waysider

As I understand it, there are three basic components that must be combined to succeed as a method actor. First, one must adapt to the psychology of the character. At the same time, one must consider the sociological impact of the character. Lastly, one's behavioral characteristics must reflect the first two items. Granted, this is only my own interpretation of how the process works. As an advocate of method acting, VPW failed miserably, especially on item #2.

Method acting. That's what's being promoted as "Christ's eyes behind your eyes" type thinking. Where in the scriptures is it referenced that people should be method actors? Stanslavski wept.

Just my opinion here. Introducing meta discussions of conspiracy theory is a bit too far off the beaten path of this particular topic.

Hey, Seth. Good to hear from you again. Like the saying goes, "Don't be stranger." Or, was that "Don't be a stranger"? Anyhow, good to see you again.

"Ya better watch out. Ya better not cry. Ya better not pout. I'm tellin' you why........."

Once you discover Santa Claus isn't real, you can't ever make yourself believe again, no matter how hard you try. Some people choose, instead, to ignore reality and refuse to believe he isn't real.

It's been discussed here many times.

I must be at McDonalds 'cause "I'm lovin' it!".

VPW presented such a wager in PFAL. "If heaven doesn't exist, we will have had the best time going." Well, it hasn't always been what I would call the best, so I think we lost the wager.

Stretched coffee in lipstick stained styro cups. I might just endure a session to witness a spectacle so grand. (I said *might*.)

Maybe. But, for sure, Santa Claus is ho ho ho Logos.

Exactly. Cults come in all sorts of varieties, some religion based and some not. One particular cult that comes to mind is a collection of motorcycle enthusiasts, who exist for reasons far beyond the shear joy of feeling the wind in their faces, as they cruise the open road. Their name, however, is derived from common words associated with religion.

These matters being presented are akin to questions we may all have encountered when witnessing to someone for the first time all those years ago. How is it possible to be no closer to being able to provide logical answers after having 50 years to ponder them?

You realize you just contradicted yourself, right? Was it God's will for the guy to be dead in a year or for the unbelievers to live a more abundant life than the believers?

What about that guy who said he believed he'd be dead this time next year? "Why, If I was a betting man..." It seems to work a lot easier for bad outcomes than good ones. No S.I.T., renewing the mind, word studies, trudging to endless twig functions or any such things required. "Works for saint and sinner alike." "I saw unbelievers living a more abundant life than the believers."...Oh, right, something, something about rain falling.

Is this figurative or literal?

You have captured the essence of Way Theology. Well done.

If I believe hard enough, will the law of believing become real?

Mike, you used a Firesign Theatre skit here when you referenced Hemlock Stone. Are you aware that a real Hemlock Stone exists and that it's not just a simple twisting of the name Sherlock Holmes for humorous effect? Well, maybe you are and maybe you aren't. Are you comparing GSC posters to a historic landmark or to a fictional character of Firesign Theatre design?

Hey, listen. If the King James was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.

Like I said, you don't have the slightest clue.

Except that it really is the point. You have no idea whether or not the claims are verifiable. You also have no idea what my "theology" is.

Of course. Windows seem to get dirty whenever the questions get too hard to answer.

Except for adultery. Clearly there's a difference there. /s

Well, that settles it. It must be true because there was a tape.