WordWolf

There's also the people who've suggested that Jesus was having homosexual relations with all or some of the 12 Apostles. Dan Brown claimed Mary Magdalene had kids with Jesus, with Jesus having sex out of wedlock and choosing not to marry her. Just because someone holds an idea, I DON'T have to seriously consider it.

The suggestion that the Gospels support the idea that Herod was fine with John the Baptist living, and it was Jesus' idea to kill her, is ridiculous and easily refuted by reading them. Luke 3:19-20. Matthew 14:3-11. Jesus faced the news (verse 12) by trying to go alone to pray. (verse 23.) Mark 6:14-28. So, if the Gospels are to be believed, Herod the tetrarch was a sick puppy who saw his brother's wife and wanted to know her, and PLANNED for it. John the Baptist said "No dice-adultery is wrong!" so Herod sent him to prison. (Hm, this sounds familiar. Guy gets in trouble for saying adultery is wrong...) Herod put him in prison and WANTED to kill him but was worried the people would produce an uprising. (In Herod's time, that was the most annoying single thing for a tetrarch to have to handle, uprisings.) Herodias was a sick puppy who wanted to know her husband's brother, and PLANNED for it. John had angered her by saying "No dice- adultery is wrong". He was in prison, but she sought his death. So, she figured out how to trick Herod into agreeing to kill John the Baptist. She used Salome, her daughter. This plan worked, and Herod killed John, which Jesus regretted. This is NOT difficult to understand. Why would I believe this is false but that woman's made-up "interpretation" was true?

No he wasn't. That should tell you a lot about her "objectivity". The Pharisees certainly noticed him, as did Herod. Using that same logic, one would say that Raf and I are "rivals", because we studied together and worked together at one point, and now do not. Or it happened the way it says in the Gospels: John's ministry started 6 months ahead of Jesus', John baptized Jesus, and maybe they hung out some here and there. They BOTH certainly would have benefitted from the company of each other. (How many other people REALLY understood either of them?) This is evidence of a feud? I think Jesus, of all people, would be the LAST person to insult someone based on whether or not his genetic parents were married or not. I imagine someone could find a way to think Jesus was insulting John the Baptist if they were not reading WHAT IS WRITTEN. Rather than mention the words, how about reading them IN THEIR CONTEXT? Matthew 11:7-15. Jesuswas saying a lot about his COUSIN. He said John was prophesied of old, and that he was a super-prophet. No, (Matthew 9:14) it was a direct answer to John's disciples, who wanted to upbraid Jesus for not fasting. Right, we know her name, also. She's got a bad reputation.The gospels mention her but not by name. There are several possible reasons for this, but she seized on one as if it was the only possible one. "A" Salome is a disciple of Jesus mentioned TWICE-Mark 15:40 and Mark 16:1. There's also at least 2 Marys in the SAME verses, and neither is Jesus' mom. There's 2 Ananais' in Acts-Saphira's husband and the one who was sent to Paul. There's a Saul in Acts and one who's King of Israel before David. Somehow, though, she jumped to the conclusion this is the ONLY Salome in all of Palestine. Am I supposed to take this writer seriously? Or maybe it wasn't in the original Gospel at all. Judging from her sloppy work so far, I'm dubious as to ANY claim she makes. If so, the daughter of Herodias, an evil woman, who saw nothing wrong with seducing an evil man who was her UNCLE, or having John the Baptist KILLED, is perfectly comfortable as a disciple of Jesus-John's COUSIN. And Jesus is comfortable with her around while she's complicit in a murder...which, this writer asserts, was something Jesus WANTED. This "Jesus" she knows is foreign to me, and she does not know MY Jesus. Or she had nothing to do with it beyond what was mentioned.That IS the most obvious explanation.

I think Mike's done on this thread. Still want to know my 2 cents on these verses?

Hello, Jack! --> *raises eyebrow* ========= I'll make the semi-obvious shot. Cameron Diaz There's Something About Mary Ben Stiller

The answer is a ring. The ring on the hand of Kalibos!

