Raf

If you realize the epistles were written first, some interesting patterns appear. I will not discuss them here, because it's doctrinal and off-topic. (That's a warning). What's interesting is that as an educated man (doctorate or no) with a background in theology, Wierwille knew or should have known a lot about "how we got the Bible," and it's nothing like what he shared in PFAL. But he used just enough of what he knew (manuscripts, transcription errors, etc) to undermine people's faith in the book and set himself up as the authoritative voice in restoring faith. He had to know, even in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, that the gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. But he advanced that myth because it served his purpose. Remember how he said after he got out of seminary, he got to the point where he no longer believed the words "holy bible" on the cover? Couple that admission with what we know about his methods for forcing the Bible to fit like a hand in a blender. It's clear to me that he was selling a product -- not the accuracy of the Bible, but the consistency of his re-interpretation of it. As long as he could maintain the illusion of consistency, evidence to the contrary be damned, he could justify a following of like-minded believers (and the steady stream of income they provided).

Does pronunciation matter? Ooops. I was too late with my Frahnkensteen joke.

This one's for WordWolf: Stanley Tucci Big Night Tony Shalhoub

The whole idea of being biblically "correct" on an issue assumes the writers of the Bible were in complete agreement with each other, and that any apparent disagreements are in our understanding. When you realize the opposite is the case, it all makes a whole lot more sense. Paul and James were not writing from two sides of the same coin. They were writing from different currencies altogether. They were using the same words, but not meaning the same things when they used them. Naturally, they were coming to opposite conclusions. Why wouldn't they? How about Paul and Luke, who disagreed about who Paul met with following his conversion on the road to Damascus? This isn't an apparent contradiction. This is one writer calling the account put forth by another writer a lie. Oops!

I'll say it: She looks like she's never actually had a thought. Sorry. It had to be said.

Thousands. You realize he HAS to be counting people who have fled from him, CES, STFI, TTYL, LOL and whatever other acronyms they've conjured up since then, right? He's counting me. I'm an atheist now. He's probably counting Steve L. He's probably counting Tzaia. He's counting the thanks, and ignoring what happened later. You know, the results. In my view, the inability of TWI offshoots, all taught the same principles at the same time by the same people using the same source material, to cohere on doctrine after leaving TWI is evidence that the task itself is flawed. Either the principles are no good or the source material isn't. (Or both, as I see it). You can't cohere on doctrine after TWI anymore than hundreds of denominations had been able to before TWI. At some point you have to realize there IS no baby in the bathwater. Thousands. You realize he HAS to be counting people who have fled from him, CES, STFI, TTYL, LOL and whatever other acronyms they've conjured up since then, right? He's counting me. I'm an atheist now. He's probably counting Steve L. He's probably counting Tzaia. He's counting the thanks, and ignoring what happened later. You know, the results. In my view, the inability of TWI offshoots, all taught the same principles at the same time by the same people using the same source material, to cohere on doctrine after leaving TWI is evidence that the task itself is flawed. Either the principles are no good or the source material isn't. (Or both, as I see it). You can't cohere on doctrine after TWI anymore than hundreds of denominations had been able to before TWI. At some point you have to realize there IS no baby in the bathwater.

Thousands. You realize he HAS to be counting people who have fled from him, CES, STFI, TTYL, LOL and whatever other acronyms they've conjured up since then, right? He's counting me. I'm an atheist now. He's probably counting Steve L. He's probably counting Tzaia. He's counting the thanks, and ignoring what happened later. You know, the results. In my view, the inability of TWI offshoots, all taught the same principles at the same time by the same people using the same source material, to cohere on doctrine after leaving TWI is evidence that the task itself is flawed. Either the principles are no good or the source material isn't. (Or both, as I see it). You can't cohere on doctrine after TWI anymore than hundreds of denominations had been able to before TWI. At some point you have to realize there IS no baby in the bathwater.

Greta Scacchi Emma Alan Cumming [Note: You probably figured, but I've abandoned the game threads due to lack of time. This is the only one I'll come back to regularly, as it does not require me to check back in after contributing.]

