socks

Howdy Peeps! Reading through, I took the points that you've made and listed them. Don't think I missed any, if I did or didn't capture the fulll thought, me bad! Add on, please. And any others, please post! -------- Take OUT the word "church" and try and discover or uncover a "leader", any leader. He or she must NOT "compromise" him/her self to put their own "material" possessions or self worth above the spiritual message they wish to promote. He or she must generate a contemporary or historical message which is new, or something you have been thinking about being of great importance. That thought must be very real for you at the time and have a human or spiritual benefit. able to separate the messenger from the message, and the interaction will probably have to be brief. For as familiarity breeds contempt, the importance of the message will evaporate in a very short time. If he could restock the bar from water at the next wedding I attended, That just might do it. it takes a wonderful human soul to see me kind, loving, understanding, forgiving, merciful type people i'm thinking about leaders or just good people (wouldn't it be nice if they were one-in-the-same) Unassuming modesty. Does not flaunt his/her knowledge/degrees/ordination/whatever. Willing to do whatever to help (see cool chef's example) Kind. Honest but loving does not seek their own glory Stand by you Smile :) "the real deal" is happening wherever love is Sometimes it's no more than showing up when needed, "being there" for someone Authenticity has to do with union with God... in Jesus, it was to do the will of Him that sent him, and to finish His work, and so it is with all those who have touched my life one-on-one and not from a pulpit heart to serve, to help and to genuinely "love your neighbor as yourself". may have a "lead pastor" but the pastor has been really good at finding the strengths and longsuits of those in the church and fostered those abilities to the point where the gifted people flourish and love doing what they do best thereby touching the lives of those who are in need of that particular gift. A good minister should want people in his church who are better than he is at things and who can take over when/if/should he not be able to function. They do it because they are good at it; they love people and feel it's the least they can do.

Thanks for the great responses, y'all. I'm inbetween distractions (work, etc.) and look forward to digging into your posts. Working bottoms - up - cinder, thanks for that. Those certainly do seem to be things I'd want to see or have. I find it so funny in a crazy way that Paul wrote specifically about "not loving money". Clearly nothing is wrong with money. Works for me. But the love of money would open up some serious conflicts for a person who was this "overseer" he's talking about. When a person enters into a trusted relationship with others they don't want to bring that kind of baggage with them where they may no serve the interests of the other people well. So, I wonder if we see that in a lot of people who step into this role and that's why there's blow ups? They may not think they do or say they do but once things get out of balance problems occur. I just don't think a pastoral gig is the way to get rich. If you want to get rich, more power to you. It will take some work to separate the two and be honest about it but it's doable. Not many do it well apparently but it can be done I think where a person does both. Is leadership a "once a leader always a leader" deal? Maybe there's a freshness date to look for - I don't think a person enters this kind of relationship with others and it should be expected that's what they'll do for life. Could be, wouldn't have to be. Things change, people change, sometimes for good reasons. Lots of food for discussion here - thanks! be back...

Something for everyone! Linda Z's recent another-splinter-bites-the-big-one thread got me to thinking - we see ample examples of what people who call themselves "leaders" in the church aren't. Isn't. Ain't. So - what would be the qualities that someone legit WOULD have? Better yet, what would be those that would set a person apart without anyone having to be told "what" that person "is"? Without a shingle put up, signage of any kind or nary a nametag to designate the office of a person - would we know one if we saw one? And what would we see? Are there such animals? Examples? While this topic has serious "doctrinal" overtones, I wasn't thinking of those elements only. F'instance if you're not a Christian or member/participant/follower/founder of any particular religious belief but operate successfully as a fine upstanding citizen of the U.S.A. what would be the real deal to you? The man on the street view - is there one? Feel free to address this topic from any angle you'd like, if you choose to respond. I believe they're "out here", functioning at various levels of society, and not always where there's a steeple or a collection plate. How's about you?

