WordWolf

That's Tilda Swinton, isn't it? I'm reasonably sure that was her in Dr Strange, at least.

"Hold it! You'd never last five minutes in a New York subway!" *WHAM* *WHAM* "Now, THAT's how it's done!" You go find a doctor. Get me Dr. Kildare. Get me Dr. Livingston. Get me Dr. Frankenstein. Just get me a doctor!"

"Evenings in Ecru Corduroy."

Semi-digression: Sometimes, I think about "language barriers." Those are where people don't share a language in common. In some cases, the confusion is in the lack of a corresponding word, a word that conveys the EXACT same thing. So, it's really an IDEA barrier. When it comes to idea barriers, I often think that when people "get" each other, very few words of an explanation need be given-if any explanation need be given at all. (Consider the married couple who automatically act to work on the same thing before one asks the other to do so...) When trying to explain how people seem UNABLE to understand each other, I sometimes rely on the AD&D Alignment Graph. This works for me, sometimes, when simply referring to 2 people's possible "alignments"-with that left as the end of the sentence and explaining why they don't understand each other. You can draw the graphic yourself, with a box of 9 squares, with space to write in each square, as well as above and below the set of 9 boxes. Ok, once you draw the 9 equal boxes, write "GOOD" above the top, "EVIL" below the bottom, "LAWFUL" along the left, and "CHAOTIC" along the right. Next, to the 9 boxes. The upper left box is LAWFUL GOOD, the upper right box is "CHAOTIC GOOD." The lower left box is "LAWFUL EVIL," and the lower right box is "CHAOTIC EVIL." The upper middle box is "NEUTRAL GOOD." The lower middle box is "NEUTRAL EVIL." The leftmost middle box is "LAWFUL NEUTRAL." The rightmost middle box is "CHAOTIC NEUTRAL." (The center square is "True Neutral", which I think works in fiction but not so much in reality.) Lawful Goods think that the greatest benefit to the greatest number lies in following the rules and laws, which are made for their benefit and should be amended if that is not the case. Think Superman and Captain America. Neutral Goods think that the greatest benefit to the greatest number can sometimes lie with the rules-but if not, look the other way and get the job done outside the rules. Think classic Star Trek's James T Kirk (not the Abrams version.) Chaotic Goods think freedom means someone is freer to do good, and laws only shackle the ability to help. Think Robin Hood. Lawful Neutrals live according to an order and organization, and think that's more important than anything else in conduct. Think Jean-Luc Picard or Frank Martin the Transporter. Chaotic Neutrals think only about themselves and their personal freedom, and avoid all rules if they can. Think Jack Sparrow. Lawful Evils think of power, and rely on "the system" to work to their benefit. Think Saruman of Lord of the Rings, or Darth Vader or Emperor Palpatine (once he was Emperor.) Neutral Evils don't care about rules or ignoring them-so long as they benefit. Think Jafar from Disney's Aladdin. Chaotic Evils think of nothing but their personal freedom and using that to seize advantages over others, or doing them harm. Think Jason Voorhees, Freddy Krueger, Gollum. In those cases, ideas can be opaque when viewed from other parts of the graph. A Lawful Evil and a Neutral Good, for example, may not even be able to PICTURE how each other think, let alone empathize or agree. I tend to use that when explaining fiction-but people often think so differently that the same can be said of them. I've seen posters here (no current ones come to mind) that posted in discussions only to try to "trap"(their term) others in trick questions and score points in discussion- not to exchange ideas or put forth the most convincing position. I totally don't get that- and they obviously posted from a perspective elsewhere on the graph from me. Other people, I can understand even when I disagree-and that's possibly because I can understand their positions better-are we less far away on the graph? (Depends.) '' I got to thinking about it because I had an "obvious" (it was obvious to my thinking, which meant it was almost automatic) that there's an "obvious" answer to "why bother if there's no afterlife and there's only this life." Any "Lawful" might see a benefit to all from helping to keep society as a whole, and any "Good" might say that doing good for others and making their lives better is a goal in itself and a worthy accomplishment whether or not there's treasures in Heaven for it. It's just as "obvious" to some other people, I'd expect, that my points were useless nonsense. Well, it all depends on your place in the "idea spectrum."

