WordWolf

I think the idea is that, generally, Sola Scriptura is a subset of Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism might be seen as "Gimme that old time religion." It's considered the antithesis, often, of modern movements, and is a matter of getting back to basics. However, getting back to basics and "old time religion" are not the same as ditching everything that isn't Sola Scriptura. There's Fundamentalists who consider other things as Fundamental. On the other hand, Sola Scriptura doesn't NECESSARILY mean "discard anything that isn't in a verse." Anything that isn't in a verse is completely optional and is devoid of authority. If a verse suggests it, it has that much, but no more. (So, a Sola Scriptura person is not required to discard using a computer, for example.) So, they're not the same thing, but there's an overlap, and some people may consider them the same. When you have someone who takes the Bible "literally", as in, historically accurate and so on, they're called "Fundamentalist."

"There's a lady who's sure all that glitters is gold"

What? Aw, man, they had the best fruit pies! *checks* Well, Tasykakes and Little Debbie are still around. With openings in the market, both can expand with new products to fill demand.

In the same class, EB taught what vpw taught in other places and times- that the vocabulary of the speaker affected the phrasing but not the content- which is why Amos, a shepherd, was less poetic than educated John's poetic Gospel opening. So, if Amos used a phrase like "muck and mire" rather than, say, "filth", vpw and EB would have endorsed it. Also in this class was EB playing the recording and saying that we can tell which were the interpretations with additions, because they took extra time. The idea was-if the words in tongues took 11 seconds (for example), then the interpretation into English (for example) should take 11 seconds (for example.) Someone who's multilingual reminded me to just tell people to pull out any set of instructions anybody has, for some electronic device. Look for where the instructions are in different languages. Compare the lengths of the sets against each other. Those are all supposedly real words in real languages all saying the same thing. Myself, I found a particular "I Love Lucy" episode as a good example. ("Paris At Last".) At the end of the episode, Lucy is in Paris, and trying to explain where some counterfeit French francs came from. The Police Desk Sergeant only spoke French. One of his officers spoke French and German, and was socializing with a tourist who spoke German and Spanish. So, Ricky arrived, and translated from Spanish to English to tell Lucy what the Desk Sergeant said. Lucy replied- which was translated to Spanish, to German, then to French. (I watched it with someone who understood some of each language, who confirmed it was all correct.) The scene is funny, and plays out with each person passing along emotion and tone along with the translation. Watch the scene, and pay attention to how long each set takes as it passes each person. Languages like German are a LOT briefer than languages like French, so the first step often shows a BIG gap between the "tongue" of French and the "interpretation" in German. BTW, Raf? Did the atheist control group of 1 have any theatrical training or experience?

TWI taught that SIT bypasses the mind. The others don't-according to them. The so-called Great Principle stated: "God, who is Spirit, teaches His creation in you, which is now your spirit, and your spirit teaches your mind. Then it becomes manifested in the senses realm as you act." Can't delete that file even if I tried..... Naturally, this contradicts the Foundational Class when vpw says that God is Spirit, and can only communicate with what He is. As Raf pointed out once, if Spirit can only communicate with spirit, then "our spirit" COULD NOT communicate with our mind to teach it.

That's David Bowie's "SPACE ODDITY." I had to make sure it wasn't Peter Schilling's answer to it- "Major Tom (Earth Below Us)" before posting. (I thought carefully, I didn't look it up.)

"A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti."

It is Sherlock Holmes. The show "Elementary" is entertaining, and helps to pass the time while I wait for "SHERLOCK" to resume. The BBC show, like many of their shows, runs in miniseries arcs. So, there's been less than a dozen episodes, each a separate movie. It's a modern-day show with a modern-day Sherlock who is a consulting detective, and a Dr John Watson who is a military veteran. (Should sound familiar.) Really, it's a fantastic show if you like mysteries or Sherlock Holmes.

The Drakes company will be happy to pick up the slack. They'll sell pastries you can call Twinkies which look and taste the same.

Burt Reynolds, Roger Moore, Farrah Fawcett, Dom de Luise, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr, Jamie Farr, Peter Fonda, Bianca Jagger, Rick Aviles, Valerie Perrine....

There's one character who, supposedly, has had the most different movie adaptations about him of different types- Dracula. There's one character who comes in second on that, having had many different versions about him in the cinema. THAT character currently has inspired TWO different television shows CURRENTLY airing about him- one by the BBC and one on standard US television networks. Name either show.

Cardinal Richelieu has his men take subway passengers hostage, and it's up to a few of the king's swordsmen (and 1 hot-blooded Gascon) to stop him!

"St Elmo's Fire". I think he artist was John Paar. Song always takes me back to high school.

I don't think moat people would remember YELLOW SUBMARINE from that line,but I sure would.

On the one hand, twi PROFESSED Sola Scriptura but was not. vpw always talked a good game, but The Word of vpw always trumped The Word of God when they conflicted. No matter his PUBLIC protestations against that, it's what he demanded in private among his trained leadership-and that's what got out in practice. Among the lowly peons, however, many got the Sola Scriptura idea and ran with that. So, after leaving twi, some held to that as fundamental, as foundational. (Others became atheists, agnostics, wiccans, etc.) I don't know "MOST" ex-twi would be Sola Scriptura. I think many would be. I am, but there's still some who are Sola VPW- where what vpw said, that's The Will of God. Even if Scripture says otherwise. That's why we get people decades later whose entire vocabulary seems to be mostly twi buzzwords and vpw slang.