Oh absolutely, rhino. Even in religious sects, definitely in religious sects. I'm a Christian, or consider myself one, a blend of Pauline and Gospel, by my own definition. Paul the man, the myth, the legend may have dressed like a Jew and even winced at the smell of pork but believed God had jammed the turnstile to redemption with that stone He rolled away, opening up the Temple to all. It's a free concert, people. Bacon and eggs for breakfast! But it does feel and smell more biblically right on to don robe and cap, grab a Torah and say "Yeshua!". Gezhundhite! Basing a religious sect on 1,000's of years of whining has appeal. Which one among us hasn't felt like they've been wandering in the devil's parking lot too long, at least once? What we need is a Moses look alike to lead us to the Land of Easy Egress! (no Jews were harmed in the writing of this post - honest!) The best of the old, the scariest of the new. Makes sense to me. Add a little Doomsday guidance and you've got it all. Y2K - mortagage is due....bills...bills....Y2K - I see - devestation! All is lost! Money's worthless! Rioting! Drop it all - no! Give me some! You won't need it! Get ready! Earthquakes - hmmm. I'm getting - I'm getting - wait. Wait - I see....people surfing...tanning, in...in - Arizona! California - write this down - California's going to have - an EARTHQUAKE! Saw on the News tonight - wildfires....fires....smoke....yes- yes! there's going to be FIRES! There were already? See?! I'm right!!! Mark my words - there will be more! You can't have all that hot air in Sacramento and not expect some combustion!

Oh I skid way off Rude, rhino. Click on the link I posted and look at Mr. 9/11's licks. I was wrong though. That guy's not a Prophet. He's an Apostle. Which makes much more sense. Here's the "detailed description", for free. Is America about to be hit by a series of explosions and the largest earthquake of this generation? Will this provide the excuse to declare a presidential emergency, suspending the Constitution and excuse to attack Iran? Quoting a dream, a Congressman, a Foxnews report, two Prophets and 2 PC cpeakers, Stan gives 5 credible reasons a series of nuclear explosions may be the next 9/11 soon to hit from 10 to 24 cities. But wait! That's not all! Pay now and you can hear this: Stan will also give 5 credible reasons why an earthquake could be about to hit California. I can give you 1 totally credible reason why Stan should go back to bed since saying California could be about to be hit by an earthquake is like saying O.J. Simpson just might be guilty or Minnesota might get snow this winter. Anyhoo, tell me that site doesn't look like "The Psychic Network". All they need are some starry black-drops and swirly effects, and a 900 number. Get yer ho's and go's on the same call! Gawd's gotta a bib in the crib for y'all tonight! No idea where Rude gets his cookies, though. Maybe someone with first hand insight and knowledge can speak to that and identify his cookie jar. Ol' Stan though - he's pullin' 'em out of his keister. He's got the spread for it - I'd say I've got 10 in 24 chances of being right about that too.

No doubt Whitedove. No doubt. My own experience with a Personal Profiter was humorous, to say the least. But if there was any useful prophecy to come out of any of this - I mean, really. I'm the last one who wants a nuclear catastrophe, really, even if by accident. ("OOOOOOPS!") I'll go on record as saying me no want none of that, no time. But if you're going to predict one, there should be one. Or at least a little scare. ("OOOOOOPS! Hey, nice catch! Thanks! Hi-Five!!!") Entertainment value? Hopefully no. Show some Veggie Tale videos or do some puppet shows, anything. Poke a goose, juggle squirrels, something. I can't even begin to find the words that would state how I really feel - the degradation of anything that even resembles godly presence gets so trampled under by people who say they speak for God and then sell it, make the very people who are so thirsty they'll drink that swill pay for it and then hide under the cover of doing good...no way.

