Raf

It's one thing to repeat your point. It's another to make the same point over and over again, in different topics. What do you think of dispensationalism? It's a way to reconcile inconsistencies in a made up theology. Can you lose salvation? Sure! Why not? Or why? It's all made up. What do you think of the Trinity? Someone made it up. SIT? Made up. Are all governments from God? No. That's made up. Make up? Only after a fight. That's what I was referring to by redundancy. Anyone who's been on this site more than half an hour knows I am not above beating a dead horse. But it has to be warranted. It shouldn't be like Stan Lee showing up in every Marvel movie to make a conspicuous "Look at me, I'm Stan Lee" appearance.

Great answers! Of course, I'm biased because one of those answers was REALLY flattering. That said, I do try not to be rude, but I think WordWolf hit on my subconscious question in his answer: I think my comments, if I were to really let loose, would run the risk of being repetitive. Not to mention redundant. In other words, I've said it already. Thanks. Any other feedback will be welcomed.

Based on a play where one character mentions Michael Caine to her husband. In the movie, the husband is played by Michael Caine. The reference was changed to David Niven.

Just fishing for some advice and conversation here. I'm following a bunch of different conversations in doctrinal that I continue to find interesting, but I haven't really jumped into many. Mostly my concern is redundancy. I mean, how many times can I say "because it's made up" before it gets old, even if I restrict such posts to the "picking up threads" thread? So here's my question: when does it become rude for a non-believer to insert that perspective into various conversations? I could go on, but I'd prefer to leave the question open-ended and allow anyone who wishes to take the topic where it may lead.

P.S. I knew who Tom Hulce was. I just didn't remember that he was in Animal House.

I may have used this before, but so what. One of the stars of this movie plays a movie star who is nominated for an Oscar. She loses. But the actress playing her did such a good job that she was nominated for an Oscar. She won.

I'm going to guess Animal House based on "arguably more famous than Footloose," Kevin Bacon, and Donald Sutherland (whose son, Kiefer, has had a strong TV and movie career." Died of a drug overdose: John Belushi Karen Allen helped Indiana Jones. Yeah, this is Animal House

He does sound Dazed and Confused, but that is not the answer. I could offer more hints, but really, you should be able to get this one without a clue.

You would never know it from the title. Or the cast of characters. Or the wardrobe. Or the vernacular. Or the setting. But if you pay careful attention to the plot, you might recognize Jane Austen's "Emma" as the source material for this extremely popular and trend-setting high school comedy.

Wow. This one's been dormant for a while... "Uh I've just been handed a news flash. The word "Canada" is unrhymeable. It's easier to - I don't know - get drunk and try to climb a bull. But Canada, damn it, ask any man on the planet and watch their stammerin' stamina as they clamor and cram it into the middle of a sentence for a shot at repentance, pass the problem on to all their non-rhyming descendants. I've never met anyone who could clean up after Canada. Except my Uncle Tony from the Bronx. He's a janitor."

wrong thread

Ok, just from the clues... It's a 1968 movie, making 2018 the 50th anniversary. Hot Wheels could make a collectible out of an easily recognized... prop. Note, he did not say CAR. So it's either a space ship or a boat of come kind. And the dialogue is silly. Parody-like. This is a comedy with broad humor. Successful soundtrack, but FFS please don't remake it. I'm going to go with.... Yellow Submarine.

A madman bent on world domination is thwarted by a British secret agent. What do I win?

Can I just say James Bond and get partial credit? Pierce Brosnan as James Bond in "Just Like All the Brosnan Bond Movies"

Welcome to Greasespot, Jimbo. While I am no longer a believer, I would be quite interested in the perspective of someone with a Master of Divinity over in Doctrinal. We lost one of our more academic voices recently. Be nice to have some of that back. :)

At the time of the post you are citing, this forum was in About the Way. As such, The Way's teaching on II Timothy 3:16 may have been relevant to the conversation, even if it is not relevant to the actual truth of the subject. I agree with you: just because Wierwille said it, doesn't make it so.

