Raf

You like that show. Gentle Ben 10

Mark attacked the subject directly with his NBD excerpt. I gave it only a casual treatment. If anyone thinks it raised points I have failed to rebut, I'm willing to revisit it. I also recommend articles by Paul Copan, which make a valiant (and in my opinion insufficient) effort to tackle what is certainly a difficult issue. In the meantime, unless something changes, I'm going to feel free to raise other issues. And WordWolf, you teased a salient point, and I'm genuinely looking forward to you making it. ;)/>

It was a warm summer evening in ancient Greece... "If only there was a discussion we'd be much further along." Well maybe there WOULD be a discussion if you would address a point instead if dancing around it so much. God is love. Family was important. Waiting for the part where any of this validates a man holding a wife and son hostage unless the husband agrees to be his slave for life. And waiting. And waiting.

Cuckoo's nest was before Jaws. This would be Coma

Wolf, you're up. It's Jurassic World War Z

While we're waiting, let us consider another example of rank immorality prescribed by the author of absolute, objective morality. I want you to imagine you're a woman, and you see your husband fighting another man. In an act of defending your husband, you get behind the assailant and grab him by the balls. This distracts the guy long enough for your husband to escape harm. How should you be punished? No, I'm serious. The woman gets punished for this. I'm NOT KIDDING. She touched the family jewels! What should her punishment be? If you said "cut off her hand, show her no mercy," congratulations! Not only are you allowed in the Cobra Kai Dojo, but you are also as moral as Yahweh! Yahweh says, CUT OFF HER BLEEPING HAND. No...MERCY! Now, I KNOW the Bible says love your neighbor as yourself. The Bible ALSO says cut off the hand of a woman who touches another man's privates when that man is fighting her husband (how often was this happening that a law needed to be made out of it... AND WHAT ABOUT THE TWO MEN FIGHTING?) There's only one conclusion that can be drawn from this. According to the Bible, it is NOT unloving to cut off a woman's hand if she touches the privates of a man fighting her husband. Just like it is not unloving to hold a woman and son hostage unless the husband/father, who has earned his freedom, commits to slavery for life. Mutilating crotch grabbers and holding slave women and children hostage IS LOVING, according to the Bible! Or you could just admit that this is a contradiction. Could you? Could you do that? My position: You can, IF you are more moral than Yahweh (spoiler alert: you are!)

Dustin Hoffman Christopher Walken Jason Isaacs

Keanu Reeves

If your next post doesn't advance the discussion, I will not be replying. It's been two weeks. Praises from Mark aside, you've not actually made a single relevant point that directly addresses any issue we've raised here. Nothing but "It was a warm summer evening in ancient Greece." Get to the point already.

I wasn't going to reply, but you left me with a question and I do not wish to be impolite. So, no. You are not unclear. You may (please for pity's sake already) proceed. And unless you are going to demonstrate how I misrepresented your position (when in fact I accurately responded to what you actually wrote) the gratuitous accusations of strawman are both rude and unappreciated. I have read several articles attempting to respond to the issue we're discussing, including the NBD article posted by Mark. Not one of these articles has wasted this much space setting the stage for the crew to come in and sweep the floor so the lighting can be set up while the casting agents put ads in Variety in time for the writer to finish the script so we can finally finally FINALLY get to rehearsals. On with the SHOW already. My patience is worn out. You're bluffing. You have no response and you're stalling in confidence that you'll come up with something halfway acceptable. Good luck with that.

Clever.

Stop telling me who I have to love! Sheesh, you Christians are all... Oops. Sorry. Wrong forum.

Very close. The first movie has not yet been released.

As I stated earlier, society doesn't get its morals from the religion that produced it. Religion gets its morals from the society that produced it.

The third and final chapter in the Evil Dead series. You're up.

Getting back to your point, I think it is possible to reject a "God-breathed Bible" without rejecting a "God-breathed Word," and without dismissing God as a "metaphorical concept." Plenty of people believe in a personal God as a divine entity without thinking that every preposition in the Bible was placed there by God Himself, or that the integrity of His message would "fall apart" if any other preposition were used. My belief is that morality does not come from our religion, but that some of our religion comes from our morality. A morally advanced culture would have posited a God who was far more moral than what we see in Yahweh. Yahweh's attributes were assigned to him by a people who were not where we are, morally. They did not ban slavery. They viewed women as the property of their fathers and husbands. That's why when a woman is raped in the Bible, the rapist has to pay the father and marry the woman as punishment. Why is that? Because the father's property loses value! It was a law that may have seemed compassionate at the time, but you can only reach that conclusion by looking at the law through a culturally relativistic lens. But you can't argue cultural relativism while at the same time upholding Yahweh as the author of an absolute, objective morality. If God is the author of absolute, objective morality, then His law should be absolutely and objectively moral. This thread takes the existence of God for granted, takes the Law for granted as His Word, and questions whether that premise holds up. That's why I bristle at the argument that He made everything better later. "Well, Jesus didn't approve of slavery." Well, so what if he didn't? He didn't argue against it as an institution either. He took it for granted. And even if he DID call for its abolition, it would not change the fact that he would be undoing what an absolute, objectively moral God authorized for centuries beforehand. That's why T&O's approach to this is crucial. He appears to understand that to "win" this "argument," he has to make the case that Yahweh's law passes moral muster today. My position is, it does not. My position is, believers know it does not, but have never forced themselves to look long and hard at the issue. Etc.

Chris Cooper American Beauty Annette Benning

Character 1: "Does this look like 'gub' or 'gun'?" Character 2: "Gun. See? But what does 'abt' mean?" Character 3: "It's 'act.' A-C-T. Act natural. Please put fifty thousand dollars into this bag and act natural." Character 1: "Oh, I see. This is a holdup?"

You wouldn't know it from the title, but this horror-comedy was the last chapter of a trilogy. Tagline: Trapped in time. Surrounded by evil. Low on gas.

Need more clues, I think.

Here is the shortest clue you're going to see in this thread, I'll bet: Dinosaurs v. Zombies

Teen Titans Go Diego Go.

Breedlove is Terms of Endearment. Nicholson won Oscars for those roles.

Tagline: Trapped in time. Surrounded by evil. Low on gas.

R.P. McMurphy Garrett Breedlove Melvin Udall