WordWolf

What's your opinion?

Some people felt the story straightjacketed the reader and pushed one viewpoint. I thought it was worth watching and RE-watching, but I wouldn't have nominated it for any awards. (I'm hard on most nominations.) Now, how about naming the movie so we can move on?

I said I thought it was a good idea- not that I have arrived at the answer. My current thinking, pending a better explanation, is that Judas Iscariot died from a successful suicide attempt. Frankly, that's as much detail as I really need.

[The Koran was written several centuries later. "Gospels" written 300 years later are generally acknowledged to be of inferior authority. Many books written 300 years later appear to have a specific axe to grind, and a doctrine to push. Mohammed specifically wanted to discredit Christianity AND Judaism, and likely would have resented any claims his book was "from the Judeo-Christian perspective." AND it was written centuries after the "other gospels". That the Koran claims the Gospels have it wrong is no surprise to me, neither does it impress me. "The Da Vinci Code" and "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" claimed the Gospels have it wrong as well. However, since they're centuries too late to be party to the events, AND they've their own agendas to push, they don't impress me either. So, that ANY book written centuries later can claim Judas was crucified, slipped in a tub and broke his neck, or was run over by a team of racing camels all strike me as NON-ISSUES. I mean, I can write a book saying he was pushed out a window. Because my book would be in "the Judeo-Christian tradition", would that make my book authoritative?] [Or maybe it was invented in the intervening centuries bysomeone who didn't like the Biblical accounts.] [i do agree that attempting to harmonize the accounts in the Gospels and Acts 1 is a good idea. Either they fit together and are one event, or they do not fit together, and one describes Judas' death and the other only looks like it does.] [i'll agree. I find it the least bit strange. I'll keep that one filed next to my questions on the grapegatherers, which also strikes me as strange.] [You noted that YOU would expect it. Me, I would "expect" a more thorough account of the hard sciences in the Bible. Looks like we were both disappointed. You can always lodge a complaint with God Almighty- after all, He didn't consult YOUR opinion before setting things in motion. ("If you want to know what God thinks of your opinion, just ask yourself when the last time He asked you for it was...") Priorities can differ between a dozen cultures across 20 centuries. What seems "a glaring" omission to you can seem superfluous to include to someone 2000 years ago. You're reading THEIR texts with YOUR mindset, and see a disparity. This is a surprise? There's hefty debate over the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and that's only 200 years old and in the same country!] [if you don't trust the Gospel accounts of the eyewitnesses and those who interacted directly with the eyewitnesses, whether or not you think the Gospels are God-breathed, what makes you think that speculation centuries later is any more reliable?]

"How do you think the Yankees will do against the Redskins this year?" "The Yankees are a baseball team. The Redskins are a football team. Personally, I think the Redskins would kick the sh* out of them." "I was the weapon-but I ain't no killer." "I'd rather die than go back there!"

wasway, totw, if one of you doesn't post something, I'll post another song...

I'll answer what I know. AVG and Avast (free) are approximately as good as the pay versions. One guy I know switched from Norton (which he paid for) to AVG (free) and found it an improvement. Plus, it took up less memory. I'd also recommend using a registry cleaner as well, at least once a year. (More if you do a lot of downloads and deletions of programs.) One thing you didn't mention was a FIREWALL. There's reliable free firewalls, too. Are you using one, or just the SP2 thing?

Robin Hood:Men in Tights Cary Elwes the Princess Bride

"Your Mileage May Vary." Like with cars and exactly how many miles to the gallon you get when actually driving the thing.

Personally, I found that the image was less offensive than the concepts it lampooned. It was harsh, but made its point. Do I think that it would have been made without the image? Well, we've been discussing it for years, and some people still find it too subtle for them, so a clue by four might be warranted, IMHO. I agree with Mark that-if there's a different, equally effective image, we can use that. However, I don't have one. Those of you who are offended, PLEASE brainstorm up one. I'd be glad to help find images to match the concept, if you've got a coherent concept to use.

Tom, please put Linda out of her misery.... Never mind, wasway posted it.

