Raf

It was a product of its time.

The Shawshank Redemption Tim Robbins Bull Durham

mmph mmmpphh mmmmmphhh mmmmphhh!!!!!!!! MMMPH!!!! You are indeed entitled to your opinion and belief. You are not entitled to make assertions of fact without anyone challenging the assertion. Prove you produced a language. "It sounded like one to me" is not proof. You don't have to "ponder" what to speak to fake a language. In fact, you have to NOT, surprisingly enough. We discussed this ad nauseum in another thread. Feel free to explore it. It got a little out of hand at times (mea culpa) but the gist of the thread holds up. SIT is obscenely easy to fake.

The message was perfectly clear.

Yes. The real Charles Ingalls was a fiddle player. Michael Landon... not so much. But he faked it good. The lead actress was Melissa Gilbert, who played Laura Ingalls. He (adopted) brother, Jonathan Gilbert, played comic antagonist Willie Oleson. Katherine MacGregor played his mother, Harriet Oleson. Mrs. Oleson was the villain-like character, but again, it was more of a comic villainy. She was reportedly a real pain, but Michael Landon (star, writer of many episodes, director of many episodes, and executive producer) determined she was too good in the part to let go. Melissa Sue Anderson played Laura's sister, Mary. Anderson was nominated for an Emmy for the two episodes in which her character goes blind. Matthew Laborteaux, who has autism, played a young Charles Ingalls in one episode. Producers liked him enough to get him a regular spot playing "Albert," an orphan who is eventually adopted by the Ingalls family. About once every five to 10 episodes, you can hear the church congregation singing "Bringing in the Sheaves," referenced recently on the movie mash-up thread clues to the 1967 Batman movie.

Big hint: Read my last clue again... it's quite literal. Also, don't get stuck on "villainous." The character was an antagonist, but it's not like she committed crimes or anything. She was just not nice.

Here's how someone with half a brain would approach this conversation. "Everybody has priorities. I believe it can be said you "worship" the objects of your highest priority or priorities. That is how I define worship, and by that definition, everybody worships something." Given THAT definition of worship, I would respond in two ways. First, I would agree. If that's what worship means, then of course everyone worships something. Second, I would challenge your definition of "worship," because I think it butchers the language, which was my original point in the first place:

You said everybody worships something. In response, I said I don't worship anything. In response to THAT, you said I obey and serve myself. Now you expect us to believe you did not say I worship myself? B---, please. You insult our intelligence.

I said "regularly featured actress" in one of the clues. I should have said "supporting actress." She was a series regular, opening credits, there for most seasons. She just wasn't the lead. She was nominated for her performance in two episodes, after which her character never saw her family again.

It was more of a comic villainy than Dynasty. And while I can't say there was never a hymn on Dynasty, I can say with near certainty that there was no hymn "often featured" on the series.

The lead actor on this series had no idea how to play the violin, though his character did it often. A real life pair of siblings (adopted, but real life siblings) play characters who are not related. A particular villainous character was played by an actress who was quite the pain in the ass on set. The lead actor, who was also executive producer, considered firing her, but she was just too good for the part and was kept on. The main actor was never nominated for an Emmy for this series. Neither was the main actress. Or anyone else, save a single regularly featured actress, once. She lost. A young autistic actor was brought in to play the main actor as a young boy. His performance was so well received that he was later brought in to play the main actor's adopted son. A particular hymn often featured on this series was referenced in another game thread recently.

I will accept this ONLY if it is in the context of, "no s#8!, everyone does this, including people who claim to delegate that responsibility to a third party." Believers are no different from everyone else in obeying and serving themselves. Honestly, we save time by just noting that the comment was f-ing rude.

I said the same thing WW said in half the words.

Gimme a c a bouncy c Morey Amsterdam!!!! The Dick Van Dyke Show.

"I don't worship anything." "yes you do. You worship yourSELF." Tell me, in what universe, how is that NOT rude?