This is a good question, and while it may be somewhat of a derail I've started, I dunno maybe not. Money is, as usual, involved. Money always seems to go hand in hand whenever the information being offered is absolutely essential to your well being. I think of it as religious blackmail, but with a :) Maybe it's THE P Club that's issuing the licenses Linda. They are THE Club, and apparently there's many, so many we need to know which one is THE Club to join. I wonder how much the processing and handling fees are? I'd assume any valid Prophetic License to Receive BS You Don't Need would be worth quite a bit. Basically you're being made an offer you can't refuse, if you accept the premise, which in the one guy's case is stated so thinly - his prophetic guesstimates are supported by (1) dream and Fox News and who wouldn't bet their future on THAT - that it would seem only a retarded goldfish would take it seriously and yet, and yet, there he is, proud as a pin in a pigs asss, smiling like he's just won the lottery. What this has to do with Rude, I dunno, nothing maybe. But even the reallyrude report has a ring around it - it immediately starts out with the statement "Most conflicts among brethren are caused by miscommunication and misunderstanding." I would disagree with that, but if that's the premise they end up with much less "misunderstood-thisandthat" and a lot of "missTHISMoFo" in the information being presented. I gave it a quick read, but it appears they're making the case that Rude drew a line in the accounting records to try and hide his stuff and as a result any "proof" they offer is flawed. Convenient - that's the very period they state his own records are absent. So it's easy to see where it's going with that. They're saying he's lying and trying to cover up for his own activities. Which goes to why I disagree with that big bold fat declararion they make at the outset. I don't think most conflicts among brethren are the result of miscommunication and misunderstanding. The average Joe and Jane disagree at times about any number of things both big and small and it just takes patience and often an acceptance to agree to disagree, if only for a time, and then to move on with a little love and knowing and trusting each other. (Which is obviously something you'd be hesitant to do with someone who's just spent all your "gifts" on gas masks and travel). With these Big Ticket Mouthpieces for Gawd it's mostly because they're dishonest money sucking tics who won't give you the time of day if you don't give them a GIFT. First. That just always seems to go hand and hand with conflict. But that's just my normal rant. Don't sue me. I could be wrong. Maybe they are misunderstood. Maybe they just need more money - I mean, more love.

De-rail - Is this the P.Club LZ? HERE? As always, there's essential information, critical to you if you're a Christian and which your very fate and future will depend on. FOR A GIFT. Concerned about catstrophic events in our own country, particularly you geezers on the Left Coast? Read all about it - FOR A GIFT. Geez, it's Christmas everyday for these guys. I'd love to be their Mailbox. But not to worry that this information isn't reliable - it's good, solid and credible information, the kind that's worth cash - if it is these same guys they're talking pinpoint accuracy, dead-on target busting apple splitting accuracy. Stuff that's right on the money, literally. How could anyone question it? "Quoting a dream, a Congressman, a Foxnews report, two Prophets and 2 PC speakers , (he gives) 5 credible reasons a series of nuclear explosions ..........may be.............. the next 9/11 soon to hit from 10 to 24 cities. Also 5 credible reasons why an earthquake ...............could be................ about to hit California." May be? Could be? No question in mind, if there's a dream and a Congressman involved. I'm good for a couple hundred bucks right there. The Godfather said it best - "it's not personal, it's business. It's just business". If these aren't the same P.C.'ers involved in this other deal, it was worth Googling and visiting that site. It made me feel so much smarter and saner by comparison. My IQ jumped 20 points.

Is he a Splinter? The 'Splainit bugs thrive in winter, thus the name.

No stories, although I have a dog eared copy of the book "The Tracker". Good book. And he's still around - HIS SITE. A guy who finds the lost. Cool work.

I recall there being folks frequenting the 'Spot who had good things to say about Rood, perhaps they'll ring in with some first hand insight. One thing we all know by now is that there are always at least 8 sides to any story, sometimes more. So I have to wonder what'sup widdis.

Once bitten, twice shy. I think after glancing at the doc's on that site, the phrase "get a receipt" comes to mind.

Couple interpretations. I've heard both of these over the years. Possibly as #1 in that links explanation, having "crashed" and burned upon leaving TWI, a person went their way to pursue their lives after leaving...? #2, probably wouldn't apply at all, unless you got some kind of pay out. Since the term can include the idea of terminating a mission in the worst possible way, it's a little dicey to use it although it gets used a lot. It's an interesting turn of phrase in this context but one I'd probably avoid although I guess it could fit for some. It definitely evokes thought.

