WordWolf

Wild swing- "Kingsman"???

Chick flick? Wild swing- "Jerry McGuire"??

Sorry I'm late, it's been a rough week. George was correct. The giveaway was "Mr Lawrence" distracted at seeing Daniel and Miyagi enter the dojo. John Kreese was shouting at his students like he was a drill instructor.

I have started addressing this subject/these subjects in the thread, " What Happened in Genesis 1?" https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/25660-what-happened-in-genesis-1/ Time permitting, I will continue addressing it/them.

The position that the " creative days" refers to periods of time is a position that has some thinking behind it. After all, the Bible does speak, at times, of a " day" not as a period of 12-24 hours, but as an event. (" I was in the spirit on the Lord's day..." ) According to this position, Genesis 1:1 is an overview, and the rest of the chapter is exposition. There's a flat statement that God created the heavens and Earth, and then a partial breakdown of how He did it. Any such description will be " partial" and will leave out things that are not germane to the account. If we were doing a scientific breakdown, Genesis 1 would probably be longer than our modern Bible, and it would only be understandable now. ANY account of anything focuses on specific things, and leaves out things that seem not to matter to that specific account at that time. (" Tell me everything that's happened." " Well, first the earth cooled. Then the dinosaurs came. But they got too big and fat. So, they died and turned into oil. Then the Arabs came, and they bought Mercedes-Benzes...") So, there's a breakdown. First, Genesis 1:3 gives us the " creation" of energy. Then Genesis 1:5 gives us linear time. Genesis 1:7-10 gives us the " creation" of what we consider the Earth (including the atmosphere, etc.) Then Genesis 1:11-12 gives us plant life, " whose seed is in itself, after its kind". An interesting description, considering what we now know about plant life. Thousands of years later, Gregor Mendel originated the science of genetics, and made much the same observations about " kind". Well, I think it's interesting, at least. Genesis 1:14-19 give us some verses on atmosphere, astronomy, and things along those lines. Genesis 1:20 gives us aquatic life, and avian life- in that order, again, after their kind. If I were an atheist scientist, I might find it interesting that the Bible actually had the order right- plant life, then aquatic life, then avian life, all without archeologists providing the text. For a guess, it's a remarkable SPECIFIC guess and it's correct. (Or I might not. Since I'm not an atheist scientist, I can't speak reliably to what they think.) Genesis 1:24-25 gives us the land animals, later than the aquatic and avian life, also after their kinds. Finally, man appears in the account. Considering how " creation myths" go, it almost sounds scientific in description. I've read a story of how coyote " created" man and tricked all the other animals in doing so. That sounded like a tall tale in a manner this does not. (Of course, someone can disagree, and I am, admittedly, biased in favor of the Bible, so that can color my opinions, certainly.) To someone who considers this the correct understanding of the account, there's a lot to say in its favor. It matches the observations of scientists. It matches a reading of the Bible. Both seem to proceed in a linear fashion together. It's a sensible method that doesn't require any outside aid to support it, but it supports outside understanding. So, that's one position. I'll get to the other as soon as I can.

One of the things I find interesting about Genesis 1 is what it says, and how there's room for it to be understood more than one way. Although I like science, I do NOT currently hold to the position- taught by twi- that the Bible is meant to teach us science. I think the Bible was meant to give the plan of salvation and give light to the simple. I don't think it was meant as a scientific textbook that would have been opaque to readers for thousands of years until relatively recently, when we learned enough science collectively to understand it. Obviously, then, one question would be, what's Genesis 1 for, anyway? As I see it (this is my opinion, and, for the argumentative out there, I'm pointing it out because it's an opinion and not the last word on a subject), the Bible is meant to give us some basic ideas. In the case of Genesis 1, there's plenty to explain to us here, in terms of " WHY are we here" and " why is religion the way it is after Genesis" and so on. I think it speaks more to PURPOSE than to the exact MECHANICS of " HOW we are here." There's a creation, and there's a Creator. That's critical to understanding. One thing I find interesting about the specifics of the "days" is how different this account is from "creation myths". In some religions, we get a giant dismembered, and the giant's body parts are disassembled and made into the Earth. Others match this in colorful descriptions. They're interesting, but I find they lean heavily towards the fanciful. Is the Genesis 1 account similar? It is similar that it is an account of things happening, that are done by a God, and that they are big and miraculous. They differ heavily in how mundane they are. There's energy, then matter, then lower forms of life, then larger forms of life, and man shows up at the end. What a boring account compared to some of the others! Now, I find the next 2 positions I will address to be interesting, and I think that both offer much to consider for Christians who examine them, including those who disagree with a position. With one, we will discuss the " creative days" as periods of time, and with the other, " the gap theory" which most of us heard in twi. (Since I have a life outside this board, I doubt I will have time to run through all of this now, and will probably have to come back to do these topics justice.)

