-serving doctrine that sure benefited the man who was on the receiving end of the 10%. I can get behind that-but that has nothing to do with requiring a mandatory Tenth/Tithe from the Christians. Is He required to bless your life in the fashion YOU specify? Is it YOUR will be done, or HIS will be done?

I disagree. The end result, is never "arriving at a destination." The "goal posts" are always moved. "You'll understand after _____". "You'll really get it after ____." Ever learning, never able to come to any kind of knowledge of the truth.

"Yeah, man, he had an accident-he fell backwards on a knife 27 times."

Dick Shawn The Producers Gene Wilder

Here's a triple. In this movie, a lawyer faces reprisals from an insane former client of his who was convicted, but now has been paroled. He attempts to evade the ex-convict- by accompanying a gonzo journalist on a road trip. Then he celebrates his family's survival by taking them on a trip to somewhere he visited with the journalist.

I noticed you went out of your way not to quote what we actually said. It's a LOT easier to pretend we said something else that way. Here's what I asked: Here's what Raf said. It's clear you trimmed what he said enough that it lost the actual meaning of what he said. I noticed that you ducked my question completely by answering a different question, then PRETENDING you answered MY question. You said that I Corinthians says that Speaking in Languages produced results where observers would NEVER recognize the languages. (You're using that as a justification for why YOU never produce one, nor does anyone you know.) At the same time, it's rather clear that Acts accounts have people understanding what was spoken. So, it CAN'T EVER be understood, but some people understand it just fine? That's a contradiction- so, I asked if you'd EVER noticed that was a contradiction, and how you resolved it before approaching this thread. So, how did you address the SUPPOSED position that Speaking in Languages should NEVER be understood (your claim of I Corinthians) with the accounts of people understanding in Acts? "some people understood and others didn't and others yet again had interpretation " That answer should inspire some eye-rolling, actually.

For someone who's traveled for a bit, you're thinking too provincially. When in heavily-traveled regions, it's common to know more than one language. Acts 2 showed Jews from a number of countries, with many of them speaking multiple languages. It wasn't peculiar to speak a second language. It would have been peculiar to speak a DOZEN language. Even the unschooled, in many places, learn more than 1 language. We know the witnesses who traveled with Peter would have been unusually hard to convince, since their entire paradigm was about to shift in front of their eyes. We know they knew what was being said, because they knew what was happening and knew this was no ecstatic trance of gibberish, which was not uncommon at the time. They knew it was a language AND what was said. Given how common trade and travel was in that place and time, that doesn't narrow the language down entirely, but it wasn't the expected language(s) for Cornelius and company in any instance. We know it proved things to those present beyond a reasonable doubt for them. We were not told the exact language, so that's it. That wasn't hard to follow just from reading it. Acts 10 (NASB):44-46. 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God.

They might say nothing, and just enjoy their golden parachutes. Remember, to ask questions in twi ABOUT twi risks social punishments and possible expulsion.

Hm. I was just thinking about this one on another thread. :) This must be "Edward Scissorhands."

So, proceeding from there, there's exactly 3 actors I can name from that movie. Since Jim Carrey was named, I'll go with Cleavon Little Scavenger Hunt Vincent Price You'd be amazed how many actors of note are in that movie. I certainly was.

George got his titles confused. He confused "Love At First Bite" (Dracula spoof) with "ONCE BITTEN", with a very young Jim Carrey. (It was the closest thing to a well-known movie he'd done as of that time.) So, that round was obviously meant to read The Mask Jim Carrey ONCE BITTEN

Raf answered you on this already. I am curious, however, if the question ever occurred to you in all the decades since you first took pfal. After all, in Acts, we had MULTIPLE accounts of Speaking in Languages where the observers understood the languages. In I Corinthians, we SUPPOSEDLY had an explanation that the observers would NEVER understand the languages. So, how did you resolve the "apparent Bible contradiction" before this thread? Did it even occur to you, before now, that there was one?