[untrue in general, and grossly exaggerated in the specifics. However, if not for this convenient fiction, this tail to wag the dog, there'd be no excuse for rewriting the Bible, and thus, no "pfal is the new Bible" Mikean doctrine.] [This is another exaggeration.When reading Machiavelli, one frequently funds names of places and historical figures interrupting explanations. One can choose to go to an encyclopedia and look them up, (or a history textbook.) One can also simply continue to read, and let the context make the main points clear. I've never had to look up the figures to understand the points made. And Machiavelli's LOADED with names compared to most of the Bible.] [None of the former make any difference on the basic understanding, the basic meanings, a basic reading of Scripture. Not one figure of speech is needed to be identified to receive Jesus as one's Lord, know that God is Love, and so on. As to administrations/dispensations vs covenant theology and other stuff, the jury's out as to whether they even apply at all. Please also correct your numbers. vpw quoted 212 figures of speech, but he was quoting Bullinger, and doing so incorrectly. (Or perhaps misread his notes.) Bullinger identified 217 figures, not 212.] [Also misrepresentative, but it's an excuse to dragout the "I'm thankful vpw failed to footnote any of his sources!" excuse for vpw's failure to cite sources.] [if a plain read of a plain version is opaque to you, then the Orange Book will be equally cryptic. The Bible's not a laundry list of names and places.] [And there we have the "footnotes are evil! Citing sources is evil!" sneaking in the back door as promised. Please note that a simple NEW King James Version is clearer for the average person to read than the old KJV, and vpw insisted on the OLD version despite the availability of the new. Making this easy on the readers was NOT high on the list. Nowadays, the New American Standard is even easier on the modern reader AND retains the italics, so-to be consistent-a pfal fan should recommend the Bible student switch to THAT rather than the KJV. I like Elizabethan English, but most people aren't big fans of Shakespeare. To refuse to do so is to be wedded to TRADITION ("vpw used the outdated KJV, so I will use it too!") rather than adjusting for superior performance (the NASB is superior to the KJV in everything but popularity.)]

"How do you think the Yankees will do against the Redskins this year?" "The Yankees are a baseball team. The Redskins are a football team. Personally, I think the Redskins would kick the sh* out of them."

That's from "STRIPES", when they're in the recruitment office.

IIRC, that should be the relevant issue. Full-time employment and part-time employment have different rules for eligibility for health insurance, dental, etc. Probably only when retirement slaps them in the face, and they have to "work until they die", as Howard Allen's been quoted as saying.

Mark Wahlberg Three Kings Jamie Kennedy

"And you may ask yourself 'How do I work this?' And you may ask yourself 'Where is that large automobile?'"

Pink Floyd, "Wish You Were Here", but everybody knew that....

New song. "She don't need to understand And I might find her if I'm looking like I can"

Fine. I'll toss it, then. That was all from Fiona Apple's "Criminal".

Hm. Tom came to a similar conclusion as I did. This will be quick. PFAL, page 4, pfal on what pfal is good for. "This is a book containing Biblical keys. The contents herein do not teach the Scriptures from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21; rather, it is designed to set before the reader the basic keys in the Word of God so that Genesis to Revelation will unfold and so that the abundant life which Jesus Christ came to make available will become evident to those who want to appropriate His abundance to their lives." According to pfal, pfal is a tool. According to Mike, pfal is more than a tool. Who you gonna believe?

