WordWolf

TLC: "I lean towards the belief that everyone worships/serves one sort of god or another, regardless of who or what they call it, even if it appears to be nothing more than themselves. Frankly, I don't know that it's possible not to. However, seems fundamental ignorance of who or what anyone serves or is captivated by (or addicted to, if you prefer) is also very commonplace." Raf: ""I lean towards the belief that everyone worships/serves one sort of god or another, regardless of who or what they call it, even if it appears to be nothing more than themselves." Yeah, this isn't true. This is what religious people tell themselves to project their behavior onto those who do not share their beliefs. The problem becomes, they expand the definition of "worship" beyond sensible meaning, then accuse non-worshippers of idolatry because they put some other priority above the worship of a god. So if I put "earning a living" above "God," then I worship work or money. I mean, FINE, if you want to torture the definition of the word "worship." People generally don't worship themselves (certain high profile exceptions notwithstanding). Why is it so hard to accept the notion that some people don't "worship" anything? That you can admire something without worshiping it. That something can be a priority in your life without being a "god" to you?" TLC "It's truer than you think, Raf. Regardless of whether or not you care to admit it, you obey and serve yourself. " Raf: "Just because you have an imaginary friend doesn't mean I worship myself in his place." WordWolf: "I think Raf would stipulate to "obeying and serving himself." Acting in his own self-interest and listening to himself and doing what he himself says, I don't think that's much of a stretch to agree to. (Or, you know, agreeing he eats breakfast or something.)  However, that being said, that's NOT the same as "worship." " "For Raf to actually "worship" himself, he'd need to devote a lot of time to himself personally, and obsess over himself, with personal details of his physical person or history or some other aspect/s of his life. I'm pretty sure he doesn't have TIME for any of that nonsense, and doesn't feel the lack of it (i.e. "If I only had more time, I could devote more of it to myself, for I certainly deserve it!" ) So, to say he worships himself is a lot like saying he prays to himself when never prays to anyone or anything. (I'm making the assumption he's not praying to any (-one or -thing). So, I would find that factually incorrect. (Unless, say, someone found him making an altar to himself or something.) Adding "Regardless of whether or not you care to admit it" was somewhat inflammatory. If it was added to a true statement, it's adding an unnecessary bite to a cold fact. Since it was added to an incorrect statement, it compounded a mistake with a shot- whether that was intended or not. " TLC: "So, after plainly opining I think Raf would stipulate to "obeying and serving himself," you're now going to turn around and call my same statement of that incorrect? Care to explain that, WW?" WW responds:I didnt think it would be necessary, but I'll explain it once more. 'You claimed he "worshiped himself", and it's clear that any fair definition of the word "worship" would not apply here- neither direct prayers from him to himself, nor a deep adoration of himself. So, neither a de jure nor a de facto usage of "worship" applies here. As to what it could mean to say he obeyed and served himself, I compared it to saying he ate breakfast. As I already said, everyone serves himself to a degree, and anyone not doing that is probably off in a monastery of some kind, renouncing the world and all fun. Everyone obeys himself also- nobody makes decisions without some listening to himself as to what he wants, what he thinks is a good idea, and so on. Jesus made the same comparison when he spoke a parable about a wealthy man communicating with his "soul", He obviously was doing what we might now call "engaging in self-reflection." But, again, doing both is not the same as "worship" by any reasonable usage of the word "worship", neither when he does either or both, nor when you do neither or both, nor when I do either or both. So, the claim he "worshiped himself" was incorrect, and the statement he "obeyed and served himself" was non-informative. It's like accusing him of buying things or getting up in the morning. So, I didn't claim that part was factually incorrect. The "worship" thing definitely was. TLC: "And for the record, I never accused Raf (or anyone else) of worshiping anything - though evidently, he was exceedingly quick to presume what I wrote meant that, and in such haste to be offended, missed entirely the basic meaning and heartfelt message of what was really said (and intended.) Fact is, there was a purpose (which seems to have eluded others here) for my writing worship/serve in that post, as I am well aware that servitude doesn't necessarily equate to worship. But if you, or anyone else, finds and takes what I wrote to be rude, then so be it. I am more than done with this. (And as rude as Raf takes others to be, he is surely no less rude himself.) " WW responds:You SAID as much. You said everyone worshiped something or someone. When Raf disagreed, you said that he was incorrect, and that he "obeyed and served himself" and left it at that, with no attempts whatsoever to distinguish that from what he objected to- your claim that everyone (including him) worships and serves something. Your communication was clear enough- by saying that he "obeyed and served himself", you were equating that with "worshiping" himself. When the time came to distinguish what you said from that meaning, you made no effort to do so. Either through intent (INSINUATING it and meaning to say it while pretending you didn't mean it), or through laziness (you didn't mean it, but you didn't bother to explain when the time came) , that is the message you communicated. That's why posters with completely different opinions came away with the same message from your posts. (Seriously, do you think Raf and I see eye-to-eye concerning worship, of all things?) Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't intend to insinuate what you meant (we've had dishonest posters who did that before), you miscommunicated what you MEANT to communicate. A refusal to take responsibility for that doesn't change that, nor does it absolve you from that responsibility, nor does it make you look like it was really an honest mistake. But hey, your decision. Rocky: "Stated another way, "which purpose I apparently did not make adequately clear to readers." It is my view that responsibility for clarity of communication resides almost exclusively with the writer... not that I think you were being rude." WW responds:That was directed to TLC. Different posters with radically different opinions all came away with the same message from his posts. The obvious conclusion is that is what TLC communicated, whether by accident or otherwise. If it was by accident, TLC should be more careful to communicate what he means, and to NOT communicate what he does NOT mean. Any chance everyone can move to a neutral corner and take a breath, maybe a brisk walk around the block a few times, or box the old punching bag or something?

