WordWolf

I wish we could get some more variety if it's supposed to be CoIE. I mean, the final 5 Earths in CoIE were: Earth-1 (Justice League), Earth-2 (Justice Society), Earth-4 (Captain Atom, Blue Beetle, Charlton heroes), Earth-S (Fawcett heroes like the Marvel Family and Bulletman), and Earth-X (the Freedom Fighters.) I'm not going to see representatives of "the Shazam Squadron of Justice", and I'm a little disappointed. But if I was a big fan of Supergirl or Barry, I'd be a little worried- they both were the big casualties of CoIE (even if DC took it back later.)

I'm lost, but willing to take a swing. Was this "THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW"?

I was waiting to use Hamill next, since I thought he was almost as much a giveaway as some of the live actors.

He's not dead? Then tell him we're Batman!

Hm. I see Bruce Lee......

That is CORRECT. Hard to imagine Curtis Armstrong actually played him in something, but The Joker has been around in a LOT of formats. I didn't even get to the more famous portrayals. Ted Knight, Frank Welker and Lennie Weinrib did a lot of voice acting for 60s/70s cartoons, so that limited the choices a lot.

" Soon, Marcus will take the throne, and a tide of anger and retribution will spill out into the night. Differences will be set aside. Allegiances will be made. And soon, I will become the hunted. " "The weapons had evolved, but our orders remained the same: Hunt them down and kill them off, one by one. A most successful campaign. Perhaps too successful. For those like me, a Death Dealer, this signaled the end of an era. Like the weapons of the previous century, we, too, would become obsolete. Pity, because I lived for it. " "Look at this mess." "A.G. rounds, high content. Prevented him from making the change."

Curtis Armstrong Joaquin Phoenix Jared Leto Brent Spiner Alan Tudyk Lennie Weinrib Ted Knight Frank Welker Kevin Michael Richardson Jeff Bennett James Patrick Stewart John DiMaggio

No, but I would love to see Brent Spiner and Alan Tudyk attempt to play "Johnny Cash" sometime.

This is NOT a "Twilight" movie.

While I agree that the things he did were antithetical to God's will (and would push one AWAY from God rather than drawing one CLOSER to God), I'm doubtful he was EVER close to God. His decision to get into preaching was as a career move, not as a calling. His neighbors thought it was ridiculous- he'd earned a reputation as a showoff, a braggart, a bully. His first 2 years as a preacher were punctuated- according to him- with him considering quitting. That's TWICE in the first TWO YEARS. He could deliver a sermon, but it wasn't until the first year of doing so was over that he even considered the idea that the Bible was God's Word. (What was he basing the sermons ON for a year?) He had a history of editing the work of other Christians. The rise of his speaking some things people consider excellent or more can be traced directly to his exposure to the writings of Bullinger, the book by Stiles, and the class of Leonard. In fact, the things he said that were considered noteworthy were all taken directly from those 3 sources. (There were other sources with more minor influences like Kenyon.) He put forth that he was getting all this from God Almighty and that he was going solely to the Bible as his textbook and his workbook, as he said many times. One interesting result of repeating aloud the contents of the works of others was the occasional inability to understand something, and repeating it incorrectly, then changing later and saying something completely different. From Bullinger, he got "all without exception" and "all without distinction", and later "all without exception" and "all with A distinction." His explanations of the differences between other (allos) and other (heteros) were inconsistent for the same reason. According to the pfal class, "anabolepto" means to physically witness- but in the book, "eidon" means to physically witness. For a man who supposedly JUST read the Bible for hundreds of hours a week, he still managed to get confused on who Paul heard say he "almost persuaded to be a Christian." He couldn't remember if it was Felix or Festus. He couldn't pick from either because it was neither- it was AGRIPPA who said it. Why did vpw sound convincing while saying stuff that sounded like it had such good substance? He plagiarized entirely the works of those who taught good substance. His only skill there was in preaching it. vpw could take a speech and make it sound heartfelt and personally meaningful even if he didn't believe it nor understood it. Actors do much the same. Any actor worth the name can take something, and recite it, and emote it fully with no connection to the content. There's one exercise where a couple had a romantic scene- where the dialogue was entirely composed of a supermarket shopping list, recited romantically. I'm hardly a noted actor, and I once emoted a speech where the content was a recipe. It's a skill among actors, and among politicians. Con artists can have it also. vpw sold the whole picture after assembling it- that he was a real man of God. We bought it because he was convincing- and partly because others we trusted bought it before us. So, I don't think vpw HAD a connection with God to be disconnected FROM. I think he was emoting and imitating the connections of valid Christians, and filling in the rest with empty showmanship. He'd pause, then claim he'd gotten revelation on something. He'd hide his sources of information, and insinuate/ suggest they were all by revelation. It was all part of the con.

