Raf

Because I promised... From the Destin Log: Umm, no, it has not. The absolute BEST you can say is that modern archaeology has confirmed the existence of people and places in the Bible that some have previously questioned. He cites the example of King David. King David apparently DID exist. We learned this through archaeological discoveries. That's fine. But there is zero evidence that he ruled over a united Israel as described in the Bible. Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (2002). The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and The Origin of Its Sacred Texts. "We still have no hard archaeological evidence—despite the unparalleled biblical description of its grandeur—that Jerusalem was anything more than a modest highland village in the time of David, Solomon, and Rehoboam." I could go into further detail, but that one line from Destin suffices to make my point that his conclusions, such as they are, are laughable. Destin goes on to denounce critics who say Belshazar never existed, thus questioning the historicity of the book of Daniel. Destin ignores that no one says Belshazar didn't exist. The criticism was that he was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar, as the Bible states (and guess what, he wasn't!) and that he was never king, as the Bible states (and guess what? He wasn't!) Without turning this into a scholarly treatise, can we agree that sometimes people who point to archaeology overstate the extent to which findings confirm scripture? I will agree that sometimes people point to archaeology and overstate the extent to which archaeology contradicts scripture. (For example, I believe Nazareth existed in Jesus' time, despite allegations to the contrary).

One of the shows featuring the two title characters as the title characters is currently airing. I'm looking for the other one. Plenty of other show and movies in which only one of the title characters is a title character (the other is usually present, but not a title character).

It is Avengers Endgame Hurt, Bassett and Douglas attended the funeral. Ken Jeong was the guy on guard when the rat freed Ant-Man. Yvette Nicole Brown was the SHIELD worker who thought there was something fishy about Cap and Tony Stark

You'll kick yourself when you realize it. Most of the people named are cameos. I believe only two have lines. Vin Diesel Rene Russo Gwynneth Paltrow

It is not a spinoff. Not aware of any series in which Cindy Williams or Penny Marshall played their own uncle. Anyway, I'm actually aware of two series in which the two main characters are named in the title. The two series do NOT have the same name. I'm looking for the earlier of the two series.

This series featured neither the first nor the last portrayals of the title characters. The actor who played one title character recently said in today's political climate, he would never be allowed to say a line that has been associated with his character for decades. It was a peculiar claim, considering that he, in character, also never said that line (and it was never spoken in the series, though it did come close once). On a different show, the lead actor went on to play a character you could consider the adoptive uncle of his character in this series.

Robert Redford, William Hurt, Angela Bassett, Michael Douglas, Ken Jeong, Yvette Nicole Brown

Three actors, one role: Sean Connery Taron Egerton Patrick Bergin

I think it is most likely that this is incorrect. HOWEVER, it's not outside the realm of possibility. The simplest explanation is that this verse says exactly what it means and there's nothing confusing about it. Less simple, but still plausible, is that it's referring to the willingness of unbelievers to see Paul's point rather than the ability. In that case it's just either careless writing or something that gets lost in translation. Whatever way you look at it, "magic decoder ring" or no, it is absolutely a clear case of shifting the focus of the discussion from the subject matter to the people engaged in the discussion.

If I may, I think Oldiesman is lost at my analogy, not at my worldview. So let me try to articulate my analogy in the simplest possible terms. In the analogy, a healthy body is one in which Paul's doctrine is embraced. The virus is reason. If reason gets into the healthy body, it would cause a rejection of Paul's doctrine. So we fight off the virus with a vaccine. I Corinthians 2:14 is the vaccine. It blocks reason from entering the healthy body and thus preserves Paul's doctrine. No analogy is perfect, of course. The notion that religion does not employ reason at all is demonstrably false. But in Christianity you reach a point, according to Christianity, at which reason has its limits and faith carries you on to the next leg of the journey. And if, heaven forbid, someone should come along and say "that next leg of the journey makes no sense, you don't have to argue with that person because you have a ready-made verse explaining to you why that person is wrong. It's not because the next leg of the journey DOES make sense and here's why. No, that would be reasonable. Instead, the person is wrong because he's wrong. He doesn't understand. He's a fool. A natural man. Didn't take the blue pill. Doesn't have the decoder ring. ... "There is only knowledge where all scientific laws apply." Not true. There are plenty of areas in which scientific laws do not apply. At least, not as far as I know. They don't involve supernatural explanations, but science doesn't explain them either. Why are jokes funny? Why is Anna Kendrick more attractive than the Olsen twins? Why is the Godfather a better movie than Ernest Goes to Camp? What is awe? I don't know that science has an answer to any of those questions. But we know things are funny. We know people are attractive, some more than others. We know that looking at an impressive work of art can inspire awe to rival a sunset at the Grand Canyon. None of those things qualifies as scientific knowledge. And none of those things demands the existence of a God or gods. ... I don't use "sky daddy" because I don't find it useful. Same reason you almost never hear me invoke the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell's Teapot. I think referring to spirit as a magic decoder ring is disrespectful enough to convey my thoughts without my having to just be rude for rudeness's sake.

