Raf

I don't think one has to be a con man to have fooled himself into thinking he has spoken in tongues. To the contrary, I believe that every last one of us fooled ourselves into thinking we did it. It wasn't because we were liars or dishonest. It was because we: 1. genuinely wanted to do what we felt the Bible said was possible for us to do. 2. sincerely believed we were taught a method for doing it. 3. Basked in the mutual encouragement that congratulated each other for doing it once we got over hump of letting the sounds out. 4. Sincerely believed our teachers when they said not to believe that "Satanic" voice in the backs of our heads saying this was "just us." We talked ourselves into it. And we did it for SO MANY YEARS that to this day, some of us are unwilling to admit that we fooled ourselves as readily as we tried to fool each other. At no point do I believe this is a matter of malice. It was "wanna" beefed up by massive doses of "God said it, that settles it." But ask them what language they produced, and then sit back and wait for the excuses to fly.

But his books had a lot of pages with chapters and everything.

But he HAD to do that to protect the Christline! [WTF????]

After 30 years, you don't get to whine about spoiler alerts Bonfire of the Vanities Bruce Willis The Sixth Sense

I've read a lot of chapters in a lot of books. Some have more than 1,000 pages. Some have fewer. The fact that someone wrote a chapter in a book that documents a phenomenon he has identified is no guarantee that the phenomenon he describes is an accurate reflection of the truth. I'm not saying Bullinger is flat out wrong about the idiom of permission. He could be absolutely right. But peculiar how few others have made the same observation, independently coming to the same conclusion. And is it or is it not time we started asking some serious questions about the reliability of Bullinger as a scholar? Because the man was BATS. Too soon? He was nuts. I mean, flat-earth, Adam was created in 4004 B.C. cuckoo. I humbly submit that his opinions on tons of subjects are... what's the word... suspect.

1. "Sadly, I cannot get this man to accept the notion that the Bible really is the word of God." Ok, let's start there. The Bible never calls itself the Word of God. That's part of the problem right there. The Bible speaks of the Word of God quite often, but it never has the self-awareness to declare itself to be that Word. Maybe, just maybe, you can be wrong about the Bible being the Word of God and still be a good Christian. 2. "I think he would like it to be..." Well, no one asked you what you think, did they? Maybe he has no preference one way or another and is just waiting for you to make a plausible case for your thesis. 3. "... but is overly obstinate and has an awful attitude towards God and his plan for man's redemption." A lot to unpack there. Has it occurred to you that maybe YOU're the one being "obstinate" with an "attitude" that won't budge no matter how many facts he presents to counter your preconceived notion that the Bible is the Word of God? Like, maybe YOU're the stubborn one, not him? Because he shows you the Bible, and you start making excuses. Oh, that's the Old Testament. God's different now. He's really kind and gentle. He did what he did before because he HAD to to fulfill the plan of redemption. Problem: The plan of redemption is only the plan of redemption because God wanted it that way. It didn't have to be. He could just accept an apology without shrugging his shoulders and saying oh well because someone found a particular fruit of a particular tree to yummy to pass up (He also could have put that tree ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET but instead put it right in front of two people who did not know good and evil; then said don't eat from that tree. Not exactly a strong case for omniscience. It's like I put a cookie on the table in front of my 7-year-old and said "Don't eat that," then walked out of the room. He's gonna eat the cookie. I'm not all knowing, and I know that). So your friend, I submit, is not stubborn. Rather, he's amused at the contortions you'll twist yourself into to deny what's obviously written. There IS not idiom of permission in the Bible. Bullinger, for what he's worth, appears to be the only one who makes an issue of it. It's hardly a scholarly consensus. The existence of other figures of speech does not verify the "idiom of permission" as something the Bible employs on a regular basis. It is, however, an extraordinarily convenient tool for believers to employ whenever their holy book shows God doing what no good God would ever do, even though the book is unambiguous about it being God who did it. But that's just the old testament. Unless, of course, you're holding back tithes from the apostles in Acts, which is New Testament. (Oh, but it doesn't say God did that. It was Satan -- even though the Bible doesn't say THAT either). The Bible is filled with examples of God saying he'll do something and then saying He did it. It doesn't say he allowed it to happen or he allowed Satan to do it. It says HE did it. Now, it COULD have said he allowed Satan to do it, very easily. Look at Job. Satan did those things. It says so. Yeah, he got God's permission, but it says that, clearly. There's no ambiguity, and there's no "this is how it works normally." A figure of speech is supposed to be a statement that is true in essence though not literally true. "It's raining cats and dogs" is a figure of speech. "This car can stop on a dime" is a figure of speech. A figure of speech is not supposed to be a way for you to get the Bible to say the opposite of what it clearly says just because what it clearly says is inconvenient for your theology. God ordered the execution of a man for picking up sticks on the sabbath. He didn't give man permission to kill the offending sabbath breaker. He gave man an order -- cast those stones! God didn't allow divorce. He prescribed it. He didn't allow Satan to kill all the firstborn of Egypt. He had it done. And he DID have a choice. When my kid offends me, I have a choice how to discipline him. You have no idea how many times my discipline has stopped short of killing him because he did his chores between sunset on Friday night and Saturday night! So here's a thought. Bear with me: Maybe your friend isn't the stubborn one in this equation. Maybe he's not the one being inflexible. Maybe, just maybe, he's given this far more thought than you have.

Twilight Breaking Boredom Robert Pattinson Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Wrong movie. Bruce Willis voiced the Baby in Look Who's Talking. The Baby in Three Men and a Baby was a girl.

i don't suppose you guys are remotely interested in another perspective.

It is watchable. I actually enjoyed it very much. Skip the original movie though: it's a slog.

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?