Raf

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.

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.