WordWolf

A lot of people never heard of this book, or forgot about this book. Here's a reminder.

Correct, as you knew! And Kevin Bacon was also in... no, wait, nevermind. Your turn again.

It's good to cover all the bases. This gives everyone a chance to vote their conscience.

No, you also said that MANY people here have a specific position that- so far-nobody's come up and claimed as their own. Goey called you on it, and asked where these "MANY" people are. With no documentation, the evidence supports the idea that you just pulled this claim out of your burro. It's called "supporting your claims so it doesn't look like you made them up out of whole cloth." You failed to do it. Goey called you on it. Your reply-rather than support your claim OR admit you may have exaggerated a tad-was this post's dandy ad hominem attack. "F* you!" is NOT a logical defense of one's position. It DOES, however, suggest there IS no logical defense for it.

What's your opinion?

Some people felt the story straightjacketed the reader and pushed one viewpoint. I thought it was worth watching and RE-watching, but I wouldn't have nominated it for any awards. (I'm hard on most nominations.) Now, how about naming the movie so we can move on?

I said I thought it was a good idea- not that I have arrived at the answer. My current thinking, pending a better explanation, is that Judas Iscariot died from a successful suicide attempt. Frankly, that's as much detail as I really need.

[The Koran was written several centuries later. "Gospels" written 300 years later are generally acknowledged to be of inferior authority. Many books written 300 years later appear to have a specific axe to grind, and a doctrine to push. Mohammed specifically wanted to discredit Christianity AND Judaism, and likely would have resented any claims his book was "from the Judeo-Christian perspective." AND it was written centuries after the "other gospels". That the Koran claims the Gospels have it wrong is no surprise to me, neither does it impress me. "The Da Vinci Code" and "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" claimed the Gospels have it wrong as well. However, since they're centuries too late to be party to the events, AND they've their own agendas to push, they don't impress me either. So, that ANY book written centuries later can claim Judas was crucified, slipped in a tub and broke his neck, or was run over by a team of racing camels all strike me as NON-ISSUES. I mean, I can write a book saying he was pushed out a window. Because my book would be in "the Judeo-Christian tradition", would that make my book authoritative?] [Or maybe it was invented in the intervening centuries bysomeone who didn't like the Biblical accounts.] [i do agree that attempting to harmonize the accounts in the Gospels and Acts 1 is a good idea. Either they fit together and are one event, or they do not fit together, and one describes Judas' death and the other only looks like it does.] [i'll agree. I find it the least bit strange. I'll keep that one filed next to my questions on the grapegatherers, which also strikes me as strange.] [You noted that YOU would expect it. Me, I would "expect" a more thorough account of the hard sciences in the Bible. Looks like we were both disappointed. You can always lodge a complaint with God Almighty- after all, He didn't consult YOUR opinion before setting things in motion. ("If you want to know what God thinks of your opinion, just ask yourself when the last time He asked you for it was...") Priorities can differ between a dozen cultures across 20 centuries. What seems "a glaring" omission to you can seem superfluous to include to someone 2000 years ago. You're reading THEIR texts with YOUR mindset, and see a disparity. This is a surprise? There's hefty debate over the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and that's only 200 years old and in the same country!] [if you don't trust the Gospel accounts of the eyewitnesses and those who interacted directly with the eyewitnesses, whether or not you think the Gospels are God-breathed, what makes you think that speculation centuries later is any more reliable?]

"How do you think the Yankees will do against the Redskins this year?" "The Yankees are a baseball team. The Redskins are a football team. Personally, I think the Redskins would kick the sh* out of them." "I was the weapon-but I ain't no killer." "I'd rather die than go back there!"

wasway, totw, if one of you doesn't post something, I'll post another song...

I'll answer what I know. AVG and Avast (free) are approximately as good as the pay versions. One guy I know switched from Norton (which he paid for) to AVG (free) and found it an improvement. Plus, it took up less memory. I'd also recommend using a registry cleaner as well, at least once a year. (More if you do a lot of downloads and deletions of programs.) One thing you didn't mention was a FIREWALL. There's reliable free firewalls, too. Are you using one, or just the SP2 thing?

Robin Hood:Men in Tights Cary Elwes the Princess Bride

"Your Mileage May Vary." Like with cars and exactly how many miles to the gallon you get when actually driving the thing.

Personally, I found that the image was less offensive than the concepts it lampooned. It was harsh, but made its point. Do I think that it would have been made without the image? Well, we've been discussing it for years, and some people still find it too subtle for them, so a clue by four might be warranted, IMHO. I agree with Mark that-if there's a different, equally effective image, we can use that. However, I don't have one. Those of you who are offended, PLEASE brainstorm up one. I'd be glad to help find images to match the concept, if you've got a coherent concept to use.

Tom, please put Linda out of her misery.... Never mind, wasway posted it.

[untrue in general, and grossly exaggerated in the specifics. However, if not for this convenient fiction, this tail to wag the dog, there'd be no excuse for rewriting the Bible, and thus, no "pfal is the new Bible" Mikean doctrine.] [This is another exaggeration.When reading Machiavelli, one frequently funds names of places and historical figures interrupting explanations. One can choose to go to an encyclopedia and look them up, (or a history textbook.) One can also simply continue to read, and let the context make the main points clear. I've never had to look up the figures to understand the points made. And Machiavelli's LOADED with names compared to most of the Bible.] [None of the former make any difference on the basic understanding, the basic meanings, a basic reading of Scripture. Not one figure of speech is needed to be identified to receive Jesus as one's Lord, know that God is Love, and so on. As to administrations/dispensations vs covenant theology and other stuff, the jury's out as to whether they even apply at all. Please also correct your numbers. vpw quoted 212 figures of speech, but he was quoting Bullinger, and doing so incorrectly. (Or perhaps misread his notes.) Bullinger identified 217 figures, not 212.] [Also misrepresentative, but it's an excuse to dragout the "I'm thankful vpw failed to footnote any of his sources!" excuse for vpw's failure to cite sources.] [if a plain read of a plain version is opaque to you, then the Orange Book will be equally cryptic. The Bible's not a laundry list of names and places.] [And there we have the "footnotes are evil! Citing sources is evil!" sneaking in the back door as promised. Please note that a simple NEW King James Version is clearer for the average person to read than the old KJV, and vpw insisted on the OLD version despite the availability of the new. Making this easy on the readers was NOT high on the list. Nowadays, the New American Standard is even easier on the modern reader AND retains the italics, so-to be consistent-a pfal fan should recommend the Bible student switch to THAT rather than the KJV. I like Elizabethan English, but most people aren't big fans of Shakespeare. To refuse to do so is to be wedded to TRADITION ("vpw used the outdated KJV, so I will use it too!") rather than adjusting for superior performance (the NASB is superior to the KJV in everything but popularity.)]

"How do you think the Yankees will do against the Redskins this year?" "The Yankees are a baseball team. The Redskins are a football team. Personally, I think the Redskins would kick the sh* out of them."

That's from "STRIPES", when they're in the recruitment office.

IIRC, that should be the relevant issue. Full-time employment and part-time employment have different rules for eligibility for health insurance, dental, etc. Probably only when retirement slaps them in the face, and they have to "work until they die", as Howard Allen's been quoted as saying.

Mark Wahlberg Three Kings Jamie Kennedy

"And you may ask yourself 'How do I work this?' And you may ask yourself 'Where is that large automobile?'"

Pink Floyd, "Wish You Were Here", but everybody knew that....

New song. "She don't need to understand And I might find her if I'm looking like I can"