Couple items fer ya - Romans 9:14 - 26 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. Jeremiah 18 and 19 have the record of God telling Jeremiah to visit a potter to see how he works with clay to make pots and bowls and such. God tells Jeremiah that it's an example He wants him to use in telling Israel how He is working with them. The O.T. has a lot about God "exalting" some and destroying others. Some are chosen, some aren't, etc. What I see in Romans, Jeremiah and other records is that people, often "God's own people", look at how God works and don't understand His purposes. Why are they exalted and WE aren't? We're your Chosen, we're of our father Abraham, we're the ones most likely to succeed as it were. In our eyes we're deserving - regardless of what we're doing - and those other guys certainly aren't. But we don't see as God does, and it may not always be a big mystery of God's inscrutable will. Man might say "why them, why this way, why now, why why why, God?" because man doesn't like or agree with the outcomes he sees. But God's judgment is what it is first of all, His business, and as stated based on a perfect system of justice that includes everything we see and know, plus everything we don't. So a seemingly undeserving person might be successful and "blessed" by God in this life where we wouldn't give them the time of day. In the O.T. there's quite a few examples of people like that. I think it lends itself to a view of life that has to accept that it's not just the immediate causes and effects and facts and history man might use to evaluate who God "blesses" and who he doesn't, but a much larger and broader range. Like Israel and Gentiles - why should the Gentile nations ever have a part in redemption, in "Israel's Messiah?" The promises of God are to the Jews, not these other nations. Yet, we see that God sends Christ to all mankind and a new "nation", body, is formed. The last go to the front of the line. In fact, the front of the line is completely redefined. Where I kind of see this in relation to your topic is that when I think of God's foreknowledge, like you, I think that's a gimme and not a major factor in how or what God does. It's just the way it is. With our lives being predestined - I think we can see that God has purpose and like the potter with his clay, He's forming and molding that purpose in our lives. He "works and wills in us to do His good pleasure". That working and willing is a very personal individual work, where we are made to be the earthen vessesl, saved by grace, and now born with this "treasure" we become what He will have us to be. I don't see that in the control of our individual actions and our fates. We know that God works with those whom we might often refuse, even while we ourselves are being molded in ways that we don't see. Like that potters wheel, the days of life turn, come and go and we choose and act. Within that God works and the "clay" of our lives is shaped and molded. Where it's hard or unwieldy there's stress as shape takes form. Throughout life there's those "ups and downs", hills and valleys, but in all God is there with us, and always there for us to go to.

Socut, we kicked that topic around on the Guitar thread awhile back. Arthritis and related pain in the hands, wrist, arm are a concern to any musician. Bluzeman was checking some stuff out, too and may have some insight on that. I've played all my life, and for many years, probably about 40 or so of those, daily. Today my wrists do experience some pain, due largely to extended periods of working on a keyboard. Careful setup and observation have minimized that. Although guitar can be learned and played in a casual setting without long term damage, if yoiu have pain already I'd recommend pursuing an instructor for a few lessons to start. There may be some DVD lessons that address proper positioning of the hand and arm to specific for existing conditions, I don't know of any but there could be some worth checking out. A knowledgable instructor will be able to help you get the correct positioning of the guitar for your hands. It's an unnatural position to begin with and there's really nothing you can do other than get the height and angle correct, but that's important. I also use a wrist wrap support at times. Like a few weeks ago, I did a gig playing bass, for about 3 hours total. I took the wrist wrap to provide support. For guitar it's not as big an issue but electric bass guitars are heavier and require more pressure from the fingers, so I was ready and wore it for the second set. Helped enormously. Have fun!

--- If you'e at a music store, ask about instructors. It pays to start out with at least a few lessons to get you going. It really depends on where you want to go with it, and you don't have to figure that out the first month. An instructor will answer a lot of questions and provide some basic direction that will help a lot though, even just a couple to get started, find some music, get situated with your guitar, etc. I think guitar is a wonderful instrument to learn and play. I've played since I was 10. I slept with my first guitar, kept it right next to me. I slept with my first Fender Telecaster. I kept my first Gibson Les Paul with me everywhere I went. It's not an exaggeration to say that you can develop a long term love relationship with music through your instrument. Although today they have to stay in their own space. :)

