WordWolf

Christian Slater Heathers Winona Ryder

"Every time I think I'm OUT- they pull me back in!"

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory Roy Kinnear Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo (Yes, there's a few famous actors in that movie.)

You'd be shocked how many people have quoted that line in different contexts. ================= In other news, both of those were Heath Ledger in "the Dark Knight".

That's it. Apparently, it was easier than I thought it might be....

This might be very easy, very hard, or somewhere in between. ;) This current (70s) television show features a team of operatives sent to investigate and resolve incidents around the US and around the world. The team's most prominent menbers are a pair of mimes, a man and a woman.

If you really want people to get this movie from one line, go with its most famous line: "Why so serious?"

The reasons all stem from one root reason and spread out from there: They want to rehabilitate victor paul wierwille's reputation and "rescue" it from the proven track record of rampant plagiarism, from the doctrinal errors stemming from his misunderstanding of Scripture and cobbling together doctrines of things he never understood but just copied over, from the eyewitness accounts of all the abuses of God's people he did of all sorts, from the eyewitness accounts of all the luxuries he wasted ministry money on, from eyewitness accounts of his all-day satisfying of vices like alcohol and tobacco while he told others to abstain, etc. vpw was a hypocrite, a liar, a thief, a plagiarist, a simonist, a rapist, a molester, and other things which escape me now. These people consider it critically important to bury all that. Exposing his evil deeds become secondary at best- they want a legend they can tap. Why do they want a legend they can tap? Some are doing some of the same he did- plagiarizing his materials and using it to make a comfortable living while saying, "Hey, everybody, listen to me!" Some of them are basing their entire private spiritual life on vpw and what he put forth, and they'd rather maintain an illusion that they were right all their time in twi- and the decades since, while maintaining the illusion- than to start over and seek genuine Christian experience and genuine Christians who don't have vpw's sinful baggage attached to their doctrine. It's uncomfortable and scary to go out there. In its own way, it's a spiritual version of something that's happening in much of the modern world with some young people, and most famously in Japan- the hikkomori phenomenon. It was seen in a more general way with "basement dwellers", but is a bit more refined now and studied in all our modern detail. The odd thing for outsiders is that hikkomori are generally all YOUNG people- people who faced life outside college and ran from it, hiding in the familiar at home and not going out to experience life anew. It's not a surprise for twi survivors because it's not news anymore that escaping twi's hold on one's thought patterns means one usually picks up IN MATURITY and EMOTIONALLY where they were before twi- and for most people, that's around college age. So, this is a delayed step in maturing and facing life. For some ex-twiers, it's a step that scares them too much to take. So, they enshrine their twi experience and teachings and associate only with others who do the same, which means they enshrine a career criminal and laud him to the skies as some sort of spiritual man instead of reject him as some sort of huckster and conman. All of that means they react with hostility whenever someone brings up how evil vpw was, and how they were victimized by him in small ways (or large ones.) They fear the truth, the outside world, so much that, even though far greater Christian experiences are out there surpassing what they started with, they'd rather chase off the rest of the world- and the rest of the Christians- and stay where they are. Ever see a small child so taken with how good Farina cereal is that they spend the next 10 years rejecting all real food because they don't want to lose what they've got instead of exploring all the superior food that the family is trying to feed him? No? Me neither. Small children have more sense than that as they grow up.

If that one is "Peggy Sue Got Married With Children", then the Title Order Police will want to speak with you. :)

Really, let's be honest. In one corner, we have victor paul wierwille- plagiarist, conman, molester, rapist. In one corner, we have people exposing victor paul wierwille as a plagiarist, conman, molester, and rapist. Some people consider it an outrage for a religious leader to plagiarize, con, molest, and rape. Other people consider it an outrage for people to expose victor paul wierwille as a plagiarist, conman, molester, and rapist.

