Lifted Up

So...what drove you out was what you heard...not (initially at least) what happened to you. Or if what happened to you was a factor, it was not until you looked at it in the light of what you heard. I suppose I should put a question mark at the end of that. ?

I think of this place more as a place where we don't HAVE to be ourselves. And that, I think, is not all a bad thing...the ability to be anonymous, and so forth.

Nope. Next clue... Richard was the star. And while I'm at it...there was an atomic bomb in the movie. and yes it explodes.

I left because I was like yanked out. Was told it was needed because we were so mind contyrolled that no one would or could ever leave on his/her own no matter how bad things got. Obviously that has not been the case.

Nope...but at least you are giving it a try. I tried not to make it too hard...as I said it is a movie I have seen. So you (and anyone else if around) deserve a plain clue. The movie's title has in it the name of a disagreeable place to which most people at some time or other are told to go.

The release dates for "The Producers" (movie) are December 16th and 25th (limited releases) and January 13th (nationwide). P.S. How do you change the title of the thread? Without starting a seperate thread, it should be "The Producers", Broadway and movie, or something like that.

I'm back......and nope. Am I just too old for everyone? Or is it a case of disinterest?

"Each man has his own reasons for living, Mr. Jones, and his own price for dying" Allright, since I may not be around for the weekend or a bit longer... The movie was made in 1954. And most of it was set on a....well, I think we have someone around here (is it Galen?) who used to serve on one of these. If anyone gets it and is sure of it before I get back in a few says, go for it.

I'll give a little more time for others, then I suppose I'll have to give more clues. But it is THE quote from this movie.

Okay, no takers, try again... "Each man has his own reasons for living, Mr. Jones, and his own price for dying" Not what you'd call an all time classic (it would be too easy), but it did have a big name star, and it was nominated for (did not win) the special effects oscar.

OK, but I hope I dont get lambasted for breaking the rules. I guess I'm just pinch running so I wont dig too deeply. "Each man has his own reasons for living, Mr. Jones, and his own price for dying." One of my favorite old flicks. Almost as old as I am. But I first saw it in junior high school in Columbus OH in 1962...they showed movies in sections over the span of a week during the last part of the lunch period. Obviously, the Mr. Jones referred to is not Indiana.

I could do it, as I havent been in for a long time, but as I did not give the answer, I will defer to the starter of this thread, since he seemd to be around a lot.

My thoughts are with you for strength in your life.

This reply is in reference to the initial post of this thread...on page one that is. The anonymous factor is a major one in believability. Not just in abuse testimony, but in other matters and relationships as well. Going along with that is that most of our communication with each other is in cyberspace. Good grief, those of us who have been around Waydale/GS for several years know of some BIG problems that have resulted from internet relations; relations between people who presumably "knew" each other through the internet and e-mails. Yes, I know that some of us DO know others personally...as in live, but more than just briefly meeting someone, and of course that can make someone's testimony believable. By the way, this does not IMO include someone you knew years ago, but havent met or talked with since. I am thinking, for one, from my own experience about the former high school classmate I was in touch earlier this year who is a big Broadway star. He has, of course, changed tremendously...and no doubt so have I, heh heh. Now within this context, I DO believe it is possible to know someone long anough and well enough (and not anonymously) through GS or otherwise in cyberspace to know him/her as a reliable person, and to know to some partial degree his/her heart. It was on that basis aound a year or so ago, I think, that I called up one GSer in response to a prayer request to attempt to give some comfort...never found out if I succeeded or not. There is some irony in this case, which I'll spare you now. The point is, I would have a much easier time believing this person on testimony about his/her own experiences than I would someone I know only as a GS handle. As Linda said, there are good...no, make that very very good (doubleplusgood in newspeak) reasons for remaining anonynous. But that doesn't help the believability. And even the above mention person I feel I know well enough to accept personal testimony would not move me with talk abou SOMEONE ELSE's presumed experience. Someone once told me I would have to accept his/her account of someone else'e experience, because if I didn't believe this second hand account, I wouldn't believe the other persons personal account of abuse. The person who told me that, to put it very mildly, missed the boat. Or perhaps it was just another illustration that we really don't know each other through GS well enough for me to have his/her trust. I can accept that, because it is the same reason I have been giving about believability, or lack thereof. But then that same person had better not expect me not only to trust the account of someone I don't know at all, but to trust the SECOND HAND account of someone I don't know at all. I have had a little success, especially back in the old Waydale days, in getting personal TWI abuse testimony, because I sought it out, as I have on occasion since. Trust has to work both ways. And, if someone has been burned badly because they weren't trusted or believed after giving their personal testimony, I can understand that. But it still doesn't help the believability of their account. A word to those who, as I do, adhere to some standards when it comes to believing or not the account of someone they dont know. If you can't accept it for the reasons I have given here...that is, you don't know...then neither do you know enough to degrade the testimony publically.

