WordWolf

Well, if Morrison had sung in the 80s or later, he might have done a cover of it.

"You've made me acknowledge the devil in me. I hope to God I'm talkin' metaphorically. Hope that I'm talkin' allegorically. Know that I'm talkin' about the way I feel." "This old town's changed so much. Don't feel like I belong. Too many protest singers. Not enough protest songs." "You give me just a taste so I want more and more. Now my hands are bleeding and my needs are raw. Now you've got me crawlin', crawlin' on the floor."

"Let's work the problem, people. Let's not make things any worse by guessing." "I don't care what anything was designed to do. I care about what it can do. So let's get to work, let's lay it out, okay?" "With all due respect, sir, I believe this is gonna be our finest hour." "When I go up there on 19, I'm gonna take my entire collection of Johnny Cash along!" "Dad, can I please wear this?" "Sure." "Jim!" "No! No, absolutely not."

If you check at least once a week, you should be fine. We're all busy, but can check in every few days for a minute or 2 unless we're having some emergency or traveling. And I see 2 photos, and 2-3 notices above them about posted images that aren't there for me.

Even adding every single person from all the offshoots, twi and all the splinters/offshoots is certainly a LOT less in size than twi in its heyday- the late 70s/early 80s. I'd put all the participants in the US of all of them somewhere closer to 5000. They NEVER publish numbers. The groups, generally, are more about retaining- sbout hanging on to the old- the old doctrines, the old slogans, the old ideas, the old people, the old reminisces- than about all the changes they'd need to get new people. So, they are generally in membership decline. A few are having MINOR success with kids the same way vpw hijacked the hippies. Overall, they are losing more people each year than are gained by new recruitment. Most "growth" is one offshoot getting people from twi or a DIFFERENT offshoot. At best, that's a zero-sum game. So, give it another generation, as the memberships continue to slide towards zero. I think we'll see a resemblance to Zeno's Paradox, where we never quite see zero people, but half the previous membership, then half of that, then eventually the meeting of all the members nationwide could be held in a hot tub.

The numbers internationally are hard to get, but wild exaggeration is the order of the day, still. So, we think there's a FEW people in Africa, but beyond that, no. Presence in Europe left with cg, and presence in South America left with RC. That leaves Australia- which never seemed to been an outreach continent- Antarctica (same approach) and Africa. Last I heard, they were requiring people to come once a month for the service-and the cameras are set up once they channel people into a narrow aisle in the lower level so they can pretend the entire level is packed. Offhand, I'd suppose there's about 2000 twi'ers currently claiming membership across the US. As churches go, there's many LOCAL congregations that are bigger. twi exists but is hardly a factor outside of New Knoxville.

I don't know about anyone's "system." I do know my approach is to try to understand what's written, and come from a perspective that Scripture is sensible and consistent. That gets me MUCH better results than coming from a perspective that it is INconsistent and senseless. I think the Bible makes sense of the whole Bible, not any "system." (I can never tell for sure who you hate more-Darby or wierwille. However, it's probably wierwille because you haven't mentioned Darby lately.) "wierwille's rules of thumb tend to be incorrect." That's one of MY rules of thumb. ;) Even when I was in twi, I rendered it "stewardship" even when we were discussing "administrations." I felt that put the emphasis where it belonged, and "administration" had too much modern baggage for people to clearly see the meaning where it was claimed to be so- such as implying it was a period of time. IMHO, the biggest problem with the twi-style system is the reliance on a system. To be specific, the claim of "a mathematic exactness and a scientific precision" was wild and unsupported, and the opposite of what later evidence showed. Those who embraced it too strongly ended up looking for hidden meanings in Scripture, and a few still look for hidden meanings in vpw's works. It's NOT a 21st century textbook. It was meant to convey meaning for peoples thousands of years apart, thousands of cultures apart. And it does.

Probably the first "Die Hard" movie.

If it's what I'm thinking, that's a brilliant choice. I have to leave it up for a bit just so others can take a chance at it.

WIN Ben Stein's Money, but yes, that's the answer. In round 1, 3 contestants answer questions. At the end of round 1, the lowest-score contestant is kicked out, and Ben Stein takes their podium (and their score is added back to the kitty.) Whenever a contestant gets a question right, their total goes up towards $5000, and the kitty-Ben's total- goes down from $5000. When Ben gets a question right, his total doesn't change but the others don't get it. At the end of round 2, the lower-score contestant is kicked out, and their score is added back to the kitty. Round 3 is "the best of 10." Ben and contestant are placed in isolation booths. The contestant can choose to go 1st or 2nd. Each is asked 10 questions in (I think) 60 seconds, and can "pass" and come back if there's time. If the contestant loses, they get the money they won so far. If the contestant ties, they get the money they won so far plus $1000. If the contestant wins, they get the $5000- which is handed to them as cash. Ben's safe (pushed onstage at the beginning of Round 3) is opened, and Ben counts off the money in each result. When someone wins the $5000, Ben generally adds after the full count "I hate you, get out of here!" because it was money otherwise going to Ben's pocket.

I think a healthy response to Campbell's work is a healthy response to just about everybody's work, including mine. Read it over, consider it, evaluate it, and where there's value, use it, and where there's error, correct it and discard it (or correct it and use it.) Otherwise you can end up doing something like fleeing vpw and endorsing Campbell like he's some sort of guru, even though he was wrong in many places. What he wrote, IMHO, is interesting and has value, but it doesn't seal up the sum. Or you could survive vpw, then endorse lcm, then reject lcm and endorse ccg or v2p2 or someone else. We've got a lot of people who left twi and reject SPECIFIC gurus but retained the ERROR that one NEEDS a guru to do their spiritual thinking FOR them.

