WordWolf

James 2:15-16 " 15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?"

Man, I knew the answer last week, but I'm blanking on it right now. It's obviously an exchange between Worf and Elim Garak, DS9. WHICH exchange is eluding me at this moment...

I don't know how I missed seeing this one. This was Dr Frahnkensteen's portentuous speech just before the lightning "experiment" in "YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN."

Ah! My brain finally kicked up the answer on this one! "RIDERS ON THE STORM", by the Doors.

[The New American Standard Bible is the one Bible in English that combines the advantages of the KJV (availability plus the italics) with the advantages of the RSV and NIV (clear language and improvements from the last 50 years). Picture the advantages of the NKJV taken further.] Can't even spell the other versions.... Somehow it seems hard to picture that you actuallyknow about the other versions, let alone can compare and contrast them. vpw himself made fun of this type of thinking, and mocked the people who supposedly claimed that the "NIV was good enough for the Apostle Paul, so it's good enough for me." Switch the letters "KJV" for "NIV" and you're demonstrating the SAME errors vpw mocked.] [if you understood 1/2 what you thought you did, you'd see that rattling off the syllables is far from understanding the meaning of the words, let alone demonstrating them. In this thread alone, you've shown us that you can think evil while telling us it's easy to understand we're supposed to not think evil. Usually it's the young that masters this level of naivete with this level of polarization. (Not always, but they're the usual artists of this type of error.) ] [That sits there just like a diamond.....]

Volunteering to demonstrate to us how far even the vpw-supporters have come, greg123 has offered us his perspective on what to use for study and research. "That is what the KJV says, the only version that is right."

The following has all been posted by the same poster, on this same thread... "When you get to the place in your heart and mind, where evil doers no longer exist. Thinking only the best of people, manifesting the renewed mind. At this point you have mastered the true definition of charity." "In our reflection of Love towards one another. We must show non believers the Joy we have with the word. Being tender hearted and forgiving, while rightly dividing God's word." "ICOR 13:5 Thinketh no evil" "Which spirit are you being guided by??" "Since you attacked the source by not be guided by the spirit the question is a true question no attack involved. The question was pointed at you there was no attack. The question should have a answer, but if you don't feel up to it I understand just tell the Devil Hi for me Greg" Well, so much for actually setting an example and practicing what you preach....

Here's one for free: Ever wonder why the KJV renders this word "charity", and how "charity" got associated with doing things for people who needed them done with no hope of repayment or reward for doing them? Ever consider that actually spending significant amounts of your time, money or both to help others with no hope of getting repayment or reward (which "even the publicans do") is a natural outgrowth of having God's love in your heart, and the natural response to HAVING that love?

See, this is the consequence of hobbling your thinking into the rigid channels of doctrine. When some church people do that, you have nothing but contempt for that, but it's perfectly acceptable for you to do it in the meantime. You're dismissing fellow Christians as the result of what they don't know or what they don't understand, or misunderstand, as you see it. However, by that reasoning, you can be dismissed just as easily for your own shortcomings in those areas or other areas-like COMPASSION, EMPATHY and so on. Your understanding of love has much technical data to discuss, but it excludes a true heart-understanding on the subject, true wisdom on the subject. There's 2 sets of Christians I know, among others. One set wrangles on the specific meaning of Greek words, and how many times they occur in Scripture, and so on. The other is inept with Scripture at times, and occupies their time doing things like feeding the hungry, and lifting up those that have been brought low. At the end of the week, which group has acted more the way GOD wants them to act? If your answer isn't "obviously the second group, and it's silly to even compare them", then you still don't get it. Knowledge puffs up.

You have Biblical evidence for SOME of your claim. You have not supported this business involving reflection, nor have you even explained what you mean by reflection. Therefore, that part remains vague, either by intent or accident. Further, as DrtyDzn has already pointed out, you're shackling God with restrictions He never gave by limiting his operation among men to only the manifestation of the spirit, defined by the nine. Manifestation is for profit, but not all profit is manifestation. That's a flaw in your reasoning, and you really should correct it, since it's limiting you.

Congratulations! You found a verse. This can be the beginning of a successful dialogue. Now, supposedly, the entire Bible never contradicts itself. vpw said that, and many Christians say that. Therefore, "apparent contradictions" are either the result of a bad translation or misunderstanding of the text by the reader. So, unless there's a mistranslation, any 2 sections of Scripture can be found to agree once understood. Therefore, take I Corinthians 13:5 and harmonize it with II Timothy 4: 14-15 "14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works: 15 Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words." Many of us can accomplish this without difficulty. Since you're here attempting to enlighten us, you should be able to do so as well. The Spirit of Truth. As if it was relevant to the discussion.

And give ck a hug for us.

[You've completely misunderstood how things work here. See, you just walked in and declared something true. Goey pointed out you did that. Then you decided he didn't make his case. But you have it backwards. See, when you come in and make bald claims like that, YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT THEM. So, as you yourself pointed out, YOUR posts were flawed, "If you knew verses to back up your opinion you would be right." When challenged to do so, you've pretended you already DID, which is dishonest and incorrect.] [Actually, for you to say something written is RIGHT it must agree with the Bible FIRST. Your claims in these threads were CLAIMED to be in full compliance with the Bible, but we are not going to just take your word, or anyone else's word, that they do so. You did NOT use the Bible to define "charity". You made up a definition and announced it matched the Bible. You completely failed to SUPPORT YOUR BALD CLAIM.] [The thing you've shown US is that you can post words, and when challenged, you can spew insults. When making an assertion-which is how this thread started- you must be able to back up your opinion WITH The Word. Your definition NEVER stood, since it was never SUPPORTED.]

