WordWolf

Now that someone asked, I recall having had some fun with a lot of repetitive "justs" and "Fathers". Specifically, I began counting visibly on my fingers when someone would pepper a prayer with one or the other. :) I also asked once if people thought God had a short attention span or something, with someone trying to get his attention every 10-15 seconds with all the "Father" stuff. Locally, we also got a lot of "any given situation" during mannys, and I for one was certain the word "given", at least, was added out of habit, as it was a superfluous word, and the sentence had the same meaning without it.

RR was correct, so we're waiting for RR to post one. RR, on the other hand, was waiting for confirmation he posted the correct answer. Which he did. So, I'm hoping RR posts soon. Maddy's post was the one RR guessed. QED, women are as welcome in this game as in all the others. In other words, mind the rules, and by all means, join in. (Always check the first post and first page for any rules.)

YES!!!! Hoagy Carmichael did it first, and it's been covered since then, by many artists, like Rod Stewart http://www.chinavbox.cn/show/HQB5KTIN.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC7_COd6kgc Sara Vaughn http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x48cg2_sarah-vaughan-the-nearness-of-you_music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPiscuocxko Frank Sinatra http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr_8KjDR4Gc Norah Jones http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eIH-7qq-WA "Its not the pale moon that excites me, that thrills and delights me, oh no-t's just the nearness of you. It isn't your sweet conversation that brings this sensation, oh no-it's just the nearness of you. When you're in my arms and I feel you so close to me, all my wildest dreams come true. I need no soft lights to enchant me if you'll only grant me the right to hold you ever so tight And to feel in the night the nearness of you." =================================== =================================== You're turn, Krys!

I say there's 3 types of people regarding this. A) People who admit they could never have done that. B) People who are in denial that they could never have done that. C) People who lie through their teeth and claim they could have done that.

If you think "ALL" the comments are negative, you're not looking at ALL the posts. For one thing, spend some time in the Reading Room, where we're playing games. None of the games are negative. A number of threads have been neutral- either discussing non-twi subjects, or twi subjects in more of a historical aspect (collecting remembrances.) A number of threads have been humorous. We have a forum for those. Plus, we've had a "drinking game" and a round of "twi Mad Libs" before.

Everyone's allowed their voice here. (Except, of course, when it's an attempt to silence the voice of another or punish them for speaking.) Some of the discussions can get a little rough- but that's true over most of cyberspace. I've posted lots of places. Many have been much more civil. A number have been a lot rougher. Even when some, many, or most of us think you're a chowderhead, you're still welcome to come back tomorrow and post some more chowderhead stuff. Free speech is well worth the rough-and-tumble, in my opinion.

Scarface ============ Next movie: "A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti."

For me, there's 2 different issues. 1) What DID he say? 2) IF he said "Why have you forsaken me" (which is still under contention, but can be discussed separately for the sake of discussion), what, EXACTLY, did that mean? That is, Was it an accurate statement-of-fact of the reality of that moment? Was it a technically inaccurate statement that reflected exactly how he was feeling at that moment? Was it an intentional quote from Psalms- and, if so, why was it quoted? (This brings us another branching of discussion...) I think it would be perfectly acceptable to be screaming in pain, angry at God, and feel forsaken if one was tortured to the standards of the day, then crucified by the standards of the day. I have no guarantee this is WHAT HAPPENED, but I see it as a reasonable possibility. This would mean he FELT that way, but-if his logic was functioning at all- he would have been the first to say that was not an accurate report of the situation.

"Its not the pale moon that excites me, That thrills and delights me, oh no" "It isn't your sweet conversation That brings this sensation, oh no" "When you're in my arms and I feel you so close to me All my wildest dreams came true. I need no soft lights to enchant me, If you'll only grant me the right To hold you ever so tight" A number of different singers have covered this song.

When in doubt, always look to the first post- or the first page of posts- for the rules of a thread. Me, I think we should give RumRunner another chance, but if anyone feels otherwise, fine. Let's just keep this thread moving, shall we?

Run, Forrest, run! It's "Forrest Gump!" Next movie. "We're puttin' the BAND back together!"

"Its not the pale moon that excites me, That thrills and delights me, oh no" "It isn't your sweet conversation That brings this sensation, oh no" "When you're in my arms and I feel you so close to me All my wildest dreams came true"

Ok, that's got to be "Risky Business." I've never actually seen it start to finish, but I recognize the line anyway- which is pretty much the benchmark for this thread. (Recognize it even without the movie.) ======================== "You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me?"