[And everyone else can see that this is a "job" that was never claimed even by a man with an inflated view of himself, and is a concept ADDED LATER by someone.] [Of course you count your deficiencies as strengths. You weren't privy to his private meetings, his private thoughts, his private councils, his corps, even. All your hidden messages disregard what all those who WERE there said. They said vpw said his books weren't God-breathed. Now, your speculation contradicts their eyewitness account. Then the editors said their work was editing, not God-breathed, just the best effort they could do. Now, your speculation contradicts THEIR first-person account of what they actually DID. And you don't count this as a deficiency in your method.] [Well, YOU brought it up. Interesting how YOUR eyewitness account is valid, but everyone ELSE'S is invalid...] [Then this side-trip into what the locals did-the people you accuse of forgetting things, of adding things, of getting them wrong- is a NON-ISSUE and a SMOKESCREEN. I notice how your "proof" suddenly took a hard turn into LOCAL events all of a sudden...] *** [And you'd be wrong. "Skipping some formalities of politeness" means RUDENESS, and there's no excuse for it. Furthermore, you don't have a roomful of "eager learners." You have a bunch of people who you walked in on and announced you were an authority. When honest questions were asked, you accused people of being ignorant. When honest criticism was raised, you spewed insults. "They are behind in their studies and shouldn't complain." This is not Mike University. They are adults who are engaging you in dialogue, NOT your students. You PUSHED your way in. They did not seek you out. You STILL don't understand this simple concept. If they sought you out, then perhaps you could make judgements and they would accept them. Since none of them has, these delusionary tales of other posters being "less mature" (especially with YOU spewing the insults) and "FAR DEFICIENT" understanding (when they quote directly) undermine your message even further than the content does.] [Actually, you were claiming your rudeness was analogous to Paul and Hebrews, and that you were superior to the other posters here. So, my commentary "translation" was correct. Of course, you can't see it, even when it's pointed out. Then again, I've gotten the impression already that whatever we post is filtered HEAVILY before it reaches your comprehension, like English translated to Spanish, then to French, then to Italian, then back to English.] *** [True-you believe that. vpw never taught it, but you believe it. That's one of the problems. Of course, your inability to demonstrate your position is supposedly concealed by your "I am the professor" rants and "you are all lazy students" rants. I sometimes wonder now if you hallucinate a lecture hall and podium when you post.] [That you can't tell the self-evident difference between mathematical equations and Bible doctrine speaks poorly of your own skills of discernment. Unless you CAN tell the difference but are too intellectually DIShonest to speak it-and deliberately MISused it to smokescreen the absence of your doctrines in Scripture AND the pfal books.] *** [You made claims about God. You failed to substantiate those claims. You were told to do so, as required in intelligent dialogue. You REFUSED to do so, and threw up an elaborate obfuscation to draw attention to your failure to back up your own claims. Unless you're now claiming your claims are "trivially self-evident concepts". I'll agree on the "trivial", but pronouncing them "self-evident" no more makes them so than pronouncing myself the Prince of Wales would entitle me to the royal treatment in England.] *** [so you're admitting your doctrine is "trivial" and not in Scripture. Ok, just so we're clear on that.] [i haven't been reading the thread, but we HAVE discussed that concept before. You and a few others had expressed some surprise that this subject has been rather intelligently discussed by Christians for CENTURIES, and have been demonstrated FROM Scripture. If you're still claiming they're not, then not only are you deficient, you're a poor learner, because we saw this movie before.] [i'd get into this with you, but it's obvious that you- Mr "You're Drawing Attention from pfal"- does NOT want to know this, but is using this as another smokescreen, as if whatever Mike comes up with is equal to the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus.] [so you're saying that Christians IN the Gathering Together will need "written instructions?"] *** [it is on this discussion board. We're communicating on this discussion board. This is the GSC.] [Wrong. You are a poster. They are posters. Common courtesy is expected.] [Hallucinations aside, this is not a calculus class, you are not a professor, we are not your class nor your students. You showed up and announced you were teaching us. It is grossly impolite for you to insist WE cater to YOU.] ***

Mike, I'll explain this yet again, although you've been hearing this for years now. You showed up and have spent years making assertions, and have consistently showed pride in REFUSING to support them. "Dodge", "distract", or spew insults in every direction. Any suggestion that this is not your private podium-or that DISCUSSION goes BOTH WAYS- seems repulsive to you. You're free to feel that way. Lots of self-appointed teachers feel that way-and don't post their doctrines here. (You'll notice I don't push MY doctrines here, for that matter.) HOWEVER, when you post here, you have de facto accepted that you will be engaging in a DISCUSSION. (In fact, given the introduction to the forums, I'd say it's a de jure acceptance as well.) That means that YOU YOURSELF are REQUIRED to support YOUR CLAIMS. What it does NOT mean is that you can make claims with no or little or insufficient evidence, and when someone calls for more evidence, you are entitled to respond "that's your job." However, that's PRECISELY what you're doing here. You're also not our teacher, instructor, or anything along those lines. You are STILL not entitled to assign homework or anything else.