Well, they've invested too much into it to decide to change. If they've been wrong until now, they'll be content to be wrong so long as there's less change and more moral certainties. Being right is less important than being certain. We all MEANT well, but when the lies were exposed, that changed things for most of us. It's ok to survive being young and naive-we were TRYING to do the right thing. We were conned, and we know better now.

Right- capital I was used instead of a letter that was invented later- J. So, Iulius or Iesus, and so on.

Richard Griffiths King Ralph John Hurt

I didn't even get into that. This one really has to reach to get there, and probably took some fascinatingly silly twists worthy of a Da Vinci Code or something. I mean, it's one thing to claim it's all made up, but the early Christian Church was crushed under the collective heel of the Roman emperors. To turn around and say it was all BASED on a Roman emperor? There's conjecture, there's wild guesses, and then there's stuff like that. Within years or a few decades, this will be another idea forgotten by all except a few more tinfoil hat-wearers. There's been no lack of those.

I've never heard of this song nor this artist.

I noticed the controversial opening- that of a confession of inventing Jesus- is missing from the rest of the article, and from the site. Sounds like another lie added to con people- a bait-and-switch. There's never been a shortage of people claiming the New Testament was some sort of conspiracy or fabrication. It's impossible to guarantee with 100% accuracy anything from that long ago. However, other books from longer ago with less evidence have been accepted as true beyond question and their matters were closed. This nonsense only rises up from people with vested interests of one form or another to try to discredit or bury the Bible, to try to pretend it's irrelevant or doesn't matter, from an insecurity or fear it's so relevant that it haunts them that they're willing to lie and distort historical evidence just so they can sleep better at night, so that they can try to drown out their consciences. History of the time before Jesus, the time during his lifetime, and the time following all make perfect sense if the events occurred as reported, but the actions of people don't make any sense otherwise. The people who all physically saw Jesus in a resurrected body were the ones so committed, they were willing to die rather than recant. If this guy's to be believed, the "martyrs" of the time were all fully aware they were fully committed to passing along fiction-to the point of guaranteed slaughter at the hands of the Roman soldiers under arms. Come on, a slow death just so that others are convinced of a lie I'm passing along? Would any human willingly go to their grave KNOWING they did so to preserve a set of beliefs that were all lie?

Please note that in acting, it's referred to as "gibberish." There's no OFFICIAL, FORMAL name, but "free vocalization" works better for discussion. Some people disagree as to the meaning of "gibberish", and will count it as gibberish only if it is obviously nonsensical, or meant only as a child's game, and will mean something else when discussing it. So, it is important to know what is MEANT by a term as well as the actual word. (It's like the word "spirit"- does the person mean an alcoholic beverage, or emotion, or some entity?)

..and chicks for free. Your turn.

"Theatrical training frequently includes exercises in improvisation. In one type of improvisation, the actor invents a "language" (on the fly) and has his/her character use that language in a conversational context. I posted an example of Andy Kaufman doing this in one of my earlier posts. It's not Biblical, it's not spiritual, it's not evidence of anything other than a latent ability of the human mind. It's not difficult to do. It can, however , present a stumbling block for participants who have inhibitions that impair their ability to do it. That's why it's included in improvisation classes. I personally saw this being done by a wide variety of subjects, some of whom I am quite sure were not Christian. (Oy Vey! Am I being vague enough on this point?) Decidedly, not everyone can overcome their inhibitions to do it but, the possibility to do so is still there." "Any acting student will encounter these exercises-and sooner rather than later.(I encountered them, and my acting studies were very short-which means they're pretty much around the beginning exercises.) I've been in classes where it was done. I've seen stand-up comedians do it on television. I've seen SMALL CHILDREN do it for entertainment- which they came up with on their own. None of them CALLED IT "free vocalization", but that's what it was. Any acting teacher (and most students), for that matter, could set up an exercise where the students set up a skit, setting it in a religious revival, church meeting, or whatever, announce the holy speaker, and have the actor do free vocalization. With enough props, it would look and sound exactly like any modern SIT church usage. With a different setup, the same exercise would be indistinguishable from a twi meeting complete with "manifestations." For that matter, lots of people who do things CLAIM they do them "supernaturally." Some of them-who are non-Christians, claim to "speak in tongues" (by that name or another) and do free vocalization dressed up to look special and holy. It's no different than the actors doing it-except this person MIGHT actually THINK it was supernatural and not mundane. This doesn't make it any less mundane."