"Its not the pale moon that excites me, That thrills and delights me, oh no" "It isn't your sweet conversation That brings this sensation, oh no"

I can see how this MIGHT be the case. I can follow the reasoning. I'm slow to say "this IS the case" without some verses saying this was so outright. One verse saying "And Jesus was separated from The Father for us" or "the Messiah will be separated from the LORD for us" would, I think, pretty much close the case on this. I agree with this: "I think Jesus said these words from the depths an utterly horrible, mind-boggling & super intense experience" but, so far, disagree as to WHAT the experience was, fundamentally. I think one need not go any farther than the understanding of the physical reality was more than enough to cover it. I think that Mel Gibson was correct in his supposition behind filming "the Passion of the Christ", that is, that it is far too easy to soft-pedal the sufferings Jesus endured BEFORE the cross, and the sufferings Jesus endured ON the cross, just considering what man did. Of course, my "argument" isn't unassailable, but it is SUPPORTED. Feel free to support yours from Scripture. Hey, if I'm actually wrong, I'd like to learn better. If Scripture says "A" and I say "not-A", I want to know.

For those who skipped over this, what I meant SPECIFICALLY was that when I just read it in English for myself, before hearing twi or anyone else add their own understanding, interpretation, opinion, spin, etc. was that Jesus was NOT forsaken by The Father (which it doesn't say he WAS, note- it says he SAID it, I can see him SAYING it at the time) , but sure FELT like he was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument can be a part of a valid argument. For example, one can argue that the opposing position implies that at least one of two other statements - both being presumably easier to refute than the original position - must be true. If one refutes both of these weaker propositions, the refutation is valid and does not fit the above definition of a "straw man" argument." Gee, you were the first one to suggest such a jump. There's a world of difference between someone having a bad day, and someone suffering torture for over a day, then execution by slow torture AFTER that. I know the worst pain I've ever felt, and I know full well that Jesus was in a GREAT deal more pain than that- and I was unable to see straight or speak. I don't know if you've ever suffered a great deal of pain, but it's not to be compared with missing a few meals. (Or even fasting 40 days- which Jesus did before that and endured without losing his composure.) I've never personally experienced childbirth, but I've been given to understand that it's incredibly painful. I've also been given to understand that women enduring childbirth have been known to speak of things they normally would not say, but felt AT THAT MOMENT. I've heard it's not uncommon for them to curse out the father of the baby and say various slanderous things about him that they normally would refute if they were asked about them during normal circumstances. Bill Cosby quoted Carol Burnett on what labor pains felt like. "She said 'take your bottom lip, and pull it over your head.' " He also said that during his own wife's labor pains that his wife cursed him out. I would never SERIOUSLY consider comparing how a woman felt in the middle of childbirth-and what she said thenm and how she felt if she had, say, a headache, even a migraine that knocked her off her feet. A) We have, in the verses, proof that Jesus was tortured horribly for hours. We have, in the verses, proof that Jesus suffered hours of slow torture to death AFTER that. IMHO, it was MORE PAINFUL than "the Passion of the Christ" made it look. (IMHO, they substituted the visual of bloodshed for the audible cries of pain that would have resulted with standard tortures of the time. Then again, I'm no expert on historical torture methods- but tortures in all eras have emphasized amount of pain over physical damage, since torture was a tool different from execution as a tool.) B) We have, in the discussions of many Christians, SPECULATION that the laying of sins upon someone can be painful or very painful. "It was this, doubtless, which caused His intense sufferings." Personally, I've found that, whenever a person (and I've almost always seen it be a Christian expounding on his beliefs) uses, in his explanation, argument or reasoning, words like "DOUBTLESS", it is anything BUT and is usually a "flag" for me that they're covering a flaw in their own reasoning right there. It's as if they try to preempt discussion of their suppositions by saying "It's silly to question that" or "Only a fool would hesitate to jump to this conclusion" and, often, people read that and fall in line. Leviticus 16:20-26 (KJV) 20And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: 21And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: 22And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. 23And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there: 24And he shall wash his flesh with water in the holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth, and offer his burnt offering, and the burnt offering of the people, and make an atonement for himself, and for the people. 25And the fat of the sin offering shall he burn upon the altar. 26And he that let go the goat for the scapegoat shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp. Or, in case you think the version changed the meaning, Leviticus 16:20-26 (NASB) 20"When he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. 21"Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness. 22"The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness. 23"Then Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting and take off the linen garments which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there. 24"He shall bathe his body with water in a holy place and put on his clothes, and come forth and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people and make atonement for himself and for the people. 25"Then he shall offer up in smoke the fat of the sin offering on the altar. 26"The one who released the goat as the scapegoat shall wash his clothes and bathe his body with water; then afterward he shall come into the camp. " The only previous instance of sins being laid on someone (in this case, not a person, but an animal, a goat released into the wilderness) is discussed here, the offering assigned to Israel to be performed each year. I see the goat received the weight of sins of 12 Tribes of Israel for one year. (To be certain, far less than the sins of the world paid ONCE for all of future history until the End Times.) I see no indication the goat in any way suffered PAIN or even physical discomfort for it. He runs off into the woods, into which she's released. My supposition is that a goat required to escape into the wilderness would not be injured instantly so that walking, running, etc would be painful- that would mean the requirement that he escape into the wilderness would be negated. I think this is a reasonable conclusion based on the requirements as stated. Just because everyone says it's "obviously" so doesn't mean something is true. Doesn't mean it's FALSE, either- but it means that claims need to be supported by something stronger than "I say this is what it 'DOUBTLESS' means." If there's actual support for this position FROM SCRIPTURE- that Jesus' pain was based primarily on the imputation of the sin on him- it has not been given. I've offered a counter-argument- and supported it FROM SCRIPTURE- that this would not be so. So, if this position is really as "DOUBTLESS" as that guy said, present a SCRIPTURAL rationale, show the verses that suggest or state this would be painful. The internet's a big place, lots of Christians CLAIM this is so. It should not be an impossible task to find lots of places presenting it. (Although ONE is all I'm asking.)