Jeanette...what a wonderful post. For one, you answer the question posed in the original post , IMHO, better than any other response on this thread...never mind how long ago it was started. How forgiving will help YOU...the forgiver. And, you speak from your own heart and point of view. In no way are you telling anyone else they have to forgive someone who wronged them. No one, therefore, should even hint that it is not your business to forgive. As you say, he doesn't deserve it. Neither do we deserve our forgiveness from God. And, there was a good point brought up on the first page of this thread that applies here. The idea that you cannot forgive someone who hasn't asked for forgiveness washes out when we realize that it is what God did for us. Oh, but how can you forgive someone who did something so horrible to you? That might imply that we can forgive people who did even worse to us...perhaps something worthy of....death??? But let me repeat what I said above...you are not telling anyone else they have to forgive those who wronged them. And that is the way it has to be. The forgiving can't be because you HAVE to do it. By forgiving him, you are not condoning what he did. By forgiving us, God is not condoning our sins. The point so obviously posed by the orinal post on this thread was not that we SHOULD forgive...it was how forgiving can be healing to the forgiver. You obviously saw that point because the healing is what you need. Anyway, as dmiller (David) posted, I will include myself as well in prayers for you.

You were just waiting for my first post in 5 months, and my 1000th post to boot. Welcome back. Did I get it? No big matter. I'll bet you wanted anyone except me to get it, after number 4000.

"Was it worth it?" can ONLY be answered by each one of us for ourselves...not for each other. Too many "we"s floating around. The good and the bad do not deny each other. If I say "it was worth it" for me and not necessarily for someone else, I am not denying anyone's TESTIMONY about the wrongs they may have suffered. If I say "it was worth it" for everyone, then I am as wrong as someone who tries to deny the benefits I gained because of their bad experience.

As a sidelight, I remember when corps assignments were handed out at Emporia in 1978, one of my first corps roomies, 6th corps A.W. (Groucho, he was one of the four of us in that first room along with your old buddy David W.), was assigned to Russia. I never found of what if anything became of that. Of course I knew A.W spoke Russian, though I didn't know at that time what role Russian Christianity would play in my life. As for BG's trip to Russia (then of course it was part of the Soviet Union) he ran into that controversy over what he said about religious persecution. But he did preach Jesus Christ.

Then which of you is our PRIME minister?

Old Mr. memory seems to have a bell rung, but I am trying to place her. besides, I have always been much better on memorizing things like scripture and lines than on remembering people.

My wife and her family have spoken volumes to me about respecting Billy Graham, and others as well, who preach Jesus Christ and His message of salvation and love. There were some things they found hard to understand regarding B.G.'s trip to the U.S.S.R. 25 years or so ago. On the other hand, I think there are lots more things my wife has found hard to understand about me during the last 20 years (minus eleven days), yet she puts up with me. Anyway, it is his message that rings. When he cam to town in a 1987 crusade, my wife (and her aunt, who was with us then) insisted on going, and we did; my wife carrying an extra load at the time. I guess the main idea IS not to focus on who is doing the preaching or teaching, but the message. So many people delight in picking apart everyone who preaches or teaches the Bible, especiall if they (Good Lord) do it on radio or television. Sure, they are right a lot of times, but it seems to me they ignore the message. I myself think Billy Graham, along with some others, have done (and do) a pretty good job on the message.

I never heard of it either. I would be interested in hearing of one case when it DID happen. It certainly didnt happen in my case. Not that there was any publicity involved in my case. But it didnt even happen after I accidently ran into BT, my former 8th corps bro in town a year or so after the event, while he was the local ruler of this state/region.

Most people, no matter what side of the political spectrum they are on, can fine something the U.S. government does or supports that they find terribly wrong or distasteful (that doesn't include weather forecasts BTW), yet most pay their taxes , while if grudgingly, without active protest. Maybe using the government is not the best example, but by endorsing or supporting any group or entity that's not perfect, are we endorsing the wrongs someone in the group might be doing? Maybe we should boycott everything.

Yea Raf; I was wondering about the IF in the title of this thread, at least until I read your whole post!

Tilda is just now getting the hang of PTs? Someone who (like I) has been around forever... and ever... hallelujah!