"Look at them yoyos, that's the way you do it- You play the guitar on the MTV."

"Picture this...You're in improvisation class and the director hands you a prop. He says, "Make up a language and sell this to Joe." Can it be done? Yes. I've seen it and done it myself. Is it really a language? No, but, it sounds like one."

Vern Polythress: "In short, it seems that the capacity for free vocalization is a normal, God-given human capacity. The person who was unable to do it would be unusual. We regard free vocalization as abnormal only because, in our modern Western cultural milieu, people usually cease to do it after childhood." "Can the average person be taught to produce free vocalization? Yes. Learning to free vocalize is easier than learning to ride a bicycle. As with the bicycle, the practitioner may feel foolish and awkward at first. But practice makes perfect. Moreover, though at first a person may feel self-conscious, after he has learned he may sometimes forget that he is doing it. It is something that he can start or stop at will without difficulty. One easy way for a person to learn is to pretend that he is speaking a foreign language. He starts speaking, slowly and deliberately producing syllables. Then be speeds up, consciously trying to make it sound like a language would sound. Once he is doing well, he just relaxes and does not worry any longer about what comes out."

A lot of people weren't following the previous thread. I really DON'T want to get into Doctrinal concerns. What I want is to explain this to people as much as possible. You've had a LOT more acting training and experience than I've had, so I'm hoping you'll go into that for the benefit of the people who've never heard of this sort of thing and never had an acting lesson.

========================== "What's new in your life, Latka?"

This thread, to a degree, is a follow-up on a previous thread. It's not meant to be a discussion of Doctrine- feel free to revive the Doctrinal thread or start a new one if you want to explore the doctrinal implications. This is about the mechanics of "free vocalization", what it is and is not. I think this is a subject worth discussing by itself- that got buried in a previous discussion addressing a lot more. So, I've meant to start this thread for some time. Ok, first of all, how we get the names for things. All names, as far as it goes, are made up. Someone finds a new concept and starts using a new name. Sometimes the new name catches on, sometimes a different name catches on, and sometimes nobody uses it and it fades into obscurity. So, if someone has a new idea or discovers something new, it's fair to try to come up with a decent name for it. For that matter, bad names become famous, too- the "googol" is 1 followed by 100 zeroes, and exploring caves is "spelunking", from "speliation" (cave studies) and a sillier ending for the word. So, the phrase "free vocalization." It wasn't a phrase coined to promote a specific agenda. When studying different things and discovering they were the same thing with different window dressing, someone coined the phrase in order to discuss it better. The name "free vocalization" refers to a speaking, thus, a vocalization. It is a speaking that is not directed in any formal sense of speech, thus it is "free" (unguided) in the same sense as free verse. So, what, exactly, is it? Free vocalization is actually a pretty common practice, used under a number of concepts. When children pretend to be speaking and pronounce nonsense syllables, they're doing this. (No, not when babies are starting to speak- when older children know they're not speaking a language and intentionally PRETEND to do so to amuse themselves and their friends.) Actors do this as well when studying acting. They will study how to move, and how to intone, and that can be studied independent of dialogue. Much can be portrayed by tone, movement, and gesture even if no language is held in common- or no language is used at all. My study group surprised our acting teacher with how complicated a concept we conveyed in such a scene-where 5 people got together, decided the scene, and acted it out- all speaking without actual words but with lots of speaking, intonation, movement and gestures. But that's drifting off-topic...the point is that actors will do this very thing while learning- as practice with other things, and it is not difficult once you get the idea. Some people have pointed out similarities between those practices and each other- because they differ only in intent, and are the same activity concerning language and cognition (thinking.)