The one thing I've been sure about, even before twi, was that Jesus was never forsaken by The Father. My supposition when reading it on my own was that Jesus was basically delirious with pain, and expressed how he FELT, not the REALITY of the situation. Elijah was much the same when he said he was the LAST man in Israel standing for God, and God corrected him and said He had kept thousands for himself. (I can look up the verses for the curious.) Whether Jesus was declaring victory by quoting Psalms, or declaring victory by saying it all led up to that moment, doesn't concern me a great deal.

I was all over the internet, looking up discussions on all sorts of things that interested me. By chance, I found the GSC discussing twi and vpw and all sorts of alphabet things right before someone emailed me to direct me towards it. My first few posts didn't really add much to what was already said-they expressed ideas already stated recently- but I've improved a bit over time, I think.

Lamsa's Bible (from certain Aramaic texts) rendered it "My God, my God, for this purpose I was kept!" vpw said "lemana" was never used in a question, and meant "because of this" or "for this purpose". vpw said "shabachthani" was from the root "shabach", which meant "reserved" or "kept", and cited verses where the Aramaic for those verses was translated as such. vpw documented his claim about "shabachthani" but not his claim about "lmna". Naturally, the claim about "shabachthani" appears to be correct, but not his claim about "lmna." The only part EVERYBODY agrees on is "Eli, Eli" or "Eloi, Eloi" is "My God, My God". Matthew 27:46 in twi's Aramaic-English Interlinear New Testament: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice and said, 'God, God, for what purpose have you spared me?" Mark 15:34 in twi's Aramaic-English Interlinear New Testament: "And in the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice and said, 'God, God, for what purpose have you spared me?' which is 'My God, my God, for what purpose have you spared me?' " ============== I've seen "arguments" saying the standard English rendering is correct, and quotes Psalms, where the English renders the psalm verse, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" All of those arguments have the same defect, as I've seen them: None of them ever actually approach the Aramaic and say "these are what the Aramaic words say." I think the explanation "Jesus said 'For what purpose have you kept me?" is a rhetorical question, referring to that exact moment, which Jesus knew was needful and a victory, but everyone else thought was a crushing defeat. For the next 3 days.

As twi sees it, all resources are to be directed towards twi and ONLY twi. Children need attention, money, education, and so on- resources that twi can't get because a human being is getting them. twi didn't like children- children consume resources. Therefore, twi never really had a plan for DEALING with children. A plan was slapped together patchwork for things like Family Corps and Family WOW, and it was centered around twi being the unquestioned authority. Thus, twi was to be obeyed the first time by children, and struck if they disobeyed. Children were to be quiet during meetings, and never inconvenience twi meetings. Thus, they were to be warehoused in separate meetings, hit if they don't conform, and otherwise expected to be still and quiet in adult meetings of infinite length. Sounds like an exaggeration? It SOUNDS like that, but we've had posters say their kids suffered that-or they were the ones that suffered through it.

It would certainly be grossly inefficient, and diversions from a TRUE walk with God.