You were close, but there was NO indication he was searching out deeper truths and, especially, overjoyed at finding some. What he taught then was completely different than what he taught later Fascinating. Harry seems to keep track of the money on things. He says he paid Rhoda as secretary out of his OWN pocket, and criticizes the people in Troy because they wanted to hear vpw teach, and have him over for meals, but not support his ministry financially. His part of this book ends with the final quote Dave gives a partial history of the A/V aspects. pg-82 I noticed that EVERYBODY except his brother calls him "The Doctor", not VP. If it wasn't at his directive, instituted and encouraged by him, I'll eat my keyboard. I also noticed he was calling HIMSELF 'The Teacher' as early as 1963. And yet, Dave keeps mentioning numbers after this, which he must have 'looked at'. Dave seems to think he came up with the idea of vpw on film, and sold vpw on it. Perhaps he is correct. pg-83 pg 85, he says how they priced the filming, then raised all the money IN ADVANCE of filming, and how "Doctor raised the final $11,000 himself." (He must have raised it by growing it, apparently.) page 85, we see the prices invented. We have all that on the authority of the man who never looked at numbers again. How many people besides me see contradictions from one page to the next, and in how such a high (for 1970) price for those LITTLE books was set? Anyone?

vpw would have agreed that young vpw would "never make a good preacher." He said of such youngsters as himself: Since that's a rhetorical question, he's saying that you are not a fit workman of God's Word if you are lazy to work. His father agreed, and said vpw was such a person. Therefore, by his OWN "standards", vpw was an unfit workman. ALP said So, it looks hypocritical of him to say that, and it looks like he lied to everyone. So far, that seems to be his standard M.O.- order people around, lie to them and make himself look as great as possible, telling whichever lies will make that work. I also think it's mildly ironic that the guy lecturing others on "self-discipline" was a lifelong chainsmoker and chronic drinker, to the point that his organs suffered permanent damage and killed him fairly young-and he had access to EXCELLENT healthcare!

I believe nobody here would ever accuse me of being lcm's supporter, defender, or sympathetic to him. I also believe that whether he showed up or not, people would complain-thus, there was no "right" answer for him. It sounds to me like there was a time for people who knew her to arrive and pay their respects. He knew her, and arrived, and paid his respects. It sounds to me like what did NOT happen was him making a scene or insisting it was about him. So, I see no reason to make it about him. Did he show up? That's interesting. I see no reason for it to be more than a footnote to the event.

Oh, I forgot 2 things. A) The Natl Geographic link. Snopes linked to it over here... http://www.snopes.com/politics/katrina/foretold.asp B) For those of you playing along at home, it seems the writer of the e-mail had no idea what Kanye West was talking about, but you guys do because we discussed it in this thread. Seems he just thought it was a general comment about racism, and the e-mail writer didnt do all his homework before speaking-which puts him in the same category as Kanye West....

I consider this a failure a CLASS issue, not a RACE issue, since it was more a matter of "the broke people were left to fend for themselves," not "the black people were left to fend for themselves." I STILL consider it, at BEST, as incompetence, dereliction of duty, and approaching criminal negligence. IIRC, that article was about the environmental issues-how the erosion of the wetlands destroyed the natural defense and breakwater against this type of disaster. I'll post the Snopes link to one article Natl Geographic did. It might be the same one you saw. I know that a few weeks before the hurricane hit, I was watching something on tv about the erosion of wetlands in La and how it was removing protection for New Orleans. BTW, NEVER trust an e-mail that doesn't have a link you can use to verify it... [False, and I didn't even need to look far to disprove this. ]http://www.snopes.com/politics/katrina/nagin.asp] [/b] I'm skipping the rest of the e-mail. It's based on several things: 1) Some news items, which, as we saw, were of limited accuracy due to the nature of reporting in the middle of an emergency. As the dust settles, we've been seeing corrections and accurate reports come in. 2) It completely ignored flaws in the Presidential response, which DID exist. The e-mail was biased. 3) It was based on incomplete information available even at the time of the e-mail. By last Friday morning, I was already aware of some of the failures at FEMA, and I wasn't digging deep for news. More than a week has passed, and FEMA's role in this looks progressively worse and worse. Looks like we had incompetents running FEMA. In fact, the top 3 officials in FEMA lack ANY experience in handling EMERGENCIES like this. Does anyone need me to remind them that the President is the one who appointed all 3 into their offices? "Brownie, you're doing a great job." He might have picked up a newspaper before saying that. I was aware he WASN'T over 24 hours before the President said that. The e-mail sender really should have checked their facts as well.

