modcat5

We're going to let the namecalling slide because it resolved on its own, but in the future please refrain from it. If you want to question the rational basis of someone's post, employ reason, not namecalling please. Sincerely, the poster who coined the name Smikeol.

Congrats on trying to be apolitical with this topic. Move on to another conversation please.

I actually agree. Didn't pay mind to this thread earlier and no one reported it, but we need to be consistent.

Pretty sure "the previous movie" has a different name than the one you're thinking of.

This thread is in the right place.

Ok, for those who don't know, modcat5 and Raf are the same person. And this is not MUCH of a trivia question, but I enjoy it. In the TV series "The Good Place," which is about the afterlife, the core characters are told that one of them must be sent on a train to "the Bad Place" to correct an afterlife imbalance. They debate over which of them would be best to sacrifice himself/herself for the others, when the main character comes to a sudden realization that means NONE of them will board the train to the Bad Place. What was the realization?

Oh sorry. Be right there

The premise of the doctrinal section has been updated in light of recent questions and comments.

Suggestion, and you can take it or leave it, but in my humble opinion a true Easter Egg has nothing to do with the plot itself. People passing around sandwiches while watching a concert in How I Met Your Mother is a "callback," not an Easter Egg. A callback is when an idea is revisited without explanation, just to see if you're paying attention. (In HIMYM, "eating a sandwich" is code for smoking marijuana). William Shatner guest starring as the Big Giant Head in 3rd Rock from the Sun, complaining that he saw someone on the wing of his airplane, and John Lithgow saying "I saw it too!" is an Easter Egg. The two actors played the same character in different iterations of Nightmare at 20,000 Feet on The Twilight Zone. The scripture quoted on Nick Fury's headstone in Captain America: The Winter Soldier is the same scripture Samual L. Jackson's character repeatedly quotes in Pulp Fiction. Etc

This thread spins off a post by George. For the uninitiated, Easter Eggs are subtle (or not-so-subtle) allusions to trivia that are not central to the plot of a show or movie, but are included to reward audience members in-the-know for paying attention. For example, George posted the following in the "Newer Star Trek Shows" thread: The gag, for those who don't know, is that Zachary Quinto played the younger version of Spock in the last three theatrical movies, making him a younger version of Susan Bay Nimoy's late husband, Leonard Nimoy. This thread is for such Easter Eggs, whether you spotted them in a movie or a TV show. Go wild.

Clever

Moved the thread and retitled it to make it an explicit invitation to Christians.

I have to say i agree with Nathan.

Seeking clarity: You are posting here because you WANT Christians to discuss what they believe the Bible teaches about the subject of your thread? You understand that by posting here, you are voluntarily limiting your capacity to criticize those views in detail? (A mention might be ok, but anything more would be violating the gentleman's agreement that governs these subforums). Would anyone else like to weigh in?

Ok, the report was that this is in the wrong forum. I agree. There's a bit more to the report that needs to be addressed, but the upshot is, THIS thread belongs in the atheist subforum. Leaving it here overnight for discussion and/or dissent. Raf.

No rulings. We've been asked to step in on this thread and at the moment I don't have time to do so. Gonna try to have a read of the thread, then look at the report, then decide if there are any rule violations. Please do not take this action as any judgment of the thread or the complaint. Thank you for your patience.

Siskel and Ebert were rival critics for the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times.

Actually I also misread Oldiesman's post. My brain also put a "not" in there that was not there.

Ok, then. Now you know.

You're JUST catching on to that?

Please do not refer to anyone in the public eye as a "political charlatan." Doing so validates the expression of an opposing view, which opens a political discussion. Surely we can discuss the question of whether God is arbitrary in who he spares or doesn't spare without having to resort to expressions of political preference.

Ok, i'm done arguing. Do not post politics. Do not post in response to a post about politics. If i need to err on the side of scorched earth to be consistent I will do so. I would much rather try to apply some reason, but if that's going to result in accusations of needing to get over myself, screw it. Thanks

No, that us NOT rationalization. It's moderating a board where no politics is a rule. So when someone brings up politics, we need to decide how to respond. In the past, political posts have been deleted. No warning. What happened here was, political posts went up. People replied. Others replied to the replies. Dome of the replies to replies to replies were political and some were not. Some of these non-political replies make no sense unless you know the political post it was replying to. Everyone misstepped on this one. Maybe I misstepped when I didn't delete the first mention of Butler. The point Charity tried to illustrate was that it's ___ to say God spared someone in a certain situation when someone else in the same situation was not spared. Unfortunately she chose an example steeped in politics. And that opened the door to Oldiesman responding with an implication that God's favor is on a particular politician. And THAT opens the door to a conversation about whether God intervened in Butler and, if he did, whether He did so because of politics. That got shut down. Discuss God's views on politics anywhere but here. We shut down politics YEARS ago. The only question that remains is how much of the thread to retain and how much to delete because of politics. I am so sowwy if i huwt yo feewings in trying to make a reasonable determination of what to keep instead of deleting everything that followed oldiesman's post as responses to politics. Which I would have been completely within the board's right to do. Get over myself? Hold up a mirror when you say that.

Folks, no politics. Thank you.