Curtis Armstrong Joaquin Phoenix Jared Leto Brent Spiner Alan Tudyk Lennie Weinrib

"It is the oldest story in the book- he desires the one thing he cannot have." "You may have killed me, cousin, but my will is done, regardless!" "We have to get the bullets out quickly, or they end up dying on us during questioning. " "What happens to them afterward?" "We put the bullets back in." "There is a good reason why these rules were created, and they are the only reason we have survived this long! " "We were ambushed. Death Dealers; three of them. " " And the candidate?" "We lost him." "You lost him?" "Why are you helping me?" "I'm not. I'm helping me." "Jump." "Are you f***ing kidding me?" "Calm yourself, Kraven. The human doesn't concern you. Besides, I've laid low for long enough." "Just keep your men at bay, Lucian, at least for the time being. Don't make me have to regret our arrangement." "You just concentrate on your part. Remember, I've bled for you once already. Without me, you'd have nothing. You'd *be* nothing." "You know why I have been awakened, servant?" "No, my lord, but I will soon find out." "You mean - when you find her? "Yes, my lord." "You must let her come to me. We have much to discuss, Selene and I. She has shown me a great many disturbing things. Things that will be *dealt* with soon enough. This covern has grown weak, decadent. Perhaps I should have left someone else in charge of my affairs. Still, her memories are chaotic. There is no sense of time." "Please, my lord, let me summon assistance. You are in need of rest." "I have rested enough. What you will do is summon Marcus." "But he still slumbers, my lord. Amelia and the council members are arriving tomorrow night to awaken Marcus - not you, my lord. You have been awakened a full century ahead of schedule."

I suspect so. It would be enough for me. Actually, I would have gotten it from the quote about the bullets.

While I can't say I agree on ALL points, I agree with Mark that a lot of the doctrine was adapted from Greco-Roman mythology, of shades in the underworld, tortured for eternity. I agree with him and Rob Bell that I don't buy the idea that lots of humanity will be (or are) tortured for centuries or forever. I don't see that squaring the the Bible, and I don't see that squaring with God's M.O. There was a quote, attributed to Mark Twain, where he supposedly didn't agree with it, either. It's one thing to destroy a villain, it is another to punish for a time during his sentence, but to torture forever made no sense to him. (I just don't see "eternal torture for humanity" working on paper.)

The sad thing is, if vpw had spoken sincerely and from the heart when he said that, it would have been a really good thing. He directed people to read Ephesians 6, starting at verse 10. He read aloud, misreading aloud so everyone reading along could catch the distinction. " 'Finally, my brethren, be strong in vp wierwille." *group 'no'* "Say it LOUDER!" *group 'NO!'* "That's right. You're not strong in vp wierwille. Many of you may have heard God's Word from me, but I didn't die for you." *shout from offside that sounded like VF* "IT WAS JESUS CHRIST!" "You said it, man!" Then vpw criticized people who say to look at this or that leader. "I look at The Word, baby!" Sadly, all of that was show. vpw wanted us to look to vpw, but when the microphones were on, he knew to say the opposite. Who would possibly believe the accounts of the victims, of the abused, when vpw said the opposite IN PUBLIC? Who would imagine vpw could be such a Grade A Hypocrite that he could do that all the time? It sounds ridiculous, and if there wasn't so much testimony from so many witnesses and so many victims, it might not be possible to accept that vpw did it. vpw SO deluded himself into thinking he was "THE Man of God" that- when he was in his final hours of life, he wracked his brain, looking for how he could somehow have "missed it" and failed God so he couldn't Super-Believe into instant health. He looked back on his life, and was unable to find anything sufficient. That was all for himself, alone. Now, THAT'S quite a level of delusion.

IIRC, Stanley Kubrick did "Full Metal Jacket." Since this was a different director, how about we go with "PLATOON?"

"It is the oldest story in the book- he desires the one thing he cannot have." "You may have killed me, cousin, but my will is done, regardless!" "We have to get the bullets out quickly, or they end up dying on us during questioning. " "What happens to them afterward?" "We put the bullets back in." "There is a good reason why these rules were created, and they are the only reason we have survived this long! " "We were ambushed. Death Dealers; three of them. " " And the candidate?" "We lost him." "You lost him?" "Why are you helping me?" "I'm not. I'm helping me." "Jump." "Are you f***ing kidding me?" "Calm yourself, Kraven. The human doesn't concern you. Besides, I've laid low for long enough." "Just keep your men at bay, Lucian, at least for the time being. Don't make me have to regret our arrangement." "You just concentrate on your part. Remember, I've bled for you once already. Without me, you'd have nothing. You'd *be* nothing."

It's the difference between watching a cooking show, and cooking dinner. It's the difference between watching a show about helping someone, and going out to help someone. You're taking an active role in your own life- something contrary to twi and R&R. Feel subversive? Feel more powerful?