Ok, while we're waiting.... TV game shows have hosts asking questions of the contestants... but this TV game show also had the host answering the questions alongside them!

That's it. It made more sense in my head last night when I posted it. (Because of time-zone differences, it's hours later here than the posting time notes.)

"You've made me acknowledge the devil in me. I hope to God I'm talkin' metaphorically. Hope that I'm talkin' allegorically. Know that I'm talkin' about the way I feel." "This old town's changed so much. Don't feel like I belong. Too many protest singers. Not enough protest songs." No vibraphone fans online this week?

While we're waiting.... This is a TV-movie starring Fred Dryer as a President of the United States, who goes to work alongside the LAPD in order to kill bloodsucking undead before they take over the US.

"Let's work the problem, people. Let's not make things any worse by guessing." "I don't care what anything was designed to do. I care about what it can do. So let's get to work, let's lay it out, okay?" "With all due respect, sir, I believe this is gonna be our finest hour."

Steve Carrell Over The Hedge William Shatner

What about my "up"? ("Your turn" or "you're up" would be correct.) Ok, let's see..... "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

It's the closing line of "Back to the Future." I once contemplated getting that line on a t-shirt and wearing it to Christian functions.

It's still your turn since you posted the last correct answer. (Gilligan's Island.)

"This old town's changed so much. Don't feel like I belong. Too many protest singers. Not enough protest songs."

Feel free to fire away. BTW, I'm well aware that I expounded at length without providing the verses. I did that because it would have taken a few pages and significant exposition all the way through. IMHO, satan's history is not meant to be a line of inquiry for us, so it's not that easy to track. So, I'd need to get into, a bit, why certain verses are read as references to him when they don't have any of his names all over them. Personally, I think it's a shame that the Bible was not written like a 21st century textbook. True, it would have been MUCH less useful for people from the previous millenia, but for me here and now, it would be a LOT easier to dig out the more obscure details. ;)

James 1:12-14 12 Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. =============================== What was satan doing in the Garden? That question may mean a few things-I will try to touch on a few of them. Again, all of this is AFAIK, IMHO. The being known as satan was originally the right-hand "man" of The Creator. Full of pride and conceit in his own (created) greatness, he decided he should be exalted about all other "angels" and should get worship that was going to his Creator. So, he convinced 1/3 of the "angels" to rebel, and led a ridiculous rebellion in heaven. His forces lost to those of Michael, and were cast down to THE EARTH. After this come the "days of creation" of Genesis 1. (Some believe they were needed as a result of the war in heaven. Myself, I think the evidence shows that something struck the earth and destroyed the ecosystem, triggering a major extinction event and requiring the "days of creation" of Genesis 1.) Nothing indicates this has changed when Man arrives, "Adam" and "Eve." Adam was given dominion over the Earth- in effect, making Adam "god of Earth" subordinate to God Almighty. Physically, satan arrived to Earth and never left it. So, that's the answer to how satan got to Earth. As to what he was doing "in the garden of Eden", that's a different matter. satan knew that he thought he deserved worship and to be God. Adam had a position somewhat like a sample of what satan wanted. So, satan set out to steal Adam's office which he felt was rightfully his. He succeeded. He's later referred to as "god of this world", and has authority over the kingdoms of the world, and their glory. When Adam sinned, he lost his connection to God, AND he lost his Office and title. Afterwards, we know satan has it, and there is nothing to indicate anyone else had it between that. The logical conclusion is to at least speculate if Adam lost it and satan got it at the same moment. So, that's the answer to "why did satan want to be there?" Was there something else? I've given some thought to satan's faulty logic chains in the past,

I won't disagree with anything H w/o B just said, but I think a different question was meant, so I'll try to cover as much ground as I can as briefly as I can. Ok, what are the questions? "1. can somebody give me an idea of WHY the devil was in the garden of Eden in the first place? 2) why did he take on the form of a snake? 3) why would God curse the serpent? if the serpent didn't crawl on his belly before he was cursed, what the hell (scuse the pun) was he doing before? walking on 4 legs?" Ok, I can answer 2-4 together. This is all IMHO, as I understand it. Zephaniah 3:3 Her princes within her are roaring lions, Her judges are wolves at evening; They leave nothing for the morning. (Personally, I think "wolves" rather than "jackals" is poor translating on behalf of lazy Eurocentric translators who never wondered how wolves ended up in deserts and so on, but that's drifting off-topic.) Here we see that people can be addressed, metaphorically, as animals whose supposed attributes match those of the people. To this day, we might call an untrustworthy person a "snake-in-the-grass" or a "sidewinder" or the like. The former Lucifer, the former lightbearer, the former bright and morning star, was treacherous and sneaky, traits attributed to serpents. If someone lies a lot, I might consider calling him "Rug." Now, The Serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. He wasn't LITERALLY a beast of the field, LITERALLY a limbless animal. Genesis 3:13c" “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” Genesis 3:14 The Lord God said to The Serpent, “Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life;" That wasn't a literal animal God was referring to- but a sneaky, conniving being. satan, the accuser, was cursed more than any cattle or beast of the field, and-although he vaunted himself up as the greatest and highest, he was humbled and made low. That had nothing to do, in and of itself, with any actual animal. That's what was said to "The Serpent", aka satan, etc. Why does it all sound like an actual serpent? God needed to explain it to people in ways people could understand. Jesus taught with parables mentioning lillies, grass, birds, and so on- things people were familiar with, imagery they could relate to. So, the accuser was likened TO a serpent, a snake-in-the-grass, and his punishments were likewise compared to the activities and reputations of a LITERAL snake in the grass. So, that's what the deal is with "serpent"-it's an extended metaphor. I'm not a LITERAL wolf, either. :) I'll get back to you on the first question within a few hours.

Give me 12 hours-I'm on the run this moment.