You're on a fun quest, Scout! I'd concur with all the advice thus far. The Costco offerings will have some drawbacks, the same as most lower priced instruments that are mass produced, be it in or out of the country. Currently the price ranges for "beginner" acoustic guitars run between 150 and 350, give or take a buck. Here's a couple - the Washburn listed first is a good instrument I've been told. In general I hear good things about Washburns. The Yamaha below it the same, bought one for my daughter as an all-purpose guitar and it's very playable and sounds good. (the "classical" guitar listed 3rd shows a pic of a "nylon" string guitar, different than these other two and associated with classical and folk musics). They're all "acoustic" guitars, which is kind of a retro-fit term, as all guitars were originally of this type, but the name separates these from the modern "electric" guitar, where the body is a solid piece of wood and the sound is generated through a "pickup". http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/Was...p;CJPID=1759905 http://www.zzounds.com/item--YAMFG700S http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_guitar The two elements of a guitar from a players standpoint could be called - playability and sound. How it plays and how it sounds, pretty basic. How it plays is a broad topic, but for a beginner the general idea is that it doesn't play "badly", that is it doesn't have any of a host of problems that would make it difficult to play. Common problems boil down to 1- the strings being high off the neck and difficult to press down, and 2-being out of tune when you play no matter what you do to tune it. Without getting too technical those are the two biggest bads in any guitar - hard to press the strings down because they're too high off the neck and can't be adjusted correctly, and it just won't play in tune. How it sounds is broad too, as you might expect. More or less you want a "full" sound, loud, and one that isn't "tinny" or "thin". In the lower priced range the sound is going to be an issue - both the guitars I listed and others, have a "good" sound, although they'll lack certain qualities that would come in a 2,000 dollar guitar, say, which you'd expect. I'm not familiar with the Alvarez you mentioned, but have heard a few comments about them, good ones. For starters as a "beginner", playability is key, critical and non-negotiable. Typically a less expensive guitar will come off the wall or the box with a setup that needs some work, meaning the height of those strings and the way it plays in tune may need some adjustment. In other words the construction is sound and it's built well, but it needs some adjustments. That's the advantage of buying at a store, where the guitar can be evaluated a little. A "good" guitar for you could then get some adjustments made if it needs it, prior to you buying it. Or not - I've pulled many guitars off the wall, and they play nicely and don't need anything done to them. I was in Costco last Christmas and grabbed an acoustic off the stand that played fine. You'll need someone with you who knows what to look for to make a determination though. So you benefit from some guidance which a sales person can provide. If you live near more than one store, visit more than one. If you're near a Guitar Center, they have just about everything. They're fun to visit and set up to do what you want to do - look, touch, play, ask, look, think, etc. One other element to think about as you try them out - you'll notice the word "dreadnaught" - that means a "big" body. Bigger body, bigger sound, more volume. That body size is something to consider when starting, as you hold it in your lap and wrap an arm around it. Bigger may be uncomfortable at first. Players like that big body sound but you might want to go for a "regular" body size. You'll see the difference when you shop.