In case anyone cares, Mike (a poster who all but worshipped vpw) claimed that AFTER that teaching, vpw's "REAL" last teaching was "The Joy of Service." The "the Joy of Service Transcript" has been posted here twice (posted by dmiller, reposted by me) and can be found if anyone cares enough. It was a verbose COMMERCIAL for twi. BTW, anyone who wants a quick summary of the main points of that entire transcript, it's simple. I said it before: "Serving people is important for Christians. Therefore, master all three levels of PFAL and serve them that. There are no answers outside the Way Ministry." (The end,) My initial response to it was that this was the closing remarks of a man with an overinflated sense of his organization, and an underinflated sense of all Christians outside that organization.

We saw the Epicureans and the Stoics in Acts briefly- where the Epicureans felt the key to happiness was to indulge freely, and the Stoics thought the key to enlightenment was to deny the flesh and all worldly pleasures. We were never told to follow EITHER as an example, or that EITHER was recommended or even a good idea. However, it seems like some people will always think the key to spirituality will be to completely deny the flesh. It hasn't worked yet in all of history, so I doubt it's going to start working now.

Some years ago, I read a news story about Afghanistan. There's some super-repressive sub-culture there that doesn't allow pre-marital sex, but it also doesn't allow flirting or, apparently, even MEETING the opposite sex. It seemed obvious that they were attempting to prevent pre-marital sex, but in the process, they disallowed even conversation or being in the vicinity of each other. One side-effect was unexpected, at least by me. With a complete vacuum of women in any manner whatsoever in their lives, some of the men were paying some adolescent (teen) boys to dress up as women and, basically, pretend to be women. The boys got attention and got gifts. They also got molested. Rather than provoke outrage, it seemed like their society was used to it and didn't see any problems with it. I'm not saying this EXACT thing happens whenever ALL sex is disallowed and marriage is not allowed (de facto like in Afghanistan or de jure like the RCC clergy), but there certainly seems to be correlations between people doing stuff like this and marriage and every single form of sex is disallowed.

"It is the oldest story in the book- he desires the one thing he cannot have." "You may have killed me, cousin, but my will is done, regardless!" "We have to get the bullets out quickly, or they end up dying on us during questioning. " "What happens to them afterward?" "We put the bullets back in." "There is a good reason why these rules were created, and they are the only reason we have survived this long! " "We were ambushed. Death Dealers; three of them. " " And the candidate?" "We lost him." "You lost him?" "Why are you helping me?" "I'm not. I'm helping me." "Jump." "Are you f***ing kidding me?"

It's nothing like "Boys From Brazil". It isn't apocalyptic, but it may or may not be considered SF, depending on who you ask.

I'm going to agree that- if one CAN practice celibacy as part of an overall picture to dedicate one's entire life to serving God- that it shouldn't be discouraged. I also agree that candidates for the priesthood go in knowing the sacrifices and the difficulties. On the other hand, it's also true that, historically, we've seen that instituting it as international church-wide led to difficulties, primarily that of "we're not staying celibate" in previous centuries, and in this century with molestations. "If you can't be chaste, at least be careful" was a saying among the "celibate" priests in one European country at one time. Mind you, we've seen quite a bit of this preserved in history- and we know the RCC can keep some secrets so there's almost certainly plenty that slipped between the cracks of recorded history and/or was hidden by the RCC. So, I don't think that making this a requirement across ALL the clergy- and needing local clergy worldwide who have to follow it- is practical. As history has shown us, they broke the vow of celibacy one way or another, and the present is no different. As for those who didn't break it, we're looking at priests who left because they wanted to start a family, lots of candidates who never BECAME priests because they wanted families, and- as one priest said on the subject- a high rate of drinking problems among the celibate clergy as they struggle to remain celibate. Right now, if they clear out ALL the non-celibates including ALL the molesters, the number of priests would drop- and they're at a low rate of candidacy as it is. So, history has shown us that the required celibacy largely does not work, and it causes pious Catholics to refuse to consider the clergy solely because of that "DISCIPLINE." The RCC REQUIRES parish priestS (plural) in local churches EVERYWHERE since they are the only ones who can consecrate the Eucharist. If you require a purge of all that really can't remain celibate, then you'll have many local parishes unable to function as churches because they can't hold a mass or have Penance! To me, this suggests 2 possibilities: 1) remove the mandatory requirement of the "DISCIPLINE" of celibacy on priests, allowing for non-celibate candidates of good conscience to fulfill the role of priest 2) expand the deaconate to allow deacons to fulfill all the required functions of priests in a parish (consecration, penance, etc), allowing for the non-celibate deacons of good conscience to serve as the RCC needs The RCC needs more people to fulfill the functions of priests- and the lack of priests is increasing. Either they can allow more people to become priests, or allow the functions of priests to pass to other pious servants of the church. I don't see a third option that addresses the need for more people to fulfill the functions of priests. If you see one- one that actually allows those functions to be fulfilled and not leave parishes bereft of a local leader- then please outline it.