As someone who's still a Christian, I found nothing in your posts to draw my interest-which is why I found nothing worth commenting on. What I found was some link-dumping (just a link with no real commentary), and some cheerful blurbing (boy howdy, this is some great stuff!) Since this is a DISCUSSION forum, I expect to actually DISCUSS things. People who show up with just links usually are members of an ex-twi group who are posting links to their ex-twi group....and sometimes they pretend they're not a member of the group. (On an unrelated Christian board, I once ran into a drive-by post by Jeff of CES who said, in effect, "Gee, I found this website with some unusual stuff on it. What do you guys think?" with a link to his own content from the CES website. I responded immediately and called him on it. He never replied. Either it was a true drive-by and he never visited again, or he cut his losses when he realized he was caught. So, your posts. They were vague comments about someone's content on YouTube. They didn't even have the direct links to the content. So, I would have had to look them up to find out about what you WEREN'T saying about it. On message-boards, playing coy (being vague and indirect) usually backfires in either the short or long-term. I don't know WHY you posted that way. I just know that it's a formula for keeping me DISinterested.

Reminds me of one often-repeated phrase that kept going around LEADERSHIP when "a Pivot Point in History" was disseminated, but before it was abandoned by that selfsame leadership. "What God knows, He knows. What God doesn't know, He doesn't know." In case you don't recognize it, that's an EVASION, and different people said it to me like it actually provided information. So, as you see it, that's what it means. What does THAT mean, and why is God Almighty limited to your definition?

We're looking at this from an entirely different question-which means, to me, your question phrases like a trick question. Isaiah 57:15a For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity Isaiah 46:9-11 9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: 11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it. So, we start from there. God "inhabits eternity" and "declares the end from the beginning." What does that mean, and what implications does that have on our concepts of God Almighty? Is God even Almighty? Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite. I John 3:20b God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. We have some parameters here concerning God's knowledge. He knows all things, and understands all things. He knows the end from the beginning and inhabits eternity. What does all of that mean together? The conclusion we've been drawing is that God Almighty is more than 3-dimensional. Rather than existing moment-to-moment as we do, He "inhabits eternity" by existing in each moment simultaneously, so to Him, there's a perpetual present (or past or future.) Events that are in the future to us are ancient history to Him. That is consistent with Him "inhabiting eternity", "knowing all things", having an "infinite understanding", and "declaring the end from the beginning." Other models with a lesser god lack an explanation that covers the verses.

I don't think we're going BACK, either. I believe we're going forward. I Corinthians 2:19 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. All of this history just to go back? I consider that inconsistent. (Of course, I may be wrong.)

He was rather clear and unambiguous about in his his 3-part tape set, "A Pivot Point in History. " Tape 2 said it twice, rather plainly. "If God put Adam in the Garden foreknowing, foreordaining Adam would sin, then he foreordained Adam's fall. If God did that, there would have to be darkness in Him." "If God foreknew-or forced or tracked or whatever you'd like to put as the word there" . He conflated foreknowing a thing (previous knowledge) with foreordaining a thing (forcing it to come to pass) twice right there. BTW, cg didn't do sns tapes, he did GWT tapes, remember? The relevance was this- when unable to distinguish between relatively simple concepts like "foreknow" and "foreordain", they slammed into the Time Magazine question I mentioned before. According to Time Magazine- which is NOT a reputed theological agency- it is possible to reconcile any 2 sayings but it is impossible to reconcile all three of the following: A) God is All-Knowing B) God is Loving C) Evil exists. So, both js and cg resolved this one by deprecating God's Omniscience. I understand Time Magazine's staff being unable to unsnarl this one, but for any supposed Christian teacher to be unable-and continue to teach- is irresponsible, What makes this particularly galling is that a pair of 20-year olds were able to completely refute cg's "position paper" (his tape set) to the degree that he offered neither opposition to their reply nor hostility to it. (He understood full well how completely he was refuted-by people who would really have rather let the older folk do it and not step in themselves.) Having to actually put forth a Biblical argument for God being Omniscient was entirely due to cg (and, apparently, js) putting forth the opposite, and a lot of drones just soaking that up like sponges and immediately turning around and teaching it. That there are Christians not from ex-twi circles who are unable to work through this was made clear by the necessity of other Christians to address it- with books like the one I mentioned. "Open Theism" flat-out denies the Omniscience of God because they think what cg said- an All-Knowing God who does force Himself into EVERY situation would be an unjust God. I would argue exactly the opposite- that a God who forced Himself into all sorts of situations where He was not requested would be unjust. cg's illustration of how this works was an analysis of Genesis 3, where he suggested that God Almighty legitimately didn't know what was happening and had happened, and His questions showed Him trying to find out what happened. I believe the verses show the opposite- and any parent who has had to talk through a punishment with a child can easily see how it worked, let alone anyone who can compare relevant verses about each moment in Genesis 3. cg used phrases like "WHEN ALL OF THIS CAME TO GOD'S ATTENTION" to explain what God didn't know and when He didn't know it-according to cg.

