Raf

I would not fault any religion for the excesses of its followers unless those "excesses" were not excesses at all, but prescribed by the religion. Christianity offers a decisive break from Old Testament Judaism (forgive the shorthand), so I would not hold it against Christianity if Christians took the Old Testament too seriously in application: start burning witches and executing rebellious children as Yahweh instructed his followers to do. Christianity, even in theory, depends on religious freedom to flourish. A person has to be free to decide to become a Christian, which implies that the person has to be free to say no. I don't see anything in Christianity that says if a person rejects Christ, kill him a lot. Quite the opposite. It says leave him be. I'm not disputing that Christians have done some horrible things throughout history. I just don't fault Christianity for it.

Keep trying hmmm. Some people call the title of this movie one thing. I call it another thing.

Whew

Snooping children isn't enough of a clue? A young girl with the same name as Bruce Wayne's aunt in the old Batman series (by TOTAL coincidence) secretly snoops on her friends and neighbors. She finds herself in trouble after her sworn enemy gets a hold of her diary. She turns to Carmen and Juni Cortez, the preteen children of secret agents, for assistance. And after that, I got nuttin.

No one? Carmen and Juni Cortez are also snooping children, if that helps.

For those wondering, he's not interested.

Mperdink, I'm thinking. But no idea where it leads

FYI, I tracked down Refiner and reminded him that his profile here is still active. Be a real hoot if he shows up!

Die Hard

A young girl who secretly snoops on her friends and neighbors finds herself in trouble after her sworn enemy gets a hold of her diary. She turns to a couple of pre-teens, Carmen and Juni Cortez, for assistance.

Oh that's been gone for years. No one was signing up except for bots. It became unwieldy.

Ok, Title Police Get Lost means the second movie in the clue will be the first in the answer. Peter Pan So you need a movie that starts with the word Pan. Without even knowing the plot, I'd guess Peter Pan's Labyrinth

I know, right?

Doh! Good move. Nope. Not strike 3. You struck US out. Mea culpa. You won Greasespot with that one.

The Blue Book review was independent of Mike and stemmed from Jerry Barrax' effort to deconstruct PFAL. The notion that PFAL was a sort of "new and improved testament" was unique to Mike. The Actual Errors in PFAL thread came from that. For those who have been around that long and are interested in my progression toward unbelief: Jerry Barrax introduced to our forums the notion that James and Galatians are SO at odds that James ought to be removed from the Bible. I took the traditional approach and tried to reconcile the two books. Behind the scenes (although I never admitted it publicly), I realized that James and Galatians were indeed at odds to the extent that apologetics could not truly reconcile them. The writers of those two epistles simply talked past each other, using the same terms to refer to different ideas -- both correct in their own contexts, but ultimately not reconcilable. It was then, very early on, that I lost the belief that the Bible was without contradiction. I preferred the term "paradox," as it allowed me to accept both views as long as I compartmentalized them. It was Mike who, in criticizing my Actual Errors effort, first said that a similar approach to the Bible would yield a similar result. I batted his argument away by focusing on PFAL, because if PFAL is "God's Word," it must have the qualities ascribed to God's Word by PFAL. That is, it must be without error or contradiction. But Wierwille's books did have errors and contradictions. I only highlighted those things that you could not argue out of by claiming doctrinal differences. I was rather nitpicky when it came to that, but there was a purpose. I never intended to argue that these were the only errors in PFAL. Rather, I was arguing that these were errors you could not talk your way out of no matter what your theological beliefs. And I was right. The list still holds up pretty much. But what I did not reveal, again, was the effect this had on my study and understanding of the Bible itself. It didn't hold up. It had errors. It had contradictions. In this sub-forum, I have barely scratched the surface of the errors and contradictions of the Bible (not apparent errors and contradictions, but actual errors). It was many years before I would say that publicly ("many" being a relative term). I think about 80 percent of the Greasespot rules stem from how badly I berated Mike. He deserved better than that. But he was still as wrong as a human being can be, and his defense of Wierwille's evil was morally sickening. Whatever. The Mike wars were fascinating. If it happened today, there would be no war. Just a LOT of laughter.

Here's the original post, with some up-to-date thoughts. I was a Jehovah's Witness early in life, and I believe that is the experience being described here. It conforms to my memory. I'm not going to argue with this interpretation of the Old Testament. However, while I have made some of my points of contention with the Old Testament fairly clear on other threads, I am not sure I see the same things Refiner is describing here. Yes, God does order mass murder in the Bible. I'm just not sure it fits the description being given here. Some chapters and verses would have helped the argument. I thought He did. ?? Yeah, those are two well known events in the Bible. I struggled with the death of David's first son with Bathsheba. I justified it in my mind by observing that God never promised health to that baby, and that David kind of brought it on himself. (Yeah, but David's not the one who died). This is a strange comment coming from a former Jehovah's Witness (which Refiner was) speaking to a group of ex-TWI people (which we were/are). But ok. I mean, really, strip the trinity out of the sentence, and it still makes sense. It's not like Jesus said "I distance myself from some of the things my Father did when he got hot-headed."

Two points. 1. I apologize for not reading through your post and failing to see that you alredy noted how old the thread was. 2. I do not see how Refiner was treated nicer than you were. I got you signed in here when there was no way for people to just sign in anymore, and Refiner was run out of this site on a rail. You have no idea. Priscilla, not so much, because she just got bored with us real quick. I am embarrassed at my behavior on this thread. And don't get me started on the Mike wars (don't ask).

I'm going to move this topic to "Questioning Faith," because it is naturally at home there.

The last post on this thread was eleven years ago. Suffice it to say, MY position has changed since then.

I repeat: Only in this movie, the art in question is the written word, and he doesn't imply he had anything to do with his superior rival's death. Finding Forrester it is. And for those paying attention, I was contrasting Finding Forrester with Amadeus.

Yes. Jackie Cooper and Laurence Fishburne were my next clues (after checking the spelling of the latter)

Lane Smith

No. While the more acclaimed writer was based on a real person, loosely, the movie's characters are fictional.

F. Murray Abraham again plays a creative type again who is not as acclaimed as one of his contemporaries again. Only in this movie, the art in question is the written word, and he doesn't imply he had anything to do with his superior rival's death.

Oops.