Need and Wants - how are they defined? How do you determine them? Let's look at it from the PFAL angle... Parallel with the Word? The bible doesn't define need and want for a person the same way PFAL does. Needs and Wants - PFAL teaches God supplied your need, not your greed. What's greed? Need is along the lines of the Phil 4:10 - God will supply all of your need acording to His riches in Glory by Christ Jesus. Greed is over and above your need. Yada yada, something like you need a car, but you want a Jag. You don't need a Jag, you need a car. God guarantees your need. How does getting "parallel" with the Word act as a step to receiving something from God, as one of the opening 5 steps in PFAL, when you're trying to receive a car? Do you really need a car? Maybe what you need is transportation. Or maybe what you need is a job within walking distance and a date that likes to stay home and watch TV. Nothing in the Word says you need a car, or a date or who, what or when. Nothing says take "this job, not that one". Or buy now, don't wait. There's no specific instructions to guide a person as to how to make a decision along these lines. Some general over arching wisdom and applicable examples, sure. But that Jag still looks pretty good, as far as the bible's concerned. Or that used Honda. You will end up back at "what's available"? And what's available? Jesus came to give life more abundant. Zoe! Life in all of it's manifestations! and more than abundant! God is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think according to the power that works in us. That's available, right up front. God can do a Jag, shoot. Jag's are tricyles to God. Think big. BIG. But big was my "greed"....wasn't it? I gotta get parallel, get balanced, wasn't that it? Or was it. Hmm. Drapes, maybe, sure, Drapes. You NEED drapes, otherwise that goober down the street will never stop peeping in your windows. But RED drapes? Come on. That's nuts. What next, one o' those e-lectronic garage door opener thingies? And a re-mote for your TV? Hmmm. Need and want is subjective in PFAL when you lay it out, and based on my "believing" and God's ability. If both are big, why can't I have anything I want? The parameters are clear in PFAL - Big is beautiful. Big is God's way of saying "I love you", in Christ. God does Big and does it well. Believing is an immutable law, and as a True "believer" operates that law, needs and wants come into focus. Anything's available, greed isn't determined by a biblical metric based on what the result is, how extravagant it appears, how big it weighs in at. When God paints, the ocean turns blue. When God sneezes, Saturn gets hurricanes. It's not the 'bundance of the abundance - it's a matter of the heart's intents. Big isn't bad. Greed is. But everything in PFAL Session 1 teaches that greed can't be objectively measured from the outside, by the results alone, when you look at it squarely. Other factors have to point to what's greed and what's not. Need and Want being parallel is a weak way of saying "believe big", based on the opening session of PFAL. Getting your need and want parallel wouldn't be a step, therefore, it would be a result - of knowing what's available and how to receive. It's a"nother' thing you "need to know" to receive "anything" from God. Once you understand exceedingly abundantly above what you can ask or think, and all of your need being supplied, and the means to energizing the process to receiving being believing - all bets are off. There's no way for another person to objectively evaluate another person based on what they're trying to receive. Believing is the "key" that unlocks the doors. It's 'tween you 'n' God. Greed becomes an entirely different issue. Well, that's the PFAL angle, described in somewhat length and circuitous manner, but there it is, sitting likea duck. In that way I think PFAL is somewhat contradictory and confusing. Taken on face value, you qucikly realize that both believer and non-believer receives abundantly - in this life. Rain falls on the good and the bad. Sun shines when it does, everybody gets tan. The objective rendering of what's need and want becomes superfluous. Stuff is stuff. Get what you want. And need. It's the Supplier at question here - or is it? Remember - rain and sun. Good and bad. God supplies a certain amount of abundance of all kinds to anyone. So again, to my mind, the external evaluation of results, need and want, all of that - is a moot point. A snoot point. A toot point. It's pointless to consider. Stuff is stuff. Get it while it's hot.

Nothing in the bible says it's immoral to earn a living. Ministering could certainly be considered work, an occupation. In fact, a case could be made from biblical history that it pays to have those whose job it is to look out for and contribute to the well being of a group of people, be it Sheriff, Forest Ranger or indeed Pastors, teachers, etc. Now - right there in that paragraph is how I see it working. That's the context.

You look relaxed!

If we're talking about the movie, the climate and interest it supposedly created (and I apparently missed) and the VPster capitalizing on it (the movie, climate, etc.), I would say no. If we want to say well, yeah, of course he did, he was a hayseed grifter who wouldn't have missed any chance I can dream up to attribute to him, then sure. Of course. ALWAYS. Wouldn't have had it any other way, if he'd had the opportunity which even if he didn't he probably would have wished he'd had, if he would have known, which he probably did anyway which I can't prove but I don't even need to, the facts speak for themselves and everyone who knew him like you-hoo knew him would know that if he'd had the chance to he would have, it's so simple only a dolt wouldn't see it which is why it's so obvious, I mean, really, the facts speak for themselves when you think about it. Really. Not that I'm saying he did, but I'm just sayin'....y'know. Come on. Case closed.

On his part, no, I don't think he capitalized on it or would have seen eny benefit in doing so. The reactions of others might have brought interest to the AC, maybe. If it did, I never came across it in any demonstrable amount, but that's not to say the general climate might have been created for it, I just didn't see it if it did. Maybe I was out of the loop.

