WordWolf

That's it. I was tempted to try to string 4 together, but sanity kicked in first.

There were often stories about a friend-of-a-friend knowing THIS famous person or THAT theologian took pfal, joined and quit, or had a direct encounter with vpw. vpw himself told the story about Normal Vincent Peale, where he claimed vpw was present at a meeting where Peale claimed to have seen a dead relative ghost down along with the choir, and said so at the pulpit. According to vpw, he confronted Peale afterwards on "the Bible says the dead are dead", and Peale responded by saying he didn't care what the Bible says, he saw them with his own eyes. (vpw told the story at the mainstage of ROA 79, but it was an earlier ROA where he gave the name of who he supposedly confronted.) According to vpw, the man's organization frequently taught such things in its newsletter (which is Guideposts, but vpw never gave the name). (That is, ghosts of the dead visiting the living and watching over them...) Then again, since he didn't drop the name while claiming that part, it should not be a surprise I can't find any reference to Peale ever saying such things. Probably was never such a reference in any newsletter, nor such an incident. Few nowadays would be surprised to discover vpw completely manufacturing an incident while preaching, and denigrating a Christian leader or leaders in the process. That's all I've heard about Peale, nothing about him taking pfal. About Schuller supposedly taking pfal or being involved in twi, I've heard nothing and such claims sound ridiculous. From the time pfal supposedly began onward, Schuller was a bigger fish than vpw, consistently. The only way I'd buy Schuller ever taking it was if vpw had actually marketed pfal for pastors like Leonard did- which vpw did not, he wanted to use it to build a congregation of his own, not enhance the congregations of others. IF that had happened, then PERHAPS Schuller MIGHT have taken it and left- providing Schuller actually ever HEARD of vpw at the time. By the time vpw had met the hippies, Schuller already had built entirely new church structures to house his congregation- all in CALIFORNIA. (Before the internet, Schuller would never have HEARD of a junior league pastor in the middle of Ohio, let alone left California and his congregation to sit through his classes.) The more information I look at on Schuller, the more ridiculous it seems. It's remotely possible they attended some big conference together like the one where he met Stiles, but other than that, further claims are silly.

This preparatory school for superheroes begins having song-and-dance numbers when two of the new kids meet over karaoke and discover they love music, even if they're more sidekicks than superheroes.

There's at least 1 movie everyone here's probably seen that has Smits in it, but see if I care. You can continue from Seth Rogan for all I care. (Or Smits, whichever you want.)

Sorry, you replied to George after a reply was already up. We left off at Jimmy Smits (in Running Scared.)

Yes. I can confirm it because I looked it up and disqualified myself. Your turn.

I still think there was never a scripted explanation for them. Then again, what do I know? I haven't eaten at Taco Bell for something like 2 years.

Joe Pantoliano Running Scared Jimmy Smits

The books are on my list to read at some point or other. In general, nowadays I don't see movies in the theaters. It works better for me to see them on cable, DVD or otherwise.

It sounded like it should have been Bob Dylan, at any rate. Glad to know the reason it sounded that way. BTW, with the title and artist of a song, it's usually not hard to find one or several versions of the song on YT. So, if you want, often you can post a link to a video. ------------------------------------------------ On the off-chance someone new recognizes the current song, I'll wait a little before answering. This one I remember as much from the video as the radioplay. I'll link to that one once the answer is up, or I post it.

Hannibal Gary Oldman Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Yours probably weren't, but that was a general reminder for everyone to play nice, not just whoever got sent to the "time out corner." I'm fine with not knowing who it was for sure, myself.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044121/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_12 " The Thing from Another World (1951)" Known as The Thing. Starred James Arness as The Thing. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084787/?ref_=tttr_tr_tt "The Thing (1982) " http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0905372/?ref_=tt_rec_tt " The Thing (I) (2011) " Yes, they're all films of the same story.

The boldface type indicated that particular text was a clue. Since you seemed to know the answer but didn't post it, I figured you made the choice not to answer for some reason. Normally, one of us will do that if we think someone else knows it and we had a turn recently and we want to let someone new take a stab at it. In this case, I thought that would have been really optimistic.

"The Thing." (I would have guessed that from the quote either way, but knowing it was remade gave me more confidence.)

Ghostbusters Sigorney Weaver Working Girl

"Man on the Moonstruck."

Yes, I made a typo. We know he was NOT originally a Trinitarian because we have seen documents where he used a Trinitarian formula long before he met Lamsa and Leonard. Between Lamsa and Leonard, he had to POVs that differed from the standard POV concerning the Trinity.