Ok, so... Caught up on Agents of Shield. Would have made a nice ending to the series. Caught up on Flash but we already knew that. Now on Arrow. Better than I remembered while trying to keep up the first time. Damn but Laurel is hot.

SPOILER ALERT for a 31-year-old movie! So Kevin Costner is having an affair with Sean Young (a woman) who is the lover of Gene Hackman, the secretary of defense. Hackman accidentally kills Sean Young in a jealous rage. Will Patton, who works for Hackman, wants to cover it up, so he makes up a story about a Russian mole ("Yuri") exploiting Hackman's affair to jeopardize U.S. national security. That mole, Patton says, killed Sean Young. So he puts... Costner in charge of the investigation. Fast forward: Costner is innocent... of the murder. But that story Patton made up? Turns out it was true: revealed in the dialogue above, Kevin Costner was a Russian mole who seduced Gene Hackman's girlfriend to compromise him. Ah, the good old days when a Russian mole infiltrating the top levels of the administration was ficti[CENSORED]

Kevin Costner talking to Gene Hackman's lover at the beginning of the movie.

No Way Out: This is the climactic scene, where Will Patton's character puts together the fact that Kevin Costner, in charge of the investigation to find out who was sleeping with Gene Hackman's lover, WAS the person sleeping with Gene Hackman's lover.

The tape series was called "A Pivot Point in History." The letter was called "A Pivot Point Revisited"

That is correct. Tom is Kevin Costner's character. It's a 30-year-old movie. I'm not ashamed of spoiling the ending. :)

Bump. I don' know if cwb01 is coming back, but this is an interesting question. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Frye?

I was recently reading II Timothy 3:16 in the American Standard Version (note, not the NEW American Standard Version, which I prefer). I found it interesting that they worded it: "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness." So in this translation (and not in many others), the impression is not that "All scripture is inspired of God," which is nonsense*, but rather that all scripture inspired by God is useful, implying that there are scriptures not inspired by God. And here we get to what I think is a significant point (which you folks have been raising) about "semantics." *That is, what do the Bible's writers mean when they use the word "scripture." I don't think Paul was referring to his own writings when he talked about scripture being "God-breathed." The preceding verse (context) talks about the sacred writings his readers would have known from the time they were children. THOSE are the "scriptures" of verse 16, not the letter he was writing to them at the time! A few years back I started a thread about a letter Chris Geer wrote to his followers in the USA (Geer was running the show in Scotland at the time of the massive 1989 TWI split). I called the thread "The Epistle of Chris Geer to the Americans." I'll never forget the reaction: people accused Geer of being so arrogant and narcissistic that he would write an actual epistle! The nerve! Meanwhile, that wasn't Geer's word. It was mine. And I was using an old-timey word in jest, because as you all know, an "epistle" is just a letter. That's it. There's nothing magical in the word "epistle" that makes it "The Word Of God Uh." Same with the Bible's use of "scripture." It just means "writings." We can't assume every time we encounter that word that the writer (or author, or Author, or whatever you want to put as the word there -- lol) is making some ontological statement about the nature of the scribbling. Not all scripture is God-breathed, obviously. Whether everything written in the Bible is God-breathed is for believers to debate, discuss and decide (naturally, I contend none of it is, but that comes with the territory these days). But I don't think it's appropriate to cite II Timothy 3:16 as evidence that the writer of II Timothy 3:16 believed II Timothy 3:16 is The Word Of God Uh. That, as others have pointed out, would be quite circular.

A: "We thought we'd never see you again." B: "So did I." A: "Couldn't you have manage this better?" B: "Not so fast, it's difficult for me to follow in Russian. It's been very long for me." A: "How thirsty you must be for the sound of our language. Evgeny Alexeivich, wouldn't you love to hear Russian again? Imagine Pushkin, Lermontov, Tolstoy..." B: "Solzhenitsyn, Aksyonov." A: [chuckles] "Even them, always the sense of humor."