By selecting "Find", then "advanced" then entering the words "herbal cancer" in the search line, I got about 1/2 a dozen threads here discussing it. I recommend doing the same, then reading the threads that come up.

vpw said this about someone ELSE, but I especially LOVE LOVE LOVE to compare this next quote with a young person called vpw...

Really, Harry? You admitted you didn't SEE him most of the time. Why wasn't he doing his chores in sight and preaching to the animals on the farm, or, you know, the other kids, people who might actually hear something of use? Maybe Dad was on to something. David was a good shepherd FIRST, then a good man of God.... Later, we'll see what vpw has to say about kids and their work ethic. pg-78, Harry again. I thought he'd been preaching for years, Harry-to the trees. Also, Lamarckianism has been thoroughly discredited. You can not inherit an interest in learning. You can ENCOURAGE it, but not pass it along from birth. Finally, Dad seems to think vpw lacked drive, but you said he DID, at least about preaching. Hm. Maybe he had drive for preaching, but neglected his chores. pg-79. Anyone?

How do you know for certain who is gone from TWI? Where did Elena go for ex.? Jan Jan Just off the top of my head.... twi has lost over 95% of their previous members, all told. The few who stick around are a bit more visible as individuals. Furthermore, twi has done stuff where they venerate old-timers who've been around x number of years. Finally, people who left-until Waydale and the Greasespot Cafe- just mysteriously vanished. That's a fair description for some of these people.

Well, for Twin Peaks you'll want to direct questions to Raf. Before seeing the 2nd BW movie, you just need to know what "everybody" knew about the first movie: 3 kids went looking for the truth behind the legend of the Blair Witch, and wandered out into the forest. They taped themselves. Their tapes were found later-they were not. Nobody knows for sure what happened to them-the only clues are in the tape footage. (If you like the premise-following the action from the footage, and trying to follow along-then it's entertaining as a suspense film.) The second movie was based on the hype SURROUNDING the first movie. That's why the one local guy made his living selling BW souvenirs, doing tours of Burkettsville (formerly known as Blair), and so on. The other team members were following the legend, but each for their own reasons. They seemed to each represent different factions among the fans. The investigators thought there was a simple, mundane explanation, one was a fan because of the "witch" connection, and figured that the legendary "Blair Witch" was the victim of vicious rumours, one's only question was "how can I make money off this?" and one's connection: "Why are you here?" "I thought the movie was cool." The key to making sense of the second movie is thinking about the continuity, and makes more sense seeing it a SECOND time after figuring that out. As I see it, the answer is... All video footage in the movie reflects what ACTUALLY HAPPENED at any moment. The audience is experiencing the movie with the characters AS THEY REMEMBER IT, which is sometimes DIFFERENT from the video footage. Once you know what's on the footage, you know why the events as you saw them WITHOUT footage don't add up. Compare the scene when one character goes to the grocery store, buys something, ends up with something else in the shopping bag, and someone throws rocks at the van, with the video footage of the store's surveillance camera. If the camera's correct, the rocks and the bag items made sense. If what we/the character saw was correct, then it doesn't make sense. BTW, I think it was suggested they got "the chair" for what happened- the supposed psychic saw a flash of one of them in "the chair" and being electrocuted-I think that was supposed to be a foretelling of his future. ===== Wasn't this a thread about "Primer" at some point?