No, the substitution changes the conversation completely. I don't even know where to start.

Again, I respect the way you and T-Bone have approached the subject matter. I could get pedantic and debate every line, but as I said earlier, we've made our points clear and let the reader decide.

In seriousness, you guys have a way of taking what I said and responding to something close to it, but not to my actual point. I'm trying to minimize the arguing because I know I have a tendency to get pedantic. But not one person has actually refuted the points I made. You just take what I said, distort it a little, and respond to that. From religion HAS a vaccine to religion IS a vaccine, for example. Which I never said. Now I appear to have said that you cannot employ both reason and religion. Not what I said, but lots of energy spent refuting that. Well, THIS is religious and reasonable. As if I ever said the two were mutually exclusive. I didn't. Lots of religion makes sense. When and where religion stops making sense, religion invariably declares itself right and switches from trying to make sense to faulting the opposition for its incapability. That is the explicit message of I Corinthians 2:14. It's the whole point. But what about the rest of the chapter? The rest of the chapter just builds up to it. It doesn't refute my point. It contextualizes it. But what about spiritual knowledge? There is no such thing. That's the argument. That is the subject of the debate. You can't just declare it to be true and then invent some way of accounting for the natural man's inability to understand it! But that is precisely what Paul did. Religion creates a category of knowledge inaccessible to those who do not accept the religion in the first place. That's the vaccine. It's not against all reason. It's only against the application of reason that rejects the religion.

I see plenty of effort to respond to my point in a reasonable, intelligent manner. I also see cman's posts.

In case anyone was wondering what it looks like to be fully vaccinated, there you have it. Logic and reason cannot penetrate that kind of approach.

Come on, get it right! It's spelled "phony." You are welcome

Well argued.

I don't think he was concerned about debating. I think he was concerned about his followers. He probably felt he could hold his own. But he also knew where to stop, as evidenced by the fact that instead of telling his followers "here are the facts to refute their arguments," he had to tell them "it's a spirit thing. They can't understand."

Human, if you have a puzzle for us, go ahead. Otherwise I'll get to it when I get to it. But I'm already holding up a few threads...

I'll read both posts in more depth, but my initial reaction is, I have no reply that does not merely repeat what I've already said.

Oh let's not get started with what <<<some>>> Christians say...

Messenger of the Gods: Mercury. Juno... this is tougher. I'm going to guess Jupiter, her husband, as opposed to Saturn, her father.

Ok, a lot to unpack here, but thank you for the follow-up post, T-Bone. It reduces the amount of time I need to spend replying (and this is still a long-@$$ post). Obviously you guys think you're right and I won't change your mind. And I think I'm right and I won't change my mind. Best I can do is articulate my reply in light of your responses so that others reading can see that we're listening to each other and not just talking past each other. With that in mind: Chockfull: Yes, I did use rather strong terms. But consider the terms used by the Bible's writers to describe those who reject their message. We are "without excuse." We're "lawless." We're the "darkness" to your "light." We are "ignorant" and "hard-hearted." "Blinded." We are numbered among the "cowardly, detestable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and liars." Did I get to "evil" yet? [Checks notes. Nope.] "Evil." We've been captured by the devil and doing his will. Pollutants. Defiled in mind and conscience. Like a dog eating its own vomit. So yeah, I use words like "magic decoder ring" to describe something that you need in order to decode (discern) a message. But (T-Bone says) a ring is external, whereas spirit is internal. Fine. Call it "taking the blue pill" to allow you to see the truth. We unbelievers take the red pill and enjoy living blissfully in the Matrix. I use words like gullible. Emotionally strong? I submit these terms I used are TAME by comparison to the terms used by the Bible to describe me. Which is not to say that you've used those terms. Back to T-Bone: I did not say religion IS a vaccine against reason. I thought I was clear. Religion HAS a vaccine against reason. So let's explore what I mean by that (without going into unnecessary detail). Paul goes to great lengths to differentiate between the wisdom of the world and "God's wisdom." Why distinguish? In context, we see that it's because "God's wisdom" leads to a conclusion that the wisdom of the world finds "foolish." So what IS the wisdom of the world? It's wise. It's persuasive. It's human. It's reason. It's "senses reasoning" as we would call it in TWI (hooray! they got something right!). As T-Bone said, "just my take on it; I could be wrong." Here's MY take on it: I could be wrong. Paul knows that reasonable people listened to his pitch and rejected it as foolish. He knows