I'll get back to this shortly- and before I forget, what I want to start with is this "process theology" business, which cg espoused with his "Pivot Point in History" thing, and some responses to that. It was actually espoused, with different names, by some people outside twi circles who liked a fuzzy, accessible God and were willing to demote Him to get Him there. The book "The Trivialization of God" (which I've never read) seems to have addressed that issue quite handily. I also addressed some of this in the thread "What Does God Know?" at length. Among other things, cg conflated "foreknow" (to know ahead of time) with "foreordain" (to force to happen ahead of time) and concluded that he was rejecting the former since he didn't accept the latter. I accept not everyone can understand some of the issues he raised- but if he didn't then he has no business trying to put himself forth as an authority on the subject.

Catching up on LoT in the next day or so. I liked the "Raiders" episode, and Mrs Wolf and I kept taking turns catching stuff (I spotted the cameraman with the beard immediately, and giggled when his first name was mentioned, I caught the "wilhelm" and so on-she caught the trash compactor scene before I did... We both missed the 3 years he won awards as a salesman were 1977, 1980 and 1983.) I thought the Justice League Lite also had Elongated Man and Zatanna. Unless there's a new "Legion", he was supposedly a kid of Xavier's- as in, Charles Xavier was the Dad. He was unable to control his mental powers, and ended up with multiple personalities (DID). Later, he killed Xavier and that started the "Age of Apocalypse" storyline- which was ended with the previous timeline restored after someone used the M'Krann Crystal to fix things. (All of that's as I remember it, I may have made an error but I care too little to doublecheck it.)

That's it. Sorry if it was too easy.

Next one. In this movie, a secret agent works alongside an unconventional comedian to outwit a plan to use a space shuttle in a global genocide plan.

Platoon Willem Dafoe Spider-Man

Sounds like it could be "Sling-Blade-Runner."

Not that I know of. He was "Uncle" Vernon Dursley in a set of movies. He was also in Sleepy Hollow Jeffrey Jones Ferris Buehler's Day Off

No, it's an actor who appeared in a movie series and some other movies, including "King Ralph."

"Hold it! You'd never last five minutes in a New York subway!" *WHAM* *WHAM* "Now, THAT's how it's done!"

Peter O'Toole King Ralph Richard Griffiths

MIB 1 , aka Men In Black

That's him. he's sure been in a lot of stuff. Several of the roles I know him for, I can't name. Randy Grainger was on the Odd Couple, and the Radar Operators were from the Austin Powers movies. And so on. See you all in 7-8 days!

twi's not the only group to use meetings in homes. However, they do serve both the purpose of "we're not spending a nickel on anything we don't have to-all the money stays at the top" and "we're in someone's home, crossing their personal boundaries", and that's for all sorts of groups. Of course, meeting in a living room can also be done innocently and socially, but that wasn't twi's way. It WAS the way some people did it in twi, but that was almost an accidental by-product of the process, like drawing in real Christians into the web of exploiters and con artists.

Mark Wedloe Roo John Dexter Slinky Lloyd Davis Michael Thorpe Johnny Stransel Billy Taft Robby Fielding Jody Larson Tim Oliver Willie Sharpe Randy Grainger Balok Sy Liebergot Radar Operator Johnson Radar Operator Peters Tom Miller Dick Mitchell Emmanuel Grayson Constable Sanders

Mark Wedloe Roo John Dexter Slinky Lloyd Davis Michael Thorpe Johnny Stransel Billy Taft Robby Fielding Jody Larson Tim Oliver Willie Sharpe

"I hate Illinois Nazis."