That's the show, starring P- no, that was an urban myth, the actor was Richard W. Van Dyke. Raf's turn!

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall take flak from both sides."- "Unofficial motto of the U.N." Ok, here's where I step in and see if I can get both sides to agree on something. (Yes, probably to agree I should shut up, but at least that's agreeing on something....) I think Raf would stipulate to "obeying and serving himself." Acting in his own self-interest and listening to himself and doing what he himself says, I don't think that's much of a stretch to agree to. (Or, you know, agreeing he eats breakfast or something.) However, that being said, that's NOT the same as "worship." In the Middle Ages, there were plenty of people who swore oaths of fealty to those above them in the social order, who did so in good faith. None of them (none of the sane ones) actually WORSHIPED their sovereigns, kings, lords, etc. They did obey them and served them. For that matter, any loyal employee who works directly for someone will likely obey them (do what they're told to do) and serve them (act in their best interest.) I worked directly for an attorney once, in his private office. I was not a perfect employee, but whenever I understood things clearly, I obeyed and served him. In fact, I think he was surprised to what degree I did so honestly, with no need to check if I cheated him (which I did not.) So, that's something. That attorney never would have entertained the notion that I actually WORSHIPED him no matter who said it. He knew I didn't (and he knew who I worshiped, for that matter.) The word "worship" is a pretty extreme word. It could be argued that certain people really DO worship themselves, but those would be incredibly narcissistic people who really obsess over themselves specifically. More technical terms which could apply to a person might be "adoration" or "homage" or things along that line. An old Simpsons video showed Bart at a heavy metal concert, giving "the devil's salute" and hailing an image of the devil. Someone saw that with me and said that Bart worshiped the devil at that point. I clarified that he wasn't worshiping, but he was paying homage, and that it's a fine distinction that a lawyer would care about ("it's a lawyer-ish distinction" were the exact words I used.) There are people who use the word "worship" nowadays to mean "adoration" or lavishing attention on another person. They'll insist it's a correct term, but that's not a standard usage of the word outside of their circles. For Raf to actually "worship" himself, he'd need to devote a lot of time to himself personally, and obsess over himself, with personal details of his physical person or history or some other aspect/s of his life. I'm pretty sure he doesn't have TIME for any of that nonsense, and doesn't feel the lack of it (i.e. "If I only had more time, I could devote more of it to myself, for I certainly deserve it!" ) So, to say he worships himself is a lot like saying he prays to himself when never prays to anyone or anything. (I'm making the assumption he's not praying to any (-one or -thing). So, I would find that factually incorrect. (Unless, say, someone found him making an altar to himself or something.) Adding "Regardless of whether or not you care to admit it" was somewhat inflammatory. If it was added to a true statement, it's adding an unnecessary bite to a cold fact. Since it was added to an incorrect statement, it compounded a mistake with a shot- whether that was intended or not. I'm hoping we can agree to that, and everyone can take a brisk walk around the block, and type in a more calm manner. I think we're all capable of that, but it remains to be seen how many adults in the room would agree to that part if nothing else. and move on.