Before he was born, men followed the same dream, and after his death, men have resumed following it. The dream of a cushy life using the office of a leader of God's people and not handling its responsibilities lives on still at twi and other places. We know and are ready for it.

Other than "vpw and Bullinger say those are the themes for the Church Epistles, AND we have to count them as 7, not 9, AND we can ONLY apply this definition to the Church Epistles, AND we have to count all 4 as only 3, and can't apply it to 'ALL SCRIPTURE' like it ACTUALLY SAYS", there seems to be no case for "this is the true meaning of that verse." II Timothy 3:16-17. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." My credibility's just fine, thank you. Neither you, vpw, OR Bullinger actually MADE A SIGNIFICANT CASE for this interpretation you hold in common.

Return of the Jedi Warwick Davis Star Wars Episode I:the Phantom Menace (Just saw that again the other day. He's got a "don't blink" appearance during the podrace. He's just to the left of Watto the little bug-guy in the stands. Look for him immediately after Anakin's racer stalls at the beginning of the race.) There's actually a lot of actors who made cameos in this movie, or had more significant roles. Let's see who ends up in the next link...

"Sokath, his eyes uncovered!" Yes, it was "Darmok". Taking a swing at this... was this when the Enterprise had to deal with the alien baby, "JUNIOR"? Otherwise, if it was the NextGen Enterprise, that was VERY slow. That thing's top speed was in the Warp 9-range, sprinting, and it CRUISED around Warp 5, so it could have done that for a long time... I forget offhand how fast the TOS Enterprise went, but-except for Scotty-we didn't have CONVERSATIONS where engineers whined.

Give ck a hug for us, and remind him that he can do his own posting here the same as everyone else. It made little difference whether he, I, or a brand-new person made the same claims, they tend to get weighed on their own merits. (Or lack thereof, depending on the post.)

Hannibal Anthony Hopkins Bram Stoker's Dracula

Ah. NOW I remember that part. Ok, next quote. "Sinba! His face black, his eyes red!!"

CORRECT! Will Farrell, I believe, improvised a LOT during the filming, and all or most of Ron Burgundy's exclamations ("Sweet Knights of Columbus!") were improvised. The street-fight scene between all the newsteams is a "must-see" scene, and the exchange immediately following it is possibly the funnies set of lines in the whole movie. A friend and I find it the most quotable set, too. Go, Pirate!

I think that's "Data's Day," an interesting look at 24 hours in the "life of the android, where those of us using our gut instincts can tell that the logical conclusion's blinding him to the truth, since he's basing it on a false premise. (i.e. 'I'm dealing with a Vulcan, and all Vulcans can be trusted...') Riker utters this line about the bear around the end, if I recall correctly.

Yes it was. Meanwhile, I'll be here refraining from eating this supposed foodstuff that strongly resembles motor oil, and see if someone can answer you.

While I was on the subject, what's with the "limiting Scripture to EXACTLY SEVEN" business? 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" If we're supposed to classify all Scripture arbitrarily into 4 categories, why only do the Church Epistles? Are the other books not "Scripture?" Or are the Epistles just EASIER TO SLAP A LABEL ON? And if you want to downgrade the other books, remember all the references to the rest of the Bible as "Scripture" before you do....

If you put enough effort into it, it is possible to come up with permutations that fit ANY sort of pattern. Don't believe me? Review all the people who have been identified as "666". (My personal favourite was that Ronald Wilson Reagan's names all have 6 letters in them. It meant nothing, because slapping a label on something and imposing a grid on it means nothing in and of itself.) The grid that was imposed here by Bullinger was: A) 'all Epistles' was reduced to only the church Epistles B) all 9 Church Epistles were reduced to 7 Church Epistles C) 4 things Scripture is profitable for was reduced to 3 If the numbers weren't squeezed, only counting the Church Epistles, we would have the grid composed of the following: Romans=Doctrine I Corinthians=Reproof II Corinthians=Correction Galatians=Instruction in Righteousness Ephesians=Doctrine Phillipians=Reproof Colossians=Corrections I Thessalonians=Instruction in Righteousness II Thessalonians=Doctrine As to the order of the Church Epistles in Scripture, if there's a place in Scripture stating that the order of the Church Epistles in Scripture means something, then maybe it matters. Otherwise, it is a man's opinion that it does. That means it is "private interpretation" (as vpw called such things.) Just for fun, what would the order of the Pastoral Epistles and General Epistles look like? I Timothy=Reproof II Timothy=Correction Titus=Instruction in Righteousness Philemon=Doctrine Hebrews=Reproof James=Correction I Peter=Instruction in Righteousness II Peter=Doctrine I John=Reproof II John=Correction III John=Instruction in Righteousness Jude=Doctrine Seems sillier when you carry the pattern all the way through. But of course, vpw said we can't carry the pattern all the way through, and we HAVE to count 4 categories as 3, and 9 Church Epistles as 7.