The Trinity issue can be handled 2 ways, as I've seen it. A) Inclusionary. So long as both sides call Jesus their Lord, believe he is THE Son of God (not a son of God, but unique), THE Messiah/Christ (God's Anointed, appointed to be THE one and only Savior of the world), and believe Jesus resurrected, ascended, and is current at the right hand of The Father, then the rest is details God will sort out at the proper time. B) Exclusionary. My side is the correct one. Anyone who takes the other side (or any other position, like "Jesus was a wise teacher", "Jesus was a legend to provide good morals", "Jesus was insane") is not saved, and walks in darkness. This is not up for discussion- We Are Right. I'm comfortable hanging out with people in the first category. With people in the second category, I always have to watch out for the knife that could end up in my back. ==================== Frankly, you could take ANY doctrine among Christians where there's sizeable numbers of people on both sides, and choose up sides like that, resulting in people who declare those on the other side aren't "real" Christians. twi is very experienced with doing that- almost every doctrine where twi claims to be different is seen as some sort of "deal breaker" where the other side isn't "real" Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_(philosophy) "Ubuntu is an ethic or humanist philosophy focusing on people's allegiances and relations with each other. The word has its origin in the Bantu languages of Southern Africa. Ubuntu is seen as a classical African concept. " "An attempt at a longer definition has been made by Archbishop Desmond Tutu (1999): “ A person with Ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good, for he or she has a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed. ” Archbishop Desmond Tutu further explained Ubuntu as follows (2008): “ One of the sayings in our country is Ubuntu - the essence of being human. Ubuntu speaks particularly about the fact that you can't exist as a human being in isolation. It speaks about our interconnectedness. You can't be human all by yourself, and when you have this quality - Ubuntu - you are known for your generosity. We think of ourselves far too frequently as just individuals, separated from one another, whereas you are connected and what you do affects the whole world. When you do well, it spreads out; it is for the whole of humanity." Nelson Mandela explained Ubuntu as follows; “ A traveller through a country would stop at a village and he didn't have to ask for food or for water. Once he stops, the people give him food, entertain him. That is one aspect of Ubuntu but it will have various aspects. Ubuntu does not mean that people should not address themselves. The question therefore is: Are you going to do so in order to enable the community around you to be able to improve? ” ---------------- "The "Ubuntu" distribution of the Linux computer operating system is inspired by the concept, based on the premise that it "brings the spirit of Ubuntu to the software world." ===================== ===================== All existing computer operating systems (for virtually all PCs in the world) are variants of either Windows (Microsoft's product), or Mac (Apple's product), or Linux. Windows and Mac are owned by single companies. If you want to deal with the O/S, you have one source only. Windows is the most widespread (thus, the most-owned and more programs are written for it), but is the least satisfactory of the 3 O/S' families in terms of stability, size, and so on. For those who want to free themselves of the one-company license system, there's Linux, or to be more specific, there's all the different "distros" of Linux. Some are owned by a company and that company offers support (like Fedora, whose freeware version is Red Hat, or Linspire, designed for Windows users, whose freeware version is Freespire). Some are specialized, like the tiny ones designed to use almost no space and fit on a pendrive. Ubuntu is a freeware Linux distro that's widespread, and designed for the average user to be able to understand it. That means the only advantages Windows has over it are familiarity-and anyone can learn Ubuntu- and number of compatible programs- although many programs DO have Ubuntu versions. A separate discussion is about programs designed to make programs for Windows work for Linux. (I don't know enough on the subject to say much that's useful about that.) So, about Ubuntu. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu "Ubuntu (pronounced /uːˈbuːntuː/[3] oo-BOON-too),[4] is a computer operating system based on Debian GNU/Linux. Ubuntu's goals include providing an up-to-date, stable operating system for the average user, with a strong focus on usability and ease-of-installation. Ubuntu has been selected by readers of desktoplinux.com as the most popular Linux distribution for the desktop, claiming approximately 30% of their desktop installations in both 2006 and 2007.[5][6] Ubuntu is composed of multiple software packages distributed under free/open source licenses, especially the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) so that users are free to run, copy, distribute, study, change, develop and improve the software. Ubuntu is sponsored by the UK based company Canonical Ltd., owned by South African entrepreneur Mark Shuttleworth. Instead of selling Ubuntu for profit, Canonical creates revenue by selling technical support and from creating several proprietary services tied to Ubuntu including Ubuntu One, Landscape and Launchpad. Canonical is yet to turn profitable, however. By keeping Ubuntu distribution itself free software and open source, Canonical is able to take advantage of the talents of outside developers in Ubuntu's constituent components without developing the entire operating system itself (which is based primarily on current Linux kernels)." http://www.ubuntu.com/ "Ubuntu is a community developed, Linux-based operating system that is perfect for laptops, desktops and servers. It contains all the applications you need - a web browser, presentation, document and spreadsheet software, instant messaging and much more." " * Ubuntu will always be free of charge, including enterprise releases and security updates. * Ubuntu comes with full commercial support from Canonical and hundreds of companies around the world. * Ubuntu includes the very best translations and accessibility infrastructure that the free software community has to offer. * Ubuntu CDs contain only free software applications; we encourage you to use free and open source software, improve it and pass it on."

Ok, let's see.... It was called the Mousetrap... No, actually, it was "the Darkness and the Light". Since it was a Season 5'er, it is from later in the series. Ronald Moore especially liked that the characters didn't have that fake 180-degree turn and apologize. which is common in television. Kira does not feel sorry for her actions as a resistance fighter, and considers all Cardassians on Bajor "guilty", and meeting non-combatants didn't change her even a little. Your turn!