I don't think of it as "raising children in the name of Ruth's husband's bloodline. Other than that I agree. The reason I disagree on this point: Matthew 1:1 "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." Matthew 1:5 "And Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab, and Boaz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;" (Yes, Jesse who begat David.) Seems to me that Boaz' name wouldn't have been included if it was legally someone ELSE's bloodline. To me, it seems a matter of how being a widow was seen as a stigma, and how the custom was for another member of the husband's family would have to marry her to erase that stigma. Perhaps we're talking apples and oranges. Ruth's commitment was pretty clear before she met Boaz, too. Ruth 1:16c "...thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:" And, of course, Ruth is one of 4 women mentioned by name in the geneology of Jesus Christ, which means she was singled out as noteworthy. {"God has a purpose for everything He says...")

False Dilemma. The answer is not "Either/Or"- it is BOTH. Love and Respect God, and remember that if you do evil, He sees. Of course, that's just me talking. But then there's HEBREWS 10.... Hebrews 10:25-31. But, don't let a little thing like an Epistle (ADDRESSED TO US) affect your doctrine.

*does a search* Hm. A few people had some relevant comments. GrouchoMarxJr: Skyrider's reply to that quote: Skyrider had also said Shazdancer said igotout explained

God bless. I hope you don't mind me editing you for typos and adding a few spaces. I find your story is too important for people to skip over just because they're having a little trouble reading it...

Actually, BW1 was better than BW2:BoS in terms of suspense and so on. I enjoyed it on its own merits, even though it broke most of my usual rules for enjoying movies. The story was suspenseful, and DID have a linear plot. One of its strengths was its ambiguity-you could argue that the "truth" of it was one of at least 2 possible answers, both of which were supported by the facts. I also liked a few little touches. One woman supposedly frightened in the past by the Blair Witch was carrying a worn Bible...in fact, she had a deathgrip on it and held it almost like a shield. It looked like a Bible that had been much-used and much-read, but also cared-for. It was a VERY subtle touch which I appreciated. My favourite line from BW1: (Night before the trip, in a hotel room) "Let's do an equipment check." "Right-I have a bag of Utz and a beer." BW2, of course, had a bigger budget, but the plot was MUCH harder to follow, since so much was going on. You're kidding-you didn't know there was hidden stuff in BW2:BoS? It was ALL OVER the movie! When watching it the first time I saw something! For one thing, they hid little BW insignias all over the movie. For another, there were words hidden in some of the scenes. They're in the scene with the campfire (in the flames that shoot up-watch for when someone hands over a cigarette), in the scene when they pick up the last team member-she's napping on a headstone (look for when the camera's not on her), in the scene when one member claims she wants to learn from the BW (look at the leaves when she's on the ground), one scene in the factory/loft/whatever, in the one room with just the long table (watch the window behind the 2 characters talking), and when one character is trying to protect herself (look at the carpet she's sitting on-this one was obvious to me when I was watching it) There's other stuff, too, and I don't think I saw all of it. If you saw the "Secret of Esrever" short after, it explained that there was hidden stuff, and gave clues on which scenes they were in.

Since 9-11 was local to me, it affecte me much the same way this affects a lot of people- shock and so on. All the people I know in the affected areas are safe, so mostly I'm angry at mismanagement in various levels of government. I also agree-you'll need some "downtime" away from all news outlets and to do some other things.

Really, Harry? You admitted you didn't SEE him most of the time. Why wasn't he doing his chores in sight and preaching to the animals on the farm, or, you know, the other kids, people who might actually hear something of use? Maybe Dad was on to something. David was a good shepherd FIRST, then a good man of God.... Later, we'll see what vpw has to say about kids and their work ethic. pg-78, Harry again. I thought he'd been preaching for years, Harry-to the trees. Also, Lamarckianism has been thoroughly discredited. You can not inherit an interest in learning. You can ENCOURAGE it, but not pass it along from birth. Finally, Dad seems to think vpw lacked drive, but you said he DID, at least about preaching. Hm. Maybe he had drive for preaching, but neglected his chores. Anyone else besides me want to chime in on these?

I forget who it was who said they were surprised when the corps committment they had already made-for a 4-year program-suddenly changed into a LIFETIME COMMITTMENT while they were IN the program....