I like how they're setting up Captain Cold to be a hero on Legends of Tomorrow. And always a treat to see Ham Tyler, I mean Michael Ironside, in action.

DWBH: Mind if I go into your post and add some paragraph breaks for easier reading?

Clash of the Titans. Sorry, couldn't resist. I once admired both these men for the same reasons (JALvis and DWBH), and seeing them interact this way is fascinating. I pass judgment on neither, on DWBH because there is none to pass, or on JALvis because my opinion is both irrelevant and altered by my newfound, profound worldview disagreement. Fascinating discussion and thread.

I'm glad to see the quality of the show has not diminished in the second season. Last week's premiere was on target, and the Flash of Two Worlds did not disappoint.

This sounds like 12 Monkeys

Mostly a guess.

The Lost Boys In the Band of Brothers

Oh, and the last one was Ghostbusters

I'm still laughing at the thought of Terrence Mann helping a show get ratings. Like he's a draw. Maybe I would have tuned in had I known at the time, but I don't think one viewer budges ratings points. He was great in three roles: Chauvelin in the Scarlet Pimpernel Javert in Les Miserables Beast in Beauty and the Beast. All on Broadway. Oh, lest I forget, Rum Tum Tugger in Cats (I didn't see him in that, or in Les Miz, though he's on the Broadway soundtrack). Anyway, where was I? Oh, yes... The Dresden Files

Good. Because Richard Kimble, Indiana Jones and Han Solo were giveaways

But if you DID, it would not demonstrate that such deities exist! That's the point. "There are no atheists in foxholes" fits the thesis that religion is not born of logic and understanding but of FEAR. Fear of the unknown. Fear of being powerless to change the (apparently) inevitable. Fear of death. It doesn't demonstrate that gods exist. It demonstrates that people in fear hope for rescue. Well, NO DUH! I'm sure the people on the four 9/11 planes hoped for rescue too. I'm certain nine church members in South Carolina hoped for rescue too. I'm certain the passengers and crew of the plane that a suicidal maniac smashed into the side of a mountain hoped for rescue too. Begged for it. Pleaded for it. Fear does that. But praying in a foxhole does not prove God exists, just like the fact that every person I cited in the previous paragraph is dead right now doesn't prove there is no God.

That's good to hear. The problem is, a lot of Christians project: Because they believe we are serving the devil by not worshiping God, they presume (unreasonably) that we ARE in fact worshiping the devil, which is ludicrous. There is no devil. On what basis do you conclude that atheists (please check your spelling) are less moral than God fearing folk? I'm sure you have stats to back this up. As stated already, there ARE atheists in foxholes. But the fact that someone in a perceivably helpless situation looks to God, Allah, The Universe or whatever to intervene in defiance of that such a person actually believes to be true reveals nothing substantive except that they're going through something pretty heavy. On a plane ride recently we experienced turbulence, and I got nervous. I shut my eyes. But I fought off decades of conditioned behavior that would normally have had me praying in such a situation. I told myself to relax, that the pilots had been through this before, dozens of times, and that they knew what they were doing. The plane landed safely. Not because I prayed. Not because someone else did. But because every single day, most planes, the overwhelming majority, land safely. Sometimes they don't, despite prayers. Yes, there are atheists in foxholes. You know where there are no atheists? The Klan. ISIS. No atheists there. Can't speak for him, but I am. Thanks for asking. What would I say to Jesus at the bema? Probably the same thing you would say to Thor at Valhalla, I suppose. I work in court daily. I've never seen anyone swear on a Bible, and only about 5% of the time do I hear "so help me God" as part of the oath taken before testimony.

Bernadette Peters Annie Albert Finney

Linus Larabee James Marshall Allie Fox Searching for the actor

Trying to think of a woman named Alex. And that led me to Fatal Attraction. Ok, coming up...

Glenn Close ?

Elizabeth Mitchell The Santa Clause 3 Martin Short