WordWolf

Cool World Brad Pitt Sleepers

Hm. Since lcm insisted "weakness always brings down strength", he might have been RIGHT. Any sign of weakness, and the STRONGEST Christians were kicked out of twi. So, their strength was brought down by the slightest weakness. That and the paranoia and reptilian cold-blood of "leadership. Leadership, my foot. The shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. twi "leaders" kicked people out FAST to cover their own weaknesses.

You call me strong, you call me weak but still your secrets I will keep You took for granted all the times I'd never let you down. This song came out recently enough to have a video.

Of course there's no people. They'd have to edit it when the people in the video leave. Further, they're worried at hq about anyone getting even the slightest reputation-they might threaten to topple the current powers-that-be. This is sometimes called "tall poppy syndrome."

This means they need a handful of capable managers first. And presumes they WANT to run this more efficiently with less micromanagement.

This is the song that those three "Dixie Chicks" named their band after. They were GOING to be called the "Dixie Chickens", but one chickened out. This is "DIXIE CHICKEN", by Little Feat. That was their first big hit, I believe. (After this came "Feats Don't Fail Me Now", "Let It Roll", "One Clear Moment", "Sure Would Hate To Lose Your Loving", and "Rad Gumbo".) ===== In my high school yearbook, one grad's yearbook quote was "I'll be your Dixie chicken if you'll be my Tennessee lamb." She left the rest of us to figure it out. :)-->

Demolition Man Glenn Shadix Beetlejuice

"Matrix Revolutions" goes on my "disappointing sequels" list.

Blazing Saddles Dom de Luise the Cannonball Run

I never have a problem with that, either. Maybe there's a problem with your firewall permissions or something, a virus/redirect or something, or something up with an old version of Firefox (before 1.0 was released.) Have you tried running scans, and updating your Firefox?

Matthew Broderick War Games Dabney Coleman

GrouchoMarxJr said this about the current corps program and the leaders it's producing.... ====== I picture the man standing on line waiting to enter the corps, as someone runs up to him yelling... "NO! Don't go! 'To Serve God's People'.... IT'S A COOKBOOK!!!!!" A mix of the Twilight Zone episode and Soylent Green.