Mr. Hammer, I return the Manly Love! Unity High - Five! Tom S, Manly Love Hug! I dunno, Tom. It was immensely popular, yes. It was out in 1973, and it got a bunch of AA nominations and won one, or two or something. But, if viewed as being about someone mentally ill it might be viewed as an expose' with lurid detailed views into insanity. If you take out the devil and the church, that's what it's about and in fact, the story the book and movie are supposedly based on probably isn't even close to what's presented as true. So I'd agree it went a long way towards putting the religious view of devil spirit possession on the front burner for American culture through the Big Screen, I don't think VPW picked up on it or used the climate it created for any purpose. The reason for that is, I was at the Way Nash, first year of the Corps program the year it came out. He went to see it with some of us locally and of course, there was an after-burner discussion. His feeling was it was basically b-s**t, in "his experience" he'd never seen or heard of anything that out front or blatant. He felt it did more to hurt the reality, rather than help. Anyone seeing it might know that people go completely off the deep end and lose touch with reality and do completely unnatural things - yes. But the phenomena depicted was too over the top, if anything like that truly did happen in modern times, it would be more than written about. If the person was hospitalized and there were witnesses, even in the 40's when it supposedly happened, there would have been better reporting on it. Which isn't to say that's the way it played out, but as I recall he was kind of embarrassed by it, almost. Like, "that isn't what the devil would do". He did teach about things like levitation and all of that as realities in the Advanced Class, or covered it more than taught about it, but I think his perception was that instances of anything resembling the movie were few and far between and he didn't want to associate his teaching with the movie. In a way, over the years, I'm inclined to agree. I thought the movie's impact was probably mostly on kids, that no adult would really see it as anything more than a movie. I'm sure the religious community bought into it more because it characterized the devil as a "real" force of evil, so in that way it puts the screws on you if you develop fear from it. And of course if people really believe that's the way the devil works, it's a frightening reminder of what "could" happen. Which isn't to say, in the most long winded manner I can muster , that there aren't slivers of reality to what the movie depicted, IMO. But there's something questionable in the idea that the only times we seem to "really" hear or see the "devil" in full force is in the life of some poor kid, or these out of the way scenarios. If that's really the devil, he's a p***y and he needs a good P.R. firm. His image stinks. For my money, there's better movies out there on the topic, "Prince of Darkness" is one but again it nests it's message inside a stringy story and not that many people have ever even seen it.

Nibbling at the edges, with insightful commentary, engaging wit and scinitillating insight, I offer this: In it's day, "The Exorcist" was a seat wetter alright, mostly for the impressionable. As a "horror movie", primarily. It was pretty much an embarrassment as a piece of film, although it's been given it's place in history I suppose, in the same way movies like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and other wastes of time and film have. It was gross, weird, and filled with religious imagery and symbolism. BOO! It was scarey. Pea soup has never looked the same since. But - think about it. What give it it's legs was it's religious roots and the premise of "possession", with a major amount of goo and gore. Plus, it centered on a child. Nothing worse than seeing a child in trouble. But the essence of the film was nothing new. "Possession" is the foundation of nearly all horror/sci-fi movies. The idea of humans influenced beyond their own control by forces they can't clearly identify. You can add all the blood and guts and green goop you want - it's always the same premise be it "spirits", the devil, aliens from other planets, psycho-nuts with chain saws. Same thing. Over and over. Nothing new there. Nothing new today. Same crap, different title. I find this kind of movie really boring, simply because they take advantage of extremely thin connections to reality - the lost hitchhiker, being alone in a parking garage, moving into a creaky old house, etc. etc. Once the imagination hears a mouse sneezing, all bets are off as to what it could be. You'd think the Devil, Grand Master of Evil, would hang out in better places and have better things to do than scare old ladies. Doesn't sound very stand-up to me, but that's another topic, titled "Evil Wears a Baseball Cap and Doesn't Shower Regularly". Like the move "Alien" and it's offspring. It's a grand movie, but once you get past the gross alien-in-your-tummy stuff the interesting part has nothing to do with that, really. The Exorcist added nothing new, unless you count the fact it's helped to loosen the rules on what can be shown in a theater to the public.

Right on, Sunnyfla. I'm sure your meeting will go well. I'm of the mind that Jesus's parables often had more than one level of meaning, and really won't make sense if we restrict them and squeeze 'em too tight. :)