But it is by the Eagles- it's "LYING EYES." (I listen to their Greatest Hits every once in a great while.)

This goes back to "why do people join cults?" People never join a cult- they start associating with some people, and the associations become inclusive, making them one of US rather than one of THEM, and then the rules slowly move in, and then one day, the person's in a cult. People keep being shocked how much they liked hanging out with people in twi, with no rules chaining them, and then, years later, how the rules slowly creeped in to choke the life out of them.

No. Although this was also a black-and-white show, I don't think Jackie Gleason ever appeared on it. Oddly enough, he inspired the personality of one of the characters, though! It was also a scripted show, not a variety show of any kind.

Ok, next movie.... Michael Clarke Duncan Temuera Morrison Geoffrey Rush Tim Robbins Angela Bassett

Sean Connery Avengers Uma Thurman

Yeah, we're good. BTW, "Marrakesh Express" is fairly well-known, so it was on us for not recognizing it. Myself, I know the tune and the chorus, but didn't know the rest of the song despite sufficient airplay. THIS song has gotten a LOT more airplay. It's also on the artists' "Greatest Hits". So, it shouldn't be TOO hard to recognize. (Unless some younguns show up and wonder if we're going to post any Rob Zombie or something.)

So, who is it that really draws "First Blood" in the book?

The show's theme song was instrumental, but an actor on the show did write words for the music. Here's the lyrics: "So you think that you've got troubles? Well, trouble's a bubble So tell old Mr. Trouble to get lost! Why not hold your head up high and Stop cryin', start tryin' And don't forget to keep your fingers crossed. When you find the joy of livin' Is lovin' and givin' You'll be there when the winning dice are tossed. A smile is just a frown that's turned upside down So smile, and that frown will defrost. And don't forget to keep your fingers crossed " This show ran for 5 years and got 15 Emmys. TV Guide rated it #13 on Greatest Shows of All Time, with one of its episodes ranking #8 on their Best Episodes of All Time. The 1.0 version of the show, an unsuccessful pilot, was titled "Head of the Family." Jamie Farr appeared 4 times playing a character in season 1.

BTW, the current song is definitely not "Witchy Woman." :)

I can look up anything I want, anytime I want. If I try to answer a round in a thread based on looking something up, however, that's a different thing entirely- THAT is cheating. (I also think it's fair to ask Mrs Wolf if I think she knows something, but she already knows that I do NOT want HER looking it up because that would be the same cheating. And if she gets the answer, I credit her with answering it since she doesn't log in here that much. It's a standard practice here that the person giving the clues should look things up to give correct clues. However, no guesser should look them up. If a guesser looks it up, he has given up answering and disqualified himself from answering. I usually announce when I do that, since that means I can't try and answer the round anymore. As for "googling in 3 days", that's for the Triple Movie Links thread, since we go from link to link. Other threads just get another round going.

"Have you heard of this guy" is not doctrinal, but "Have you heard of this guy who was big in promoting this doctrinal practice" is doctrinal, as is any discussion of "this guy" because it's not going to be about where he grew up or something, but rather about his doctrinal practice.