See, Mike, a lot of us HAVE spent time in the books. As HCW said-and he worked ON the books-the material in the books IS the material from the class. If you memorized the class, you've got the material in the books, plus some jokes. So, first, you separate them where there IS no separation. The only things that make the books "superior" is A) We can flip thru the books B) They were edited. (For which I thank HCW and the others for their hard work.) The CONTENT did not change. The editing process would have FAILED if they changed the CONTENT. How quickly you either FORGOT or DISCOUNTED the PERSONAL TESTIMONY of a man who was in the room actually DOING THE EDITING. Furthermore, we've spent some time in the books. There's errors in the books, and there's CONTRADICTIONS in the books. This is acceptable if it's a work of man, but as a supposed replacement Bible, it fails its internal testimony, for pfal itself exclaims "your whole Bible would fall to pieces" if it contradicted like pfal does. You've seen this and chosen to IGNORE it. Your decision, but is it any wonder that the rest of us look at it and do the math? If PFAL claims the Bible is inerrant, and PFAL contains even ONE internal contradiction, then PFAL has at least one ERROR. Since PFAL has many errors, and PFAL claims the Bible has no errors, by the standard specified in PFAL, PFAL fails to be a Bible. Since you fail to accept this, your understanding has fundamental flaws, which is why you can't understand what most people do. When we did, we found a bunch of errors. If we cared enough, we could have catalogued a GREAT stack of errors across ALL the books. If we understand "what is written", we can avoid the entire doctrine that pfal is a Bible completely. Not with vpw orchestrating practices of the natural man from hq.... The false doctrine that vpw was some great one blinded us to that error, and freeing ourselves of THAT helps with the wholeness of our minds. Quite a set of wild claims, there. Since the editors contradict you- and WERE THERE- I'll trust their EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS. Can we have a copy of his EXACT WORDS, or are we supposed to believe that you are correctly reporting them? You've already demonstrated a track record THIS MONTH of changing words where it suits you, and lying where it suits you (page 5). Are we supposed to take your word for it that he said this? If so, just admit you're calling yourself a prophet and get it over with. Is it in the book of Living Victoriously? Is it in the tapes of Living Victoriously? Some of us have access to them-just tell us the tape, side and context, or the chapter and page in the book. Yes it is. We covered Acts 1 and the Ascension. Give us the book name and page number, o he who has a proven track record of making stuff up. Give us the book name and page number, o he who has a proven track record of making stuff up. Meanwhile, we will now see once again that Mike disrespects PFAL by subtracting words, adding words, and changing words. When you subtract from PFAL, you no longer have PFAL. When you add to PFAL, you no longer have PFAL. When you change PFAL, you no longer have PFAL. When you no longer have PFAL, but claim you do, then you are a FALSE PROPHET of PFAL. Let's see this very point illustrated.... According to Mike, "ancient mis-copied fragments" "worldly-scholarly assembleges of the fragments" "man-made translations". I'm keeping a tally. Let's see what the books say. The Orange Book, page-127-128 says "In proceeding as a workman, there is basic information which must be kept in mind, the first of which is that no translation or version of the Bible may properly be called the Word of God. The Bible from which I have been quoting is called the King James Version. It is not the King James Translation. If I had a King James translation in my hands, I would have a Bible that is worth a great deal of money as a collector's item. Once a translation has been made from an original text, like the Stephens Text from which the King James was translated, the first copy is called a translation. When scholars begin to rework the translation in any way, it becomes a version. Now, I said that no translation, let alone a version, may properly be called the Word of God. As faras anybody knows, there are no original texts in existence today. The oldest dated Biblical manuscript is from 464 AD and written in Aramaic in Estrangelo script. There are older Aramaic manuscripts written in the Estrangelo script which predate 464 AD, but these are not Biblical texts. What students or scholars refer to as 'originals' really date from 464 AD and later. These manuscripts are not originals--the originals are those which holy men of God wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. At best, we have copies of the originals. When I refer to the Word of God, I do not mean a copy or a translation or a version; I mean that Word of Gof which was originally given by revelation to holy men. Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to the fifth century AD, how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which was given when holy men of God spoke? To get the Word of God out of any translation or out of any version, we have to compare one word with another word and one verse with another verse. We have to study the context of all the verses. If it is the Word of God, then if cannot have a contradiction for God cannot contradict Himself. Error has to be either in the translation or in one's own understanding. When we get back to that original, God-breathed Word- which I am confident we can- then once again we will be able to say with all the authority of the prophets of old, 'Thus saith the Lord'. " Ok, let's see.... "ancient, mis-copied fragments"? Not in the Orange Book. "worldly-scholarly assemblages of the fragments"? Not in the Orange Book. "man-made translations"? Again, not a phrase in the Orange Book. Mike has changed words or added words from PFAL to place these words there- which means he does NOT have PFAL any longer, merely his "private interpretation" of PFAL.... According to the rules OF PFAL. WORSE, Mike has made it a policy to consistently REFUSE to accept the contents of page 128. Mike always pretends vpw stopped before the words "Since we have no originals...", leaving out 1/2 a page. That 1/2 gives what vpw himself says is THE formula for going to the versions and translations, and deriving FROM those versions and translations "THE WORD OF GOD." vpw said that is how we can "get back to that original God-breathed Word." According to Mike, this is an unattainable goal. Mike has changed the translations and versions to make them a useless mess, then claimed the Word of God was irretreivably lost, and they are USELESS if one is seeking The Word of God. According to PFAL, the translations and versions are THE way to find The Word of God. If PFAL was supposedly a "Gospel" (as Mike claims), then Mike's stance on PFAL is "another" (heteros) gospel which is not another (allo), a different gospel not of the same type. Is this news? No- we discussed this in 2003 and since then, and Mike KEEPS hoping this part of the book will go away. "We have to compare one word with another word and one verse with another verse. We have to study the context of all the verses. If it is the Word of God, then it cannot have a contradiction for God cannot contradict Himself. Error has to be either in the translation or in one's own understanding. When we get back to that original, God-breathed Word-- which I am confident we can- then once again we will be able to say with all the authority of the prophets of old, 'Thus saith the Lord.' " vpw. Sounds like vpw had a rather specific method outlined "to say which is which." Sounds like Mike thinks VPW was WRONG and the Orange Book is not authoritative. Do I need to quote it again? SINCE, according to vpw, we have the means to get to The Word of God, a new Word of God is unnecessary. Period. Since Mike forsakes the words of vpw in the pfal book, he puts forth a new Word of God doctrine. To do this, he needs a new communication from God. Where did he find it? "Merely approximate traditional Scriptures" is ANOTHER phrase invented by Mike which does NOT appear in pfal. We get it. It's "another gospel which is not another", a doctrine ABOUT PFAL that contradicts the CONTENTS of PFAL in order to exist. Oh- lest we forget, among the Orange Book errors were the dates of the earliest writings. vpw was off by a considerable stretch. To those of us who don't claim the Orange Book is divine and inerrant, this is not a big problem. Humans make mistakes. Those people who have made the Orange Book into a new Holy Scripture must pretend these dates are NOT errors. That's their problem.

