Raf

Yes!

Yup

Not one verse or one explanation of one verse. I'll wait.

The lead actor on this movie still owns the 1948 Ford Super Deluxe that he waxed during an unwitting training sequence in the middle of the film.

Aliens arrive on Earth in gigantic vessels, just in time to witness the third installment of a zombie apocalypse franchise.

One of the worst shows in television history, unless, you know, you liked it. The forgettable theme song was written by Randy Newman. So were most other songs on the show, which was part Hill Street Blues, part Glee.

"I'm gonna let ya' in on a little secret, Ray. K-Mart sucks."

I think it would be awesome if you quoted and responded to the actual verses instead of quoting and responding to my flippant summaries. Here you have Bible verses that actually authorize a slaveowner to keep a man's wife and children if the man leaves. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a provision allowing the slavemaster to release them! Try that in today's culture. Go on, I dare you. You'd never get away with it, and with good reason. I don't see how a word study or a better understanding of Hebrew definitions changes the fact that a man's wife and children are effectively being held hostage by a slavemaster and the only solution is to submit to a lifetime of slavery. What the bloody hell? But PLEASE, show me how words and definitions and "context" make this a morally acceptable practice! PLEASE!

If I can back up for a moment: Seymour Parrish: One Hour Photo Sean Maguire: Good Will Hunting Daniel Hillard: Mrs. Doubtfire

More famous roles: John Keating Peter Banning

Please explain each verse in its context and demonstrate that the situation being described and prescribed is morally acceptable.

Finding Forrester

Also fits Threes Company. Spinoffs The Ropers and Threes a Crowd. In Britain, Man About the House and Robins Nest. Not sure of the Ropers equivalent.

I'm sorry, but the verses speak for themselves quite clearly, I think. You keep saying there are different definitions and contexts, but I seem to be the only one quoting scriptures here.

To be clear, you could not go free before seven years. If you went free, you couldn't take your wife and kids with you. That's. Not. Freedom. Just the fact that God would let the master keep the wife and kids... Holy cannoli, really? How is that morally acceptable regardless of what word you're using? Slave, ebed, jolly green giant... It's NOT something I would ever allow morally. Seems to me the so-called source of absolute, objective morality clearly is not as moral as the vast majority of the people who follow him today (not to mention the vast majority of people who don't).

Ladies and gentlemen, exhibit 1: Biblical ebeddery allows a master to hold an ebed's wife and children hostage if the ebed wants to go free (if he gave the wife to the ebed in the first place). If you have a moral objection to that rule, which is presented to us as God's voice and not man's, then you are saying that you are more moral than the God who gave that rule. If you do not have a moral objection to that rule, you are probably, and I'm guessing here, not reading this. Read it as many times as you'd like. A man can sell his daughter as an amah. She doesn't get that cool deal about going free after seven years. That's for male ebeds. (I'm assuming we are not restricted to ebed, but even if we are, the concepts are clearly related and on-topic). And if the master marries another woman, in addition to his... let's call it, purchased sexual companion... as long as he keeps feeding, clothing, and boning his amah, he doesn't have to free her. If you have a moral objection to that rule, which is presented to us as God's voice and not man's, then you are saying that you are more moral than the God who gave that rule. If you do not have a moral objection to that rule, you are probably, and I'm guessing here, not reading this. God must have not read the part about how they were not to be treated as property. He said, yeah, treat them like property. If you have a moral objection to that rule, which is presented to us as God's voice and not man's, then you are saying that you are more moral than the God who gave that rule. If you do not have a moral objection to that rule, you are probably, and I'm guessing here, not reading this. Let me know if I need to keep going.

What?

I knew it was Rise or Legends.

FYI: If you need to give MORE characters, please make them obvious to move the game along. This actor has had so many roles, but you never think of him as his character names. He's too much of a presence for that.

Three actors in search of a character. That character being Sherlock Holmes Up next Seymour Parrish Sean Maguire Daniel Hillard Hints: the character of Seymour Parrish was VERY well received by critics. But the movie he was on was not exactly a blockbuster. I'd be surprised if you had not heard of it. I'd be surprised if you saw it. You have all but certainly seen the movie featuring Daniel Hillard. He's actually the title character, in a manner of speaking. The actor won an Oscar for portraying Sean Maguire.

Fine Rise of the Guardians of the Galaxy Or is it Legend of the Guardians of the Galaxy Or Rise of the Dawn of the Legends of the Guardians of the Galaxy Quest for Fire and Ice Storm of the Century

Is ebeddery, as described in the Bible, morally acceptable to you? Only verses can outline what biblical ebeddery is.

Yes. Tom Hanson from 21 jump street John Dillinger from public enemies James Barrie from finding neverland. You're up.

I was just waiting for verses.

I give you three character names, you identify the actor/Actress who played them. Or if you're in the mood, give us three actors who played the same role, and we have to guess the role. Try not to be too obscure, but no need to make it easy. Ready? Go! John Dillinger Tom Hanson James Barrie