WordWolf

I'm not sure I'll have anything useful to offer, but here's my thinking on the subject..... The answer will either be one of two things, or possibly both simultaneously (which I suspect may be correct.) A) God is not a respecter of persons, so He relates to all of us the same. To do that, He has to relate on a very fundamental level for each of us as a person. As such, we probably wouldn't be aware of activity at that level. I was realizing I had something to post when I read the question "How does God work in us?" and skipped "Very well, thank you" to "He just does it." I realized that might say something. B) As a very individual God who works with each and every one of us, He would work slightly differently for each person who seeks Him. For someone who earnestly seeks an intellectual relationship with Him, he might relate on a more technical, informative level. For someone who seeks Him but at a more instinctive level, His relationship would reflect that, as well.

-One of the characters' qualifications include a degree from the University of Rangoon, and assorted night classes at the Knoxville Tennessee School of Faith Healing. -Does Ohio really have the death penalty for speeding? -The most obvious complaint seems to have an answer. If the roadblocks ate up more time than the combined time differences, then the ending makes perfect sense. Otherwise, the ending doesn't make sense.

"My grandfather used to work for your grandfather. Of course, the rates have gone up." "This is a nice boy. This is a good boy. This is a mother's angel." "You know, I'll never forget my old dad. When these things would happen to him. The things he'd say to me." "What did he say?" "What the hell are you doing in the bathroom day and night? Why don't you get out of there and give someone else a chance?"

Nathan Jr, If you want to get a better sense of lcm's history with twi, there's a thread for you. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/8019-vp-and-me-in-wonderland/ "vp and me in wonderland." It examines the auto-biographical book lcm wrote, with discussions about his personal history and his own accounts of things, and analysis of same.

Um, you're welcome. Bartender, next round here's on me.

I think they may have done this once a year to different corps groups. "1974-1975 "After talking with LCM one day, Dr dismissed all the corps for bad attitude problems. He told them 'Ok, as of right now, you're all out of the corps.' He then made it available to all of them to reapply to him by filling out a 3 x 5 card, The card had to express their willingness to obey leadership. Some of them decided to leave rather than obey." ================================= I have to hand it to those who saw they were being jerked around and left.

That does seem like something that's easy to turn into something self-serving. It's a little like the moment in pfal when vpw talks about giving to charity, and suggests giving the money to Bible research or something, and makes a small grin like he's joking.

Steven Wright had a friend who spent all Summer practicing that dance, and now he can go under a carpet.

WordWolf: " Don't make it sound like it was considered completely sound doctrine until the day before Ratzinger/Benedict OFFICIALLY discontinued it. He made official what was already thought long before that. George Carlin was under the impression it was gone long before that. In his album "Class Clown" in 1972, he addressed that very thing. (No, he was factually incorrect, but he got the idea from what people thought at the time was official doctrine.) "Limbo was where they sent unbaptized babies. The thinking was, it wasn't their fault. Can't see God if you're not baptized, whip ém into Limbo! What was Limbo like? *odd sounds* *odd voice* 'Wel-come to Limbo.' They've since cancelled Limbo. Apparently, when they purged a couple of saints, they called off Limbo as well. I hope they promoted everyone, you know, and didn't just cut them off into space." I think the audio is on YT somewhere if you're curious. (Don't hotlink it unless you want YT to delete the file.) " ---------------------------------------- Oldiesman: "The very fact that it was sound doctrine for centuries leads me to think that we in this century can be wrong and not centuries before. Traditional Catholics pride themselves on tradition and age-old concepts so why would this concept be any different. George Carlin said there is no God. If he said there is no heaven, hell, limbo, etc. should we believe him. He is very funny and a gifted entertainer; but is it wise for a believer to take serious spiritual advice from an unbeliever?" --------------------------------- I suppose it was too much to hope the old "I'll find something you didn't say, claim you said it, and object to it" Oldiesman was gone for good..... I quoted Carlin, and said that my point was "(No, he was factually incorrect, but he got the idea from what people thought at the time was official doctrine.)" As a stand-up comedian, his job involved observing the culture around him and composing comedy. So, I quoted him to point out people thought this concept was deprecated long before Ratzinger/Benedict. As of 1972, that was in the air. That was the sole point. I also said outright that he was FACTUALLY INCORRECT. So, to skip my one point to focus on points I didn't make is, at least, silly. The other problem is your claim about the history of Limbo. You said "The very fact that it was sound doctrine for centuries leads me to think that we in this century can be wrong and not centuries before. " I'll quote the Encyclopedia Brittanica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/limbo-Roman-Catholic-theology "The concept of limbo probably developed in Europe in the Middle Ages but was never defined as a church dogma, and reference to it was omitted from the official catechism of the church that was issued in 1992." I'm not interested in splitting hairs over the titles the RCC gives everything. However, the RCC never made Limbo a church dogma. That sounds to me like the opposite of saying it was considered "sound doctrine." Otherwise, there would have been encyclicals and everything affirming it. Since 1543 (the Council of Trent), there's been debate as to specifics of Limbo- which were not settled with a Papal decree- unless you count 2007's de-facto calling it off. For that matter, whatever led up to 1992 pretty much decided that the doctrine was kaput. So, again, as of the 1970s, some people thought it had already been called-off. If you feel the need to continue this fruitless diversion, please go to Doctrinal and start a new thread.