Was it "Role Models"?

Reminds me of an old complaint about a certain type of Christian. Would you like some gum? I don't need gum-I have Jesus! When posters have already come forward and said they personally benefited from the types of posts you're complaining about, (same thread, 1 page back) and you can turn around and claim you can't figure out where the benefit is, nothing else I can say will help you. Actually, the truth is totally beyond you. A) Nobody said the post was "ALL ABOUT" the large errors you posted on your blog. You made more than one factual error and were called on it. The context of the errors doesn't change that they were factually inaccurate. That kept coming up, and you insisted they were true. You insisted that vpw came clean publicly and confessed some of his perversions and felonies. He did no such thing. You insisted that "Passing of the Patriarch" was a letter specifically addressing that. It was no such thing. In fact, you kept insisting that even after people posted links to the document so you could read it for yourself. You were going to people who'd read the document, and insisting that its contents were completely different than what they were. Rather than thanking them, or even quietly correcting yourself, dusting yourself off, and moving on, you've chosen to respond with verbal attacks and insults to those people who committed the crime of being right when you wanted to be right instead. So now you're accepting that the contents of POP were different than you were previously insisting they were. That's a step in the right direction. Now, if you could have done that without insulting and attacking others and making it all about you, we would be on-topic on the topic you interrupted. If you want to discuss POP, make your own thread for it. I'm skipping the classless comments. Some people were lied to about the contents of POP. Some people-imagine that if you can- were mistaken about the contents of POP. Truth has a value in and of itself, especially when dealing with an organization that attempted to handle its affairs secretly. A number of posters have felt enriched for gaining in that knowledge. It enhanced their understanding, and they felt better-off for it. If you don't see any benefit of any of the GSC content, you do not need to read it. It neither has to be something I see the benefit to, nor does it need to be something you see the benefit to. I've been factually correct about you each time. You didn't like that, so you've invented lies like the ones I quoted above to draw attention from that and do other things. I have every right to step in and set the record straight. Hopefully, we are.

Is this that movie with the guy that looked like Marvin Hamlisch?

The man was fond of making all sorts of CLAIMS. The man was not fond of actually doing work. So, he was all talk when it came to doing good. If helping you would inconvenience him, he wouldn't do it and he'd berate you for being selfish. vpw was oblivious to the hypocrisy that defined much of his life. He passed along style and substance of others, and never thought there was anything wrong with being a hearer or teacher of The Word who was NOT a DOER of The Word. He taught others how to behave rightly, sometimes, but never taught it BY EXAMPLE. As a sociopath, there's an abrupt disconnect in his life which is explained by him having no conscience. So, inconsistencies never bothered him if they weren't a direct inconvenience to him.

I think it's a common, but harmful, thing for people to get PROVINCIAL in their thinking and exposure to ideas. They save a lot of time by not considering the opposing points of view, but they limit their abilities to think and reason by limiting their exposure to ideas and knowledge. There is a lot of things that are known many places now that I am unaware of. Every day, new things are learned or discussed. I feel my life is richer for being at least passingly-familiar with many of them, and aware of what I'm not exploring further. Sadly, this is common enough across all parts of all societies. I've seen people use the excuse of religion to do it, and I've seen people antagonistic of religion condemn the religious for doing it- and do it even worse than the people they complain about. Limiting one's exposure to other Christians limits one's exposure to the lessons other Christians have learned, which limits the ways God can reach you with what you need to know. My approach to Christianity has been "eclecticism" for a very long time, and I find it's a good approach to much of life.

Many, many times, Christians don't see the results of our prayers. I realized that back in college. Sometimes you pray for someone and never see them again. I had that happen in college with a non-Christian. I ran into them over a year later, at a distance. I waved. They waved back, and called out a Christian greeting. Another Christian picked up where I left off. But what I did, small though it may seem, was to set up things so they could hear when the next Christian came through, and think things through. I liken these things to when police "share a collar." Bringing in a criminal is sometimes the work of several police doing different things- but what is important is that the criminal is brought in. To Christians, the salvation of others is-or at least should be- far more important than whose congregation they attend (so long as they don't join an abusive or toxic group, at least.)

The discussion about Wh1tes1de's book was in "the way:living in wonderland." The discussion about lcm's book was in "vp and me in wonderland." There was a discussion about the supposed history book but I have to find it. There was also a discussion about "spiritual carjacking" but I'll have to find that as well, but it sounded relevant to your thinking right now.