He said that name is applied. He didn't say whether he thought it was sensible to apply it or not. The phrasing might be taken to suggest it isn't- or it might not. He'll have to answer as to what he meant either way. If either of you care. It's getting us off-topic, I think.

Shanghai Noon Jackie Chan Cannonball Run

The Honeymooners, of course. BTW, if you can ever bring yourself to watch the Star Wars Holiday Special ever again, (I'd bet my life you saw it when it aired in 1977), you may recognize a Honeymooners moment. Art Carney played Saun Dann, a human merchant on the Wookiee homeworld. As a Stormtrooper has him display things for inspection, Art Carney does an increasingly elaborate preparation without doing anything until the Stormtrooper gets frustrated and yells at him like Ralph Kramden used to do with Norton.

"the Breakfast Club Paradise"?

Frank Oz Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones Samuel L. Jackson

It's not a doctrinal difference of opinion. Since it's not a fair representation of what Raf said, none of us, including Raf, would agree with it. Also, trying to imitate his style while misunderstanding his posts is not good by any meaning of the word "good." The thing is, when people went/go through the INT class, it's NOT in a void. They had months of "fellowships" with months of samples of what the "messages from God" are supposed to sound like and look like. So, they know what to expect, and have social conditioning that everyone else expects exactly that, too. THEN comes the "you can do it" pep talks for a few sessions, THEN comes the "how to" in the sessions/excellor sessions/ small groups. Also, don't forget that any sampling of people will cover "normal distribution." Some will lag behind (and may need private sessions on top of months of prep and sessions of pep talk) and some will surge forward (and may do the stuff with only the exposure from 12 sessions of pfal or from seeing a few meetings and following the instructions in the books.) So, there will always be a few examples of people who need very little exposure. We never really discussed the "slow cases." What qualifies as a "short period" is different for people who know they're faking it and people who would be convinced they were doing it supernaturally. A class of actors could do it in one long session-provided enough examples of material were provided. Faking a language, pious manner, those are easy. Most of it will be details of the meeting, then samples of the "messages from God." So, it COULD all have been faked. I'm convinced at least some of it was NOT faked. I'm not sure how much, but SOME. (Much less than half. Maybe 5%, maybe 1%, maybe less.)

Trying to copy the STYLE of my or Raf's posts doesn't mean your posts will carry the same meaning. They certainly won't have the same sincerity, and readers will know that. And once again, you've misrepresented and oversimplified what Raf said. If that's all you got from him, no wonder you disagree. Raf would disagree with that one, too. I've gotten a lot from the discussion. I know Raf did too- he now has a much broader grasp of the subject, and understands more. I didn't approach it AT ALL until the thread. I expect others can say the same- and we're still waiting for Mark S to come back with something cool. (I am, at least.) And saying you're done but taking potshots at the rest of us isn't being done. We approached this logically and systematically, I learned, and I expect that other Christians have been gaining a lot by lurking- which I did for most of the discussion. We also asked nicely to tone the discussion down before moderation came in- we're not strangers to compassion or manners. But, hey, if you have to make us out as villains to get through the day, so be it. I certainly can't stop you.

The thing with that, chockfull, is that, sooner or later, you'll come across NEW things that won't fit so well. Some verse you never read in Habakkuk or something, some new manuscript, some new information, scientific or not. That's when you have to decide whether to chuck the whole thing out (which I wouldn't but some people have), to hide from the new thing (there's some Christians out there with deep faith but shallow education) or to INCORPORATE IT and ADJUST your theology (that's what I do when new information comes in.) I don't count myself to have gotten there and grabbed it all any more than Paul did. However, I do keep trying to learn more. I find it leads to a DEEPER faith if I have a DEEPER understanding. Then, when I eventually make a "leap of faith", it's over a much shorter distance.

He was tired of repeating himself, especially since you read his previous points and circled them ad nauseum before that. It was as pointless as the man born blind explaining, and re-re-re-explaining, how Jesus opened his eyes. After a certain amount of repetition, it gets ridiculous to keep trying.

What people are "attacking" (debating or discussing) is a rather specific thing- whether or not modern SIT and Biblical SIT are the same thing, and, in Doctrinal, whether they could be or if it is possible currently to HAVE Biblical SIT. Really, is your faith entirely centered around that? Lots of healthy Christians with deep faith disagree with you. As for numbers in the poll, they don't distinguish between twi'ers who are still in who vote, ex-twi'ers who think vpw was the Right Hand of God, people who refuse to consider at all, and those who are open to changing their mind if there's a reason. The original phrasing was likely to influence people AGAINST the idea anything changed because it was abrasive, AND the whole subject, as you can see, is controversial to the ex-twi communities. With all that, the votes say 50% of people logged in and voting have changed their minds. I suppose it's possible someone's just reacting to hatred of vpw, but none of the POSTERS have cited that as a reason. They THOUGHT and CONCLUDED they were wrong before.