FYI, vpw (victor paul wierwille) organized twi (the way international) to run at a profit at every level- money was a big motivator for him privately, although he'd never admit it if asked. When he wanted a training program, he didn't waste any money on training programs, he guessed he could fake it- so he did. He had small cells set up for people to live in (tiny dorm rooms replaced shared RVs, although twi has both now) and retaught all the twi classes, and added lots of physical labor (an unpaid labor force that actually paid HIM!). There was some other stuff occasionally dropped in. Since vpw had no experience in training programs, leadership programs, or anything related, don't expect they learned much about REAL leadership. What they did have official training in... One of the Corps people took the Dale Carnegie Sales training course. vpw plagiarized ALL the content and retaught it to the corps. No, he did not pay their legally-mandated licensing fee for their copyrighted materials. No, he did not get them any OTHER training. They were a trained SALES FORCE, to sell twi and its classes to the masses. But, of course, that was never STATED. It's just what was done. What was stated was always something more in keeping with Biblical Christianity. However, as vpw himself said, if you take a jar of pickles, and you label it "apple butter", that doesn't change the pickles on the inside. So, running a profit with the Corps. Since he began by asking lots of money from broke young people, he instituted a system to get them to pool their money. Each Corps candidate had to beg others in twi for a pledge of money to pay their tuitiion. "Spiritual partners" or "Corps Sponsors", they were called, rather than "pigeons." Yes, the ROA was an annual event, eventually relocated to HQ. It welcomed the returning WOWs at the beginning, sent off the new WOWs at the end, and in between had music and stuff. There was official stuff, but the unofficial, just meeting people and so on, was usually better than the official stuff. The WOWs were "Word Over the World Ambassadors", in effect the missionary program. Usually, they were sent for a year to another location in the US, in groups of 4, to run pfal classes and run home fellowships that, hopefully, would continue after they left a few months later. (Sometimes it was another country, but that was rare.) The forum "GREASESPOT 101" has threads that explain all the jargon, at least in a basic way.

The lyrics were NOT used on the show. The show used an instrumental theme, for which someone wrote lyrics that did not actually appear in the show.

*checks* I've neither heard of this song nor its artist before.

Can we get a moderator to airlift this doctrinal discussion and drop it off in Doctrinal?

As to the thread, I expected it to go to Doctrinal, I mentioned Doctrinal as the place to discuss the subject, in fact, and suggested starting a new thread there- but the same thread could just be moved. As for the family thing, that's a shame. I also can't see eye-to-eye with anything like what they said. I thought that the moment of reflection during the invocation was a fair way to cover equal time, since that can be done respectfully and reverently, which, I imagine, is how an invocation like that is supposed to go no matter who makes it. Then again, it should be flexible enough to cover, say, Hindu, Muslim, Jainist, etc as well as Humanist, etc. Either that or show flexibility by dropping the formal prayer and just getting to the work for which they were elected.

I think a discussion of "why healings and miracles" and/or why not could make for an interesting discussion in Doctrinal. (That's no guarantee it WOULD, but it might make for one.)

Here's the lyrics to this show's theme song: "So you think that you've got troubles? Well, trouble's a bubble So tell old Mr. Trouble to get lost! Why not hold your head up high and Stop cryin', start tryin' And don't forget to keep your fingers crossed. When you find the joy of livin' Is lovin' and givin' You'll be there when the winning dice are tossed. A smile is just a frown that's turned upside down So smile, and that frown will defrost. And don't forget to keep your fingers crossed "

So, the title is really a misnomer, if he neither kills before anyone else, nor at all?

A Time to Kill Samuel L. Jackson Avengers- Infinity War

(Actually, it was how God provided for THE OTHER GUY. I was the guy who offered him a ride and a place to stay when he needed it.)

Yes. IF the Bible is right, its SIT, Interpretation and prophecy are supernatural. If it IS right, that's no guarantee what we taught was the same thing- if not, there's NO reason to think it IS supernatural. If the Bible is wrong, then there's no reason to think that the Bible's version or the twi version are supernatural. All of that pending further information. I mean, if it turned out that the Bible was wrong but there was some modern thing that was supernatural ANYWAY, it would remain to be seen that it was- and that would take quite a bit of proof in its corner, not just convictions.