No, but good guess.

"My grandfather used to work for your grandfather. Of course, the rates have gone up."

-The production company for this US film was a HONG KONG company- Golden Harvest. That explains some of the cast but causes another wrinkle in the casting at the same time. -One role was written specifically with DON RICKLES in mind, but he refused the role, and we got a better movie for it once it was recast (with the same name.) -George Furth and John Fiedler both appear in this movie. (I used to confuse the 2 actors because of this.) -Peter Fonda appears in it as well. And Valerie Perrine. And Bianca Jagger. -Steve McQueen was cast, but died before they prepared to begin filming, so that part was re-cast and the mood of the movie was changed radically. -In one scene, a Cantonese-speaking character is interviewed by a Japanese television presenter. Neither the presenter nor the audience understand what he's saying, but the other Cantonese-speaker in the movie and he chat several times, in Cantonese. -One actor spoke about having done the movie, later. "I did that film for all the wrong reasons. I never liked it. I did it to help out a friend of mine, Hal Needham. And I also felt it was immoral to turn down that kind of money. I suppose I sold out so I couldn't really object to what people wrote about me." -This was the first movie the late Rick Aviles appeared in (you may remember him as Willie Lopez in "Ghost.") -Nobody remembers the name of the character Pamela Glover-she ends up with a nickname early on, and that "becomes" her name for the rest of the movie. -Continuity error: the "Hawaiian Tropic" car changes from a Laguna to a Monte Carlo after a quick paint job. -Continuity error: Jamie Black and Fenderbaum know Mc Clure and Prinzim early on. However, in the middle of the movie, Mc Clure and Prinzim completely fail to recognize them.

Jack Dawson (Leo) spoke to Rose. She said she was engaged to be married, and Jack asked her flatly if she loved her fiancee....and she got cagey in her response. (It was an arranged marriage, and no, she did not.)

That Special Hell, along with people who talk in movie theaters.

Don't make it sound like it was considered completely sound doctrine until the day before Ratzinger/Benedict OFFICIALLY discontinued it. He made official what was already thought long before that. George Carlin was under the impression it was gone long before that. In his album "Class Clown" in 1972, he addressed that very thing. (No, he was factually incorrect, but he got the idea from what people thought at the time was official doctrine.) "Limbo was where they sent unbaptized babies. The thinking was, it wasn't their fault. Can't see God if you're not baptized, whip ém into Limbo! What was Limbo like? *odd sounds* *odd voice* 'Wel-come to Limbo.' They've since cancelled Limbo. Apparently, when they purged a couple of saints, they called off Limbo as well. I hope they promoted everyone, you know, and didn't just cut them off into space." I think the audio is on YT somewhere if you're curious. (Don't hotlink it unless you want YT to delete the file.)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm glad I got in, and I'm glad I got out. From where I was in my life when I got in, that was an improvement. Getting out of twi is always an improvement. As for after, God is not that small that He can only be reached with twi or even ex-twi. Learning not to freak out over differences in doctrine helped a lot.

