Raf

1. This is a game thread. 2. Chill. 3. WW explained it.

My best witness is Christians who know full well I have accurately represented TLC's views and false accusations.

I'll let readers judge who is accurately reflecting the conversation and who's constantly distorting what other people say because he can't defend his own position using evidence.

Mine was. Maybe a Nestle Crunch?

I thought "You wish" was an adequate hint.

Literally not one person here used Campbell's work as the basis for the conclusion that the resurrection is a myth. Not one. It is an event that either happened in history or did not. If you believe the gospels and Acts preserve history, that is your prerogative. I disagree and articulated why. TLC's rebuttals called for accepting, as evidence, that which cannot be discerned from the senses. TLC also questioned my motives for disputing the gospel and scriptural accounts [ie, I just want to toss out scripture]. The problem with questioning my motives is, even if you are correct to do so, it does not alter the evidence. Luke is still unreliable on history and not above inventing miraculous tales [nativity, esp. its timing]. I'll cite more on request. The problem with evidence that doesn't come by the senses is that there's no way to test it or even confirm its existence. Every single religion without exception claims some form of non-senses evidence. On what basis do you accept one religion's extrasensory claims over another's? You can't do it without engaging in circular reasoning. That is, testing it against the Bible assumes the Bible to be true, but that is what we're questioning in the first place. The thing with a falsifiable thesis is, if you assume it is NOT true, the evidence will still lead back to it. That is how evidence works

You wish

You need a snickers. You get cryptic when you're hungry

I've pretty much dropped everything but Flash. Supergirl is good, but the obvious political overtones are too much even for me. And Arrow is just one damn fight sequence after another. Legends is goofy, but i just lost track of whatever the hell it is they are trying to accomplish.

I was going for non-iconic lines spoken by other characters to get it to be at least a LITTLE bit of a challenge. You are of course, correct

"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.