You know, this is precisely what I was talking about. It's perfectly fine for a religious a-hole to tell us we worship "orselves," but let me say he has an imaginary friend, or that his assertion is both obnoxious and rude, and watch what happens. "Hey, that's my religious belief. You can't insult me like that." Yes I can. You're a piece of garbage for telling OTHER people what they worship or don't. GARBAGE. That's what crappy people do.

That's rude. And stupid. Just letting you know. Just because you have an imaginary friend doesn't mean I worship myself in his place.

"I lean towards the belief that everyone worships/serves one sort of god or another, regardless of who or what they call it, even if it appears to be nothing more than themselves." Yeah, this isn't true. This is what religious people tell themselves to project their behavior onto those who do not share their beliefs. The problem becomes, they expand the definition of "worship" beyond sensible meaning, then accuse non-worshippers of idolatry because they put some other priority above the worship of a god. So if I put "earning a living" above "God," then I worship work or money. I mean, FINE, if you want to torture the definition of the word "worship." People generally don't worship themselves (certain high profile exceptions notwithstanding). Why is it so hard to accept the notion that some people don't "worship" anything? That you can admire something without worshiping it. That something can be a priority in your life without being a "god" to you? It reminds me of a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon. Rather than butcher it, I'm going to find it... The point being, "off" is not a TV channel. I do a lot of things. None of them involve worship, unless you define it out of existence.

Note: In the movie, the main character DIRECTLY kills no one. A few people die BECAUSE of him, but that was after they needlessly beat him. Actually, I'm not sure who really does draw first blood in the movie or the book. Metaphorically, it's the police, easily.

Without turning this into too much, I'll ask ModTheOtherGuy to take a look and make the final call. My view is, the guy is not accused of doctrinal stuff but of practical.

What the fresh hell are you talking about? Oh, I get it. Never mind. Yeah, I'm not sure the thread is doctrinal. "Have you heard of this guy" is not doctrinal.

Iron Man 2 Jon Favreau (sp?) Rudy

ExACTly. You know, if we had it our way, they would skip the invocations. But people insist on having them, so they need to buck up when it's handled by someone who doesn't share their faith. Next time someone prays to Jesus, she should dish out what they served her: "Point of privilege: Jesus, if he ever existed, is dead and cannot hear our prayers, so it's really up to us to get s#!% done." Watch how fast she is denounced for her rudeness.

It's annoying, but it's more far reaching than just my family.

So this came up the other day in a situation unrelated to GSC. My mother and I do not discuss religion. My brother and my cousin have all but disowned me over the issue. Apparently, it's fine for them to say God hates gay people, but it's not okay for me to say they are full of it and don't understand him nearly as well as they think they do. It's okay for them to say my son has autism because God wants to protect him from my atheism, but it's not okay for me to say any God who would inflict my son with such a disorder for such a reason is unworthy of worship, and their worship of such a piece of fecal matter is an actual character flaw. So my brother and my cousin don't speak to me, and my family wants ME to be the one to smooth over the differences. As if I'm the one worshipping a monster who would hurt their kids to protect their kids from their backward, iron age religious views. Fine. So the other day my family is gathered for a union (reunion? no, union) of sorts with a family member we've never met. Not important. And my mother kindly notes that the best way to avoid religious arguments is to keep your views to yourself. Ok, fine. Which she follows up with, of course there's a God, but people should be free to worship him however they wish. And then it struck me: "Keep your religion to yourself" only applies to atheists. It doesn't apply to theists. They can say whatever they want, in my home, in defense of monsters who worship a vindictive, petty a-hole. But I'm supposed to be the polite one. And you know what? That's rude too. The expectation that unbelievers should remain silent while believers are free to express themselves whenever, wherever and however they want is RUDE. I see it here when people post about the "miracles" of the past, while unbelievers, I presume, are expected to just accept that these outlandish stories happened as advertised. "What do you think of schmoe and schmoe" who played such a significant role in the miracle working ministry of Rev. Healed-A-Lot? You know, sorry. That's rude too.