Among Christians, there's any number of beliefs about the events in Genesis 1, with a number of justifications about the different positions. I'm going to try to run through the basics of the ones with which I am familiar, without making a "Thou must agree with me" on the subject. I know what I believe and why, but there's room to disagree, and, from what I've observed, discussions on these subjects tend to start with one position and just wave away all the others with a dismissive insult. I'll try not to do that. (If I fail at that, sorry.) ===================================== Now, then, one thing I want to mention is that one division is whether or not the Earth is old, and how that affects our reading of the Bible. Whichever position someone holds doesn't determine whether they believe or not- there's people of faith holding all positions. I've noticed that "young earth Creationists" tend to be dismissive of anything else- as if to say otherwise indicates a lack of faith, and shut down discussions there. I don't think that science holds all the answers, but I think the OBSERVATIONS of science have much to teach us, whether or not we agree with any positions held by a scientist. Then again, scientists aren't required to believe in a religion allegedly from the Bible, and I am not required to believe in a philosophy allegedly based on science alone (whether or not it's actually anything of the kind.) Regardless, I'm not prepared to completely wave away actual scientific observations no matter what conclusions are drawn by people after me. In this particular case, I'm referring to the age of the Earth. To all competent scientific observation, the Earth APPEARS very old. I'm not concerned as to the exact numbers, and different measures may suggest different numbers, and over time spans that huge, it's no wonder. Some people use that as an excuse to dismiss what's observed, which is a shame. So, the Earth is observed to APPEAR to be very old. It may be in the millions of years, or billions of years, or trillions as far as I know and care. All I personally need to know is that it appears to be from a VERY long time ago. I'm aware that there are Christians out there that CLAIM the Earth is only a few THOUSAND years old. They base that entirely on a direct addition of all the ages of the men mentioned in the book of Genesis, then add 6-7 days for Creation, and call it a day. There's no guarantee we were MEANT to try to calculate the Earth's age this way. Further, people with this position who even address science after this tend to do so with either a misunderstanding of what's observed, or go along with what was written or said by someone whose grasp of science is notably weak. So, to young Earth Creationists, I would point out that there's at least 2 more positions held by Christians, and they are no less faithful to God than those who hide from scientific observations. So, the Earth can reliably said to APPEAR very old. This means that one of two things is true. Either A) The Earth is very old, or B) The Earth is not very old, but APPEARS so because it was created to appear so, it was created with the appearance of age. As to the second position, it's entirely a faith-based position, so there's not much to have to say about it. I will address that one first. We know that God Almighty certainly CAN create things in an advanced state, both in general and in specifics. In the miracle of the loaves and the fishes, the miracle produced fish that was ready-to-eat, not fish eggs nor tadpoles. So, to those of us who believe in God, this position is certainly possible. Its limitations are obviously its lack of limitations. It can't be PROVEN in any way. All observations will point to an older Earth, and a young Earth was designed to APPEAR so. This limits its contributions to discussions. It it's true, then it can't add much to the discussions. Again, it's entirely faith-based, not observation-based. Further, there's no verse that states it outright. So, for those who have faith, it's possible, but impossible to prove. All evidence to the contrary are evidence that also supports its existence. For a scientist, this is frustrating because it is not "falsifiable". That is, there's no way to figure out something, and say "if this is true, then that is false." There's also no evidence that exists that says this is definitively true. (Let me know if something irrefutable turns up like God's Message To His Creation or something, that might settle this one.) So, discussions often proceed that the Earth is old, and that Christians deny that, and that Christians don't know their science. Well, that can be said of certain Christians, but that does a disservice to other Christians. For the sake of discussion, I will skip further discussion on "young Earth created with an appearance of age" because there's nothing else to say about it, really. (Unless a verse shows up that settles the discussion among Christians, since no evidence will be able to do so short of a planetary miracle.) That means the Earth appears old, and I'll address the Christians who say as much. These Christians generally hold one of three positions concerning Genesis 1. 1) The Bible is unreliable, so I look to my church for what to believe. Genesis 1 doesn't matter. 2) The Bible is reliable, and the "days" are period of time in the stated order. 3) The Bible is reliable, and there is a large time-gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. I'm going to skip over the first position, as, again, it will add nothing to the discussion.

