Raf

"Listen, you promise me something, OK? Just if you're ever in trouble, don't be brave. You just run, OK? Just run away." *** "This is a new company record! If it wouldn't be such a waste of a damn-fine enlisted man I'd recommend you for OCS! You are gonna be a general someday."

it is

I I I posted the video. Mmmbop, by Hanson

Halloween iii was an unrelated story. The rest were about Michael Meyers. H2O ignored everything after Halloween Ii. Halloween (2018) considered ALL sequels apocryphal

yes

By the way, there were at least 8 sequels before this one. One of the sequels, oddly, told a completely unrelated story. A few sequels were completely ignored by a later sequel. Then there was a remake (not a sequel) that had the same name as the original. That had a sequel too, though part 2 of the remake bore little resemblance to the original part 2. It was not called "part 2." I'm just using that for ease. So when the latest sequel was announced, it had the exact same name as the original. But it was announced as a sequel. However, its storyline ignored everything except the first movie. The sequels were no longer canon. It is not sci fi

close enough. I Want You was the name of the song. And according to the lyrics included with the cd, it is indeed a chick-a-cherry cola. You're up

I don't know where you're going with that, so I can't tell if you're on the right track. I can tell you that a little kid could figure this one out. Only goes to show what little people can do.

Independence Day Resurgence did not have the same title as its predecessor

Pretty sure but not 100%: This is the only sequel to share its name with the original (no "ii," 2, part two, etc). It was released and set 40 years after the original.

The power of myth, the resonance of these stories, does not make them true in the historical sense. Perseus was never sent in a crate down a river anymore than Moses was, and vice versa. The Jesus myth is an expression of a lot of things, but historical truth is not one of them.

Jesus rose from the dead as surely as Gandalf did.

We have now entered the horsesh*t as evidence phase of this discussion

we're on a new song now. Not sure this one made it to number 1, but it was a big hit. Anytime I need to see your face I just close my eyes And I am taken to a place Where your crystal minds and magenta feelings Take up shelter in the base of my spine Sweet like a chica cherry cola I don't need to try to explain I just hold on tight and If it happens again I may move so slightly to the arms And the lips and the face Of The Human Cannonball that I need to I want to Come stand a little bit closer Breathe in and get a bit higher You'll never know what hit you when I get to you Ooh [title], I don't know if I need you but Ooh I'd die to find out Ooh [title], I don't know if I need you but Ooh I'd die to find out I'm the kind of person who endorses a deep commitment Getting comfy getting perfect is what I live for But a look and then a smell of perfume It's like I'm down on the floor And I don't know what I'm in for Conversation has a time and place in the interaction Of a lover and a mate but the time of talking Using symbols, using words can be likened To a deep sea diver who is swimming with a raincoat Come stand a little bit closer Breathe in and get a bit higher You'll never know what hit you when I get to you the rest of the lyrics are repeated.

By the way, why would the Bereans search the scriptures to see if the resurrection was a historical event? Wouldn't there be, you know, evidence? I mean, what were they looking at scriptures for? They weren't looking at Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, or Acts. So... prophecies? No one is saying there were no prophecies. But prophecies don't prove the resurrection happened [the topic of this thread]. Again, the fact that people believed Paul does not entail that the things Paul taught were true. People believe con men all the time. The truth of what someone teaches is independent of who is doing the teaching and whether anyone or everyone believes it. The truth emerging from your scripture citations is that you're abandoning any pretense of argument and are instead appealing to piety as a substitute for the examination of evidence. That tactic might work if we were discussing what the Bible means. But it is pointless in a conversation where one side isn't impressed by the admonition of scripture to revere scripture because scripture said so. Scripture is not evidence of itself. It is a claim. The evidence either supports the claim, refutes it, or is neutral. it is possible to construct a strong, evidence-based argument for the resurrection. I praised one earlier in this thread. But quoting scriptures to shame non believers for not revering scripture as the arbiter of truth would be like me accusing you of paying insufficient homage to the Q'uran while evaluating the claims of Islam. Might work on another Muslim, but only a jackass would think it sways you at all.

you know, i am sick and tired of your misreprentations. I did not say throw all scripture out. I said you cannot use scripture to prove itself. That Exodus and Noah's flood did not happen are historical facts. They do not entail throwing all scripture out. David, for example, probably existed. Solomon almost certainly did. Nebuchadnezzar absolutely did. The book of Daniel actually does record some history. Daniel himself is a fictional character. Psalms and Proverbs make no historical claims. The Prophets contain some stories that in all likelihood actually happened (probably not Jonah, which we can explore separately if you wish). But I never said toss out all scripture and I would seriously appreciate it if you would STOP LYING ABOUT ME. As for the rest of your ignorant comment: i have done nothing but produce evidence for my position, which itself required me to change my mind and abandon decades of preconceived notions. To suggest that I'm the one who has "shut the door" on examining the evidence with an open mind and heart is the height of hypocrisy. YOU are the one who has stubbornly shut the door refusing to consider evidence that conflicts with the myths you hold dear.