I think part of this is just the idea of even EXAMINING this stuff is either heretical or simply ALIEN to a lot of people. Thus, you get people who have no practice nor experience trying to articulate what they're feeling rather than examining what they're thinking. I think that's why we're getting claims that contradict each other (It can't be understood ever-except when I understood it that time) and complaints that contradict each other (you shouldn't be using outside sources to research at all, and you're not doing enough of it, how dare you). On top of that, lots of insults. It's not a healthy process of discussion, it's an attempt to silence the opposition by throwing everything against the wall and seeing if anything sticks. However, in the case of this subject, that backfired horrendously before, because that's when we really began to break down the process of "free vocalization" and how it would account for all the occurrences in the twi/vpw system of practices. You wouldn't have found the phrase AT ALL, and if not for weeks of that sort of "fog the issue" thinking, I wouldn't have seen the contrast so sharply, and I might have remained undecided on the issue rather than concluding that I WANTED one side to be right but there was no way they COULD be. I'm not the only one who changed their mind during the discussion, for that natter.

Try to view things outside the straitjacket of the vpw/twi system. I never called it mumbo-jumbo. It's pretty clear it's different from the speaking in languages of Acts. It's pretty clear to me that humans can choose to do it without anything supernatural. That means it's not what we were told- but it doesn't mean it is useless for EVERYTHING. If someone was convinced they bought a car and they had bought a bicycle, finding out what it really was wouldn't mean it was useless AS A BICYCLE just because it wasn't a car. You made some really fundamental errors about that language, despite supposedly having had considerable exposure to it. I would NOT brag about that if I were you, and it really doesn't speak well of your comprehension of what you "know by experience." Well, you discounted it accidentally despite all that, You said the language was "Cook Island"-which, as we both agree now, is neither the name of the place- the "Cook Islands", nor the name of a SPECIFIC language since it's a multilingual group of islands. Since you're aware that there's dialects there plus the full languages, that's a pretty egregious mistake YOU'RE REFUSING TO ADMIT YOU MADE. Hey- I didn't make a mistake and refuse to admit it. I didn't respond to being caught at it by mudslinging and calling names to those who caught it. Since you brought them up, let's review the various words you just used: 1) misguided- trying to hold to contra-Biblical methods of viewing Biblical things because you're used to them is misguided, comparing Biblical beliefs to the Bible is not misguided 2) smug 3) conceited- Once we had examined this subject, I changed my position to one approximately opposite that which I originally held. I did so RATHER PUBLICLY because all the evidence pointed one-way, rather dramatically. If I was smug and conceited, I would have been UNABLE to do so, especially publicly. 3) VERY IGNORANT- uninformed, uneducated? By examining what others said on a subject, and what experts said in their areas of expertise? Aren't you the same guy who objected to "world wisdom" about a day ago and now you're claiming I wasn't doing it enough? You're all over the map again. A few days ago, you were doing that with your position on tongues with Raf- when you were telling Raf both that it would be impossible to be understood while telling him that you recognized the (understandable) languages used at least once. I'm sure you're feeling better by calling us all sorts of things, but, really, that's not reflecting reality or what's happened on this thread. If you want others to think we're in error, then provide some SUBSTANCE rather than INSULTS. The complete INability of anybody with your position to do that- and RELIANCE on fogging issues and using insults- is why I abandoned that position. Frankly, you're probably convincing other people you're wrong about this with each new post on this thread. So, in other words, keep it up, you're making my side of the discussion look better by contrast. :)

Practicing to further perfect something that arrived perfect is senseless. If we were practicing something IMperfect, some construct of humans, like free vocalization, well, then it makes plenty of sense. Practice would make it easier and improve our ability to do it and string together the sounds as if they were languages. It would increase our "fluency"-which is something we were told to work on in excellor's sessions. If God gives the utterance, then TRYING to start with specific sounds is DEFYING GOD ALMIGHTY. It is either trying to FORCE GOD to give the utterance in conformity with OUR wills ("My will be done"), or deciding to do utterances with the letter whether or not God Almighty wants to provide it. It's that simple- once you look at it. As we discussed long ago, translations between languages OFTEN are quite different in size. Anyone can test this by comparing written instructions for a device or appliance- in all the languages the instructions manual includes. One episode of "I Love Lucy" demonstrated it in detail-translating from French to German to Spanish to English and back, back and forth in quick succession. It was obvious the French was a LOT longer than the German, for example, for the same phrases, which stretched out again in Spanish. vpw was big on outsiders NOT experiencing twi stuff. Considering how much of vpw's stuff was ripped off from other people, I think part of it was so he wouldn't be caught plagiarizing. Another reason, of course, was so that outsiders couldn't examine twi practices and expose them to a cold, rational light. What little outsiders heard was error-ridden and incomplete, which is why they complained about petty, inaccurate things when there were much bigger things to complain about.