Say, Rascal, do you object to a newlywed couple making out? We know you object to RAPE, MOLESTATION and maybe ADULTERY, do you consider all forms of affection between adults to be wrong, as Mike suggests, or just the ones that GOD said not to do?

Wrong, wrong WRONG!!!!!! What wierwille TAUGHT was that what David did to URIAH was wrong....what David did to Bathsheba, wierwille had no problem with....thus the *all the women in the kingdom belong to the king* teaching..... You gonna quote wierwille like gospel, then you damn well better get his teaching straight..... It ain`t MY mind that is in the gutter, it`s the sleazeball who was raping our sisters while teaching this little gem who was living in the gutter....while his *mind* was full of the scripture you love to quote.....it is HE whom you should be offended with.... vpw said "TECHNICALLY, all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king." vpw said what was wrong was the murder-but the adultery was NOT decried, and THEREFORE was not disapproved by vpw. Furthermore, since he said that "TECHNICALLY" Bathsheba was David's PROPERTY (that's what "belongs to" means in English), it should be understood that vpw believed David acted in his "TECHNICAL"-and thus LEGAL-rights in having sex with her. That's what vpw taught in pfal. That's not what the Bible teaches. Adultery is a sin, whether the adulterer is a beggar or a king. BTW, by Mike's argument, NATHAN's head was in the gutter. Those darn prophets just can't keep their mouths shut....always complaining about SOMETHING....if it's not "you committed adultery", it's "you committed murder" or "you gave great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme" (II Samuel 12:14). That's the same type of thinking that got Jeremiah put in prison for confronting SIN.

Or that the truth needs to be told, not hidden. It does NOT mean "ignore the evil that men do." Or aware Rascal has overcome it to the degree of avoiding commission of FELONIES, and awareness that ministers who are supposed to represent God can do at LEAST as well. They're supposed to be "BLAMELESS" like it says in the REAL Bible. If so, they at least would not commit evil acts against others. Those who have their hearts set on what is right will ALSO not commit evil acts against others. Those who RAPE and MOLEST others have demonstrated they neither follow external rules nor the internal love of God, else they would love their neighbor as themself and fulfill the law thereby. No, she just refuses to ignore specific sins done by the criminal ringleader of twi and his inner circle of cronies. Right. By corrupting twi from the top, he institutionalized sin among an inner circle who kept a "lockbox" of silence, thus allowing him to ruin lives at the hands of the top leaders, starting with vpw. The good is suspect, to say the least, when it is the "bait" to set on the trap.

Yes. Specific acts of evil can be discussed SPECIFICALLY, and not in a vague way. Specific acts of evil are WRONG. Wrong about Rascal, and if it was YOUR ox getting gored, the specifics WOULD matter to you. Why raise such a fuss over RAPE, MOLESTATION, and FRAUD when we all fail to love God first and foremost? No shinola, Sherlock. Relevance? Jesus did not say those ministers in office were blameless when they sinned-he confronted them. In defending them and attacking confrontation, you place yourself in diametric opposition to him.

Nice irony. I posted this on page 18... Mike's immediate next post included the following: This gave a jim-dandy example of what I said on the same page- that some people claim that all ministers rape and molest, and raised the stakes, saying EVERYONE would rape and molest if given the opportunity....and, of course the "why focus on a felon's FELONIES?" issue.

Was this answered and I missed it?

Next quote. "He wore WHAT?" "He wore plum." "He wore a FRUIT?" "No, Alcalde, he was dressed entirely in plum. Everything matched."

*slaps forehead* Ok, I got my wires crossed. I thought this was ANOTHER song I didn't know. This was a quote from a MOVIE since I didn't check my window and see this is the MOVIE thread. (Plus we were on a similar song in the other thread.) === The movie is "SUPERGIRL". Whatever you do, don't try to read a "Supergirl" comic lately. DC has completely mashed her identity/history. Here's an example. Kara Zor-El, Superman's cousin, died in "Crisis on Infinite Earths" in the 80s. The reset history of the one (no longer "infinite") earth was that there was ONE survivor of Krypton's explosion: Superman. Then an alien shapechanger IMITATED Superman, and was Supergirl. (Matrix, late 80s/early 90s.) Then they did strange things with Matrix, and she got flaming wings and she was merged with some sort of "earth angel". Why? No idea. Then this other chick I don't know about with the white t-shirt is claiming to be a Supergirl. Now they brought in a new Kara Zor-El, who's from Krypton. No, it's not your imagination. This DOESN'T make sense.

Ok, the song's obviously about Kara Zor-El, but I'm totally unfamiliar with the song itself.

Harrison Ford the Fugitive Joey Pantoliano

Can I beg another quote from the same song?