Raf

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

Cisco Kid? impossible. Keep dreaming.

Well then. You're gonna have trouble figuring the rest out, aren't you. Terrible, terrible trouble.

I found that if I followed through on what the Bible says about God, the concrete things, not just the feel-good-isms, follow them through to their logical conclusions, and you end up with moral questions whose answers range from unsatisfying to genuinely frightening. Scarcely a comforting answer in the bunch, when you carry it through to its logical conclusion. Most of us never ask the questions. We're taught that merely entertaining the questions makes you evil and immoral. But how much more immoral can you be than someone who will kill you to death for picking up sticks on a Friday night and thinks the victim of a rape is the woman's father or husband?

But what you describe isn't questioning God because it denies him outright. Not a comforting or satisfying approach for the average Christian, no? Or have I misinterpreted you? I don't think I'm smarter or more moral than God, by virtue of the fact that I don't believe He exists. But if you were to take the premise that He exists for granted, as well as the premise that the Bible accurately reflects his character, then I believe you have to conclude that his moral standards are lower than yours. He's capricious. His application of justice is arbitrary. He's vindictive as hell. Wierwille had to retcon the entire Old Testament just to absolve Him of the moral atrocities attributed to Him. But it doesn't fit. If you kept Yahweh's attributes intact and changed his name to Allah, we would not be debating these things. The defensive walls go up for the God we worship, and him alone.

Does it? How? (I assume your reason for saying this is on-topic. Just trying to draw it out).

Nah. Scarface

Don Diego de la Vega, si ju muss no.

You're welcome

Wait, no. Don Diego

A guess: Captain Bligh

Well, one thing I hate about this game is when one person knows the one title, the other person knows the second, but neither knows both. Maybe George can figure it out from here. If not, I'll have to come up with nine other things.

Does the answer only work phonetically?

S.O.B.

Sure.

Ha!

Here's my question: do you agree that it is morally impossible to free a man without also freeing that man's wife and son, and to permit that man to reunite with his wife and son only if that man agrees to be your slave for life, all while simultaneously being loving? Because if you don't, congratulations. Look right into the camera and say "I am NOT more moral than Yahweh (or AS moral as any decent person in the 21st Century)." It's easy to concede the Bible SAYS to love God in the law, and to love your neighbor. The challenge is in recognizing that the laws regulating ebeddery instead of abolishing it are presented as consistent with loving God and loving your neighbor. If you're consistent, you HAVE to say it's possible to lovingly buy own beat barter bang and sell your ebed. But it's not. Your moral standards are higher than the standards presented in the Law of Yahweh. That's why you have to come up with a week and a half of preamble before announcing that you're finally going to directly address the subject (and I'll bet dollars to donuts we're still not going to see a direct discussion for at least another week). But please. Prove me wrong.

Do I agree that the Bible says what it actually says? Um. Let me retire to consider that question. I'll get back to you. For pete's sake will you just get to the point already instead of asking patronizing questions?

Edge of Tomorrow Tom Cruise Oblivion

For the record, no I won't. The only thing I'll come away thinking is, at most, that I won or lost a debate, which is nowhere near the same thing as being proved right or wrong.

Why on earth would you issue a blanket refusal to criticize the NBD? Did someone declare it God-breathed while I wasn't looking? I don't think it is criticizing that publication to say that it is biased in favor of trinitarianism. I think that is an openly acknowledged fact. I suspect they would be offended if you tried to portray them as being open to the idea that the Trinity is incorrect.