"So, you want everyone to believe he was just plain stupid?" I literally said the opposite of that. I never said he was a fool. But gullible? Sure! You say that about the followers of literally every religion other than your own! You believe Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon on Golden Plates? How gullible are you? You believe Mohammad flew to heaven on a winged horse? How gullible are you? You believe Buddha did this, Confucius did that, Thor did the other thing? Oh my God. Scientologists believe WHAT? You have no problem dismissing the claims of every other religion except your own. Everyone can fall victim to gullibility (a point that was raised earlier in a post by Rocky). EVERYONE. No matter how intelligent. No matter how skeptical. No matter how discerning. It doesn't make people stupid. It makes us human. My kid still believes in Santa. He's not stupid (and he's figuring it out on his own, by the way, which I think is awesome). My wife never told her daughters "the truth" about Santa. They're in their 20s now. They play along. But they figured it out. There is nothing "foolish" about faith. I have never called anyone here stupid or foolish (at least not without a reprimand). I know many believers who are brilliant. That doesn't make what they believe true. Whether the specific people you mentioned actually existed or not, real people in the first century became Christians, and they weren't stupid. You know what they were? Superstitious as f---. Seriously, how did Paul convert those very people. By appealing to the statue of the "unknown God" that they had erected, just in case they missed someone in all the statues they had erected. Huh? How gullible do you have to be to believe in the gods of Greek mythology? But they did, and they were just as smart when they believed in Zeus and Apollo as they were when they believed in Yahweh and the resurrected Y'shua.

Ok, couple of things going here. First: the existence of Yahweh would not preclude other cultures from making up their own gods. Second: Noah.... you know that never happened, right? You read Actual Errors in Genesis? Because I'm not going to relitigate that b.s. story here. Third: Even assuming that story to be true, it still remains that Yahweh would be perfectly capable, post-flood ESPECIALLY, of revealing himself to more than one culture. This notion that he chose Israel because no one else would listen is a little convenient, no? An Almighty God can't reveal himself to more than one culture? Everyone else said no? Must not have tried very hard. Jehovah's Witnesses get doors slammed in their face all the time. Know what they do? Move to the next house. They're persistent that way. And the fact that a Jehovah's Witness congregation popped up in Fort Lauderdale and another congregation popped up in West Africa, with the exact same doctrine and reading the exact same Bible, is proof that there is such a thing as "Jehovah's Witnesses." You mean to tell me Yahweh himself, THE ALMIGHTY, is less persuasive than one of the most irritating groups of people on the planet? They can spread his message to multiple cultures but HE can't? Please.

Right. There was something other than intelligence at work there. We actually agree on that. Except you JUST SAID... You seriously need to make up your mind if you're defending his intelligence or not. So to be clear: it doesn't take intelligence to be faithful, nor does it take intelligence to disbelieve. You can be intelligent and hold either position. Who said otherwise?

The parting of the Red Sea... never... happened. That is a fictional account. Do you really want to go there? The Egyptians kept terrific records. Losing their entire slave population of more than a million people and having your army drown in one fell swoop would have been recorded. It never happened. LUKE is the account you are trying to prove. You cannot cite it as evidence of its own accuracy.

No, that is a false assertion. If there were multiple gods with multiple intents and purposes, it does not follow logically that each one would reveal himself to one and only one culture. If Yahweh existed, quite frankly, it makes no sense that no other culture anywhere on earth heard of him except for those that developed in the middle east. It doesn't matter if Satan is planting stories of false gods all over the place to confuse things: Yahweh would still have the ability to reveal himself to a culture that had no prior contact with Israel. What you're doing is taking what I said and coming up with a tangential reason there would be other gods without addressing the central point of my comment, which is that no two cultures have independently developed the same God. It doesn't matter if 5,000 cultures develop 5,000 different gods. The bizarre thing is that no two came up with the same one. A god who EXISTS could have done that easily.

What about all the members of the council who called B.S.? You can't cite him as a model of intelligence and ignore all the other intelligent people who said no! That's just dishonest. So you have a member of the Athenian judicial council who believed Paul, and how many member of the council did not buy it? How many said this is nonsense? Why does one person's acceptance outweigh everyone else's judgment that this was bunk?

These songs are more than 20 years old.

old fogey!!!!

New song, same era Anytime i need to see your face i just close my eyes and I'm taken to a place where your crystal mind and magenta feelings take up shelter at the base of my spine sweet like a chick-a-cherry cola I don't need to try to explainI just hold on tight and If it happens againI may move so slightly to the armsAnd the lips and the faceOf The Human Cannonball thatI need to I want to Come stand a little bit closer breathe in and get a bit higher you'll never know what hit you when i get to you