WordWolf

"If I was not clear, let me clarify. I used the word churchianity as a mechanism to draw a particular contrast. If I implied or explicitly replied I had perceived you as having been triggered, I apologize. However, from the emphatic nature of your quick response to my use of the word, I perceived some aspect of triggering." I'm glad we cleared up the misunderstanding. It looked to me like you'd already declared I'd been "triggered" over the phrase, and were referring me to Psychologists or other experts to "solve my problem" - as if I had a problem that needed to be solved. Since I wasn't even "triggered", it seemed to me a lot of effort to make. "I perceived some aspect of triggering." I admit I'm a little quick on the draw when I see someone diagnose me with incomplete information and begin recommending solutions to problems that don't exist. I think I fall short of actually being "triggered" -by accusations of being triggered. I still don't like it and prefer to set the record straight. BTW, I didn't respond that quickly, I responded about 24 hours later, at my convenience. So, I hope we can put that non-issue to rest.

I think you're conflating two things here. I acknowledge that "churchianity" is what's now called a "trigger word." I never said I was "triggered", and I never claimed to have an emotional reaction to it. Frankly, what I called this sort of thing before was "SLOGANEERING", and compared catch-phrases repeated mindlessly by twi'ers and ex-twi with actual thinking. I consider usage of slogans by twi'ers as an excuse to AVOID thinking, and note that when I find a catchphrase being used- generally it's to the detriment of THINKING and of DISCUSSION. But you can save pages and clips on how to avoid being "triggered" by catchphrases. I never was, and never claimed to be. If I caused any confusion to that point, it was accidental, and I'm sorry.

I think it IS true, no matter who said it, that pulling one verse out and isolating it from its context can make it appear to say the opposite of what it actually said. (The same is true of all literature. "Now is the winter of our discontent" is taken to mean that the speaker is now unhappy. The sentence read "Now is the winter of our discontent MADE GLORIOUS SUMMER by this sun of York." So, the speaker was now HAPPY.) As for Matthew 18: 6-7, the context doesn't affect the meaning- so the most obvious reading of those verses is what I said it was, as just about anyone can see if they try honestly. (My condolences to those whose reading abilities aren't up to that task, or for reading my posts for that matter.) As for I John 1:9, even the quoted verse makes it clear that the forgiveness is dependent upon the sinner CONFESSING. The context spells out that it's about the sinner repenting- since the preceding and especially following chapter go into how a follower of Jesus is to do what he says, and that we have an advocate in Jesus if and when we sin. So, those verses don't contradict to me. Those people like vpw who cause the "little ones" to stumble don't do one act in one instant- they set up plans and elaborate snares- like vpw did. These aren't people who are sorry for hurting others- they may get sorry FOR GETTING CAUGHT, but not for sinning. So, the forgiveness of I John 1:9 has nothing to do with them. That's for a sincere follower who slips, not an evil plagiarizing rapist whose main regrets are either getting caught, or regrets he couldn't rape MORE. Hebrews 10 is a much more complicated matter. Hebrews 10:17 is part of a passage contrasting the Mosaic Law and the post-Pentecostal covenant. "16 "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD : I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM," He then says,17 "AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE." In fact, if you keep reading the chapter, what sounded like Christians getting a blank check on sinning sounds like nothing of the kind. 26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. 28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. So far, it's all fairly consistent. The follower who stumbles and repents gets forgiveness, and the one who claims to be a follower but causes the followers themselves to stumble aren't followers- so they don't repent and they don't get forgiveness. I find that comforting, but not everyone would. Certainly someone like vpw who caused the little ones to stumble wouldn't like it, but they won't repent of the evil of their actions, either.

This suspense show introduced the Douglas Fir to the general audience. To hear this show, you'd think investigators sat around eating pie and drinking coffee whenever they weren't actively investigating.

I meant to get back to that about an hour later. Oh, well...

"So now you'd better stop, and rebuild all your ruins. For peace and trust can win the day despite of all your losing."

"She'll only come out at nights, the lean and hungry type."

"MOTHER'S LITTLE HELPER", the Rolling Stones.

Neither do I.

That's him. Randy Grainger was a kid on an episode of "the Odd Couple." The radar operators were from the Austin Powers movies. And so on.

"Peace and trust can win the day in spite of all your losing"

Randy Grainger Sy Liebergot Radar Operator Johnson Radar Operator Peters Tom Miller Dick Mitchell Emmanuel Grayson Constable Sanders

Ben Affleck.

Correct, just to make it official.

"It's close to Midnight, something evil's lurking in the dark."

MONSTER MASH!

I'll get back to this in a bit.

I'll get back to this in a bit.

Repeat after me- the next 2 movies never happened. The TV show was the sequel, and any movies after that. " I am Juan Sánchez Villalobos Ramírez, Chief metallurgist to King Charles V of Spain. And I'm at your service. " "Her father, Masamune, a genius, made this for me. "

(I just quoted this movie to Wordpup a day or so ago.) "Why is that toy on your head?" "Because if I wear it any place else, it chafes." "Kent put his name on his license plate." "My mother does that to my underwear." "Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?"

I'm almost surprised that worked. BTW, for those who forget, the seasons are mirrored in the hemispheres, so the Southern Hemisphere has Winter in July and Summer in January, and so on.

Charlie Sheen Ferris Buehler's Day Off Jeffrey Jones

I see it more as a trigger word- but I'm not entirely sure that I SHOULD- thus the discussion. I had been thinking that it was a twi-original word, meant solely to slam non-twi Christians. It was first used no later than the 1789, long before twi existed, before vpw was born, and before Ohio was even a state (or New Knoxville established as a village.) Granted, much of the usage we come across is along those lines now. But, should we be using it in some other manner, and if so, how? I'm not trying to come up with some Rules with the force of Law, I'm trying to see if there's some practice, some rule of thumb, that should be in effect here that is NOT twi or ex-twi specific. As seen above, if nobody else, Edwin Paxton Hood (1852) used it in a way to make a positive point by contrast.

"You've got to say, 'I'm a HUMAN BEING, GodD*it! My life has VALUE!' So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, 'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!' "