Raf

The English Patient Ralph Fiennes Harry Potter (Goblet of Fire, Order of the Phoenix, Deathly Hallows 1 and 2).

Actually, no, the title is not a misnomer at all. As far as the main character is concerned, the title refers to an act against HIM, not to his response.

Allegedly.

Ok then: Name the actor who played: Jimmy Doyle (again? Yeah, different Jimmy Doyle) Reverend Scott Senator Kevin Keeley Nicholas Earp

Ok, so let me get this right: If the Bible is right, interpretation and prophecy are supernatural. But that is no guarantee that what we were taught and practices in TWI were supernatural. So, if that's what you're saying, without committing either way on interpretation or especially prophesy, then we are in agreement. I, of course, believe it's ALL a bunch of hooey, but that started as a deduction, not as a presupposition.

i meant B but yeah

I would say I don't disagree with you, except I can't make heads or tails of what you said.

Fine Star The Empire Strikes Back Wars

You could just say "Open Post."

This movie is based on a novel in which the main character dies, absolutely positively beyond a shadow of a doubt eliminating the possibility of sequels. Kirk Douglas was originally to be part of the cast, but he was replaced when he objected to the new ending. In the movie, the main character directly kills.... no one.

oh hello

DeNiro

I really need to sneak into one of these things.

I'll say this once so as not to derail a thread where being a believer is the expectation (reserving my right to think and post differently): Interpretation of tongues is extemporaneous speech (or, more precisely, impromptu speech). There's nothing remotely supernatural about it, and you're not interpreting what is spoken in a tongue because (news flash) your "tongue" is not another language, and thus not what the Bible describes. If you are a believer, then you want what the Bible promises. Speaking in tongues, as we practiced it, is NOT what the Bible promises. Interpretation and prophecy have perfectly natural explanations that fit the facts better than the notion that something supernatural is taking place.

You guys are mixing topics. This thread is about extended interpretation of tongues. The OTHER thread is about the exaggerated "raising of the dead" story where the guy was never dead and nothing supernatural is even alleged to have happened except in the working brain of a man in a coma.

So often these stories depend a great deal on the recipient's lack of knowledge of the terms that are being used. I glossed over all that stuff, not realizing how key it was in debunking this nonsense story. The thing that sealed it for me was, the writer of the article did not consult a single doctor. Heaven only knows why he thought the article was worth writing, but he did and that's his call, and as publisher it is his right to print it. That doesn't make it credible.

Ok, so, without the modhat: Testimonials are CLAIMS. They are not evidence for those claims. People need to understand the difference. If I tell you I stayed home from work today because I was sick, the amount of evidence you need to support that claim is minimal. There's nothing extraordinary about the claim. Therefore, there is nothing extraordinary about the amount of evidence you require to believe it. If I were to tell you I stayed home from work today because last night I was abducted by space aliens, you would demand proof. And it had better be good. My claim, by itself, would be inadequate (to say the least) as proof. I had someone look me straight in the eye and tell me she had HIV. Then she looked me straight in the eye a couple of years later and praised God because it was GONE! Hallelujah! I relied on this person to help me understand things that only someone with HIV would know. Made me look like an idiot. After a while it hit me: she never had HIV. Given the set of facts, it was the explanation that is most probable. Testimonials are not evidence of themselves. By all means, draw inspiration from them if you will. But when you start presenting them as evidence of their own veracity, buckle up. Immabout to get rude.

Oh, i missed it. ModTheOtherGuy has already been here.

Except if you're me, there's no way to distinguish. I'll discuss with ModTheOtherGuy and we'll figure it out.

One more thing: Just because an article is printed in a newspaper does not mean it has met journalistic standards. This article contains ZERO independent verification of the claims being made. The writer merelvrepeats unverified claims. Don't use the professionn's standards to enhance the credibility of the claim when the profession's standards were not followed

Catol's account is the claim It is not evidence for that claim. I already have her number. Do not post it here.

Traxx Just kidding. Traxx was seen by more people.

By the way, EVERYTHING we know about Gary's medical condition comes to us second hand. Do we have the expert analysis of his doctor? No. Do we have the case studied by independent medical experts? No. Did Hugh Laurie suddenly have an epiphany leading into the last commercial break? No. To say this story lackscredibility is to be generous. It's one thing to consider his tale as a matter of faith. But you're going to need a truckload more evidence if you want to pass it off as an actual "miracle." It doesn't pass the first test of a miracle: it does not defy explanation. Guy fell into a coma [allegedly: we have ZERO verification even THAT took place. But let's assume it did since it is not an extraordinary claim and therefore does not require extraordinary evidence]. It was dire. His heart might have stopped a couple of times. He was revived [by medical attention; the story doesn't even ALLEGE a miracle here]. He was under constant medical care and supervision. He recovered. Would he have recovered without divine intervention? Who knows? Would he have recovered without medical intervention? Again, who knows? [Ans: you. you know]. When he awakened, he made claims about what he experienced that can readily be explained by the fact that he has a functioning brain. Look, if you want me to believe a miracle took place here, you gotta at LEAST alllege a miracle!

there is no evidence gary died. there is less than no evidence that gary was dead for two weeks. testimonies are CLAIMS. Every religion has adherents with claims. All magically verify their own religions. imagine that. His recovery would have certainly been miraculous had it not been accompanied by nonstop 24/7 medical care. Thank Doc he lived to tell his "miraculous" tale.