If you're interested, there's threads where we play games. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/forum/14-movies-music-books-art/ Read "how to play the game threads" and the first few posts of any thread, and the last page or so, to get the rules, general play, and where we're at now. You can choose to join any thread, all of them, or none of them, or join one and then just stop posting on it, as you see fit. The only catch is that play is on "the honor system" - we agree not to cheat. (Explanations are on the threads.)

Interaction is what you make of it. During the Covid crisis, a lot of people went to church via Zoom/Skype. (Some still do.) I've chatted with a lot of people online. I've met a few offline, later, and made some friends. Mrs Wolf and I met online and communicated a lot. We're married now. So, you and I don't know each other and never will- but we could choose to, as did myself and the Mrs.

When paging through the King James Version, in the Old Testament, you may notice that sometimes the word "LORD" is in all caps, and rarely the word "GOD" is in all caps. That's not a stylistic decision. In those cases, the Hebrew word there was "YHWH." For the high-faluting, that's the Tetragrammaton (the 4 letters.) For observant Jews, it's a common practice to refuse to write it or say it aloud out of respect for God Almighty. So, that "YHWH", depending on translation, has also been rendered "Yahweh", and "Jehovah." (Depending on the letters in your language and the vowels you choose to fill in the word.) In Hebrew as well as Latin, there's no letter "J", so the Romans wrote "Iulius Caesar" for Julius Caesar, and so on. If there's a truly definitive answer on pronunciation, I neither know it nor consider it important. "YHWH" was how it was written originally, and "Yahweh" is as close an approximation to pronouncing it as I can get, so I'm fine with that. While you can find other gods mentioned in the Old Testament, and other "lords", they were called other things, "baal" or "adon", but NOT "YHWH." In the Bible, that word is only used to refer to God Almighty.

Whether or not there are "administrations"/"dispensations" in history is a subject for debate, with different posters holding different positions. On the one hand, I disagree with those who keep blaming Mac Donald for inventing it or Darby for disseminating what Mac Donald invented- I don't think this doctrine can be traced at all to her or significantly to him. On the other hand, ignoring a question of who said what, my own thinking on Scripture has generally resembled another position on history- a "covenantal" approach. That is, rather than say "now began the Law Administration", I'd say "now God entered into a covenant with Israel with the Mosaic Law." With the "administration" approach, no 2 administrations remain in effect alongside each other. (We can also start drifting into "replacement theology", where Christians supposedly REPLACED Israel, and so on.) It's my personal opinion that God's Covenant with Israel remains in effect, and God's Covenant with Christians remains in effect. I think Jesus, among others, tried to make a point about that very thing, where one person is promised one thing, and another is promised another, and each received what they were promised, independently of each other. Once again, this might be a good topic to start in the "Doctrinal" forum. Don't be shocked when you see different posters rather emphatic on their positions.

I Corinthians 15: 20-28 (NASB) 20 But the fact is, Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21 For since by a man death came, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in [i]Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, 24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to our God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is clear that [j]this excludes the Father who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. ======================== It wouldn't be a bad idea to discuss this in a separate thread, probably in Doctrinal. I'd prefer to discuss what the Greek said in those verses rather than any English version, since they all will put their own spin on the subject, intentionally or not.

The final disposition of all humanity (is everyone everywhere and everywhen saved?) is a good subject for at least 1 thread. Unfortunately, a few posters got cagey talking around the subject (freaking WHY?), and when I made a thread for the subject, they refused to discuss it. Too bad, I think there's a lot to say on the subject.

Ok, I gave the others a chance to post. I'll go in the other direction from movies about little things. This would be "TITANIC."