One of the great things about life post-twi is the options to look at different points of view, consider them in a healthy fashion, and form an opinion rather than have one handed to you. There's a number of thoughts on different positions with this, and many of them, IMHO, take cheap shots at opposing points of view. I'm not going to pronounce the absolute truth on the matter, but I feel free to outline the major positions and why they're held. However, I'm going to do that in a Doctrinal thread, and link the thread to here. I think this is a good enough subject to warrant its own thread that belongs in Doctrinal rather than a passing question that would sit in "About the Way." Although the Way- and what it teaches/taught is relevant to the discussion, I think the discussion is bigger than they are.

"We do not train to be merciful here. Mercy is for the weak. Here, in the streets, in competition. A man confronts you, he is the enemy. An enemy deserves no mercy what is the problem, Mr. Lawrence?"

".....thank God.... I mean, 'Get him'!" Superman II, with the Kryptonian escaped prisoners walking THROUGH walls and doors rather than just OPENING them at the Daily Planet newspaper.

A) The title is correct, and that's all this thread needs. B) Most people remember PAT BENATAR for singing it, but it HAS been covered by Joan Jett (and Kelly Clarkson.) So, your turn either way.

"I feel the need, the need for speed!"

Robert De Niro????

My post seems to have been eaten by cyberspace! I had posted the artist with the song, "Jefferson Airplane" with "WHITE RABBIT." https://www.cluedupp.com/pages/events-schedule When I went to play the "Alice in Wonderland" game, I found myself humming "White Rabbit" part of the time. The other part of the time, I was humming "Don't Come Around Here No More." (If you want to know why, watch the video, then you'll see.) (Now, let's see if it saves this time, now that I mentioned the other game.)

Not everybody would remember "BACK TO THE FUTURE" from this line, but I would.

"Well you're the real tough cookie with the long history, of breaking little hearts like the one in me."

"Ever since I was a young boy, I've played the silver ball."[/b]

"December 1963 (Oh, What a Night)".

Street Fighter Jean Claude Van Damme The Expendables 2

I was not privy to the exact discussion. (I might have been laughing too hard to help if I HAD been in the room when that was discussed.) Paw did agree to post their response. I'll see about finding a link when I'm up to it.

We're discussing this lately.

SIMILAR riff, but not identical. I could easily tell them apart by those riffs. A lot of songs sound a lot like another song, or like another artist's style, but aren't identical. The band "Texas" did a song that had a moment that sounded like they were going to segue into Marvin Gaye's "Sexual Healing." Another band did a song, and, when it aired, both me and the DJ said "That's Billy Idol's "Flesh for Fantasy" being ripped off". That one might have been intentional.

Whenever vpw visited a place, they assigned people to buy his creature comforts out of pocket (like bottles of Drambuie as one poster reported- their first experience buying alcohol.) On top of everything else, they took up collections of nice, untraceable cash which was handed over to vpw in a bag. I'm sure he was happy not to report that to the IRS. He also made no secret that he could-and did- go to the twi treasurer whenever he felt like he needed some cash, and got it. ALSO, a LOT of things owned by twi were reserved for his SOLE use, and he called them "MY STUFF." If there is a "special hell" for child molesters and people who talk in the theater, I hope vpw gets imprisoned in its worst part.

Someone reported that vpw smashed it up, and it was repaired all hush-hush. There was a different story about vpw planning on motorcycle riding throughout the USA. I think he made a few stops, to lots of fanfare and fuss, and then it was quietly dropped. IIRC, LIfe Magazine covered twi, and Time Magazine covered vpw a year later. The Life Magazine article was called "the Groovy Christians of Rye." It was about the WOWs posted to Rye, NY. I think the locals wanted to make them sound like nuts, but the article made them sound more together than the locals who criticized them. A year later, Time covered some religious leaders, and vpw sounded like a nut. There was a photo of vpw with a motorcycle there. I JUST started wondering if that was related in any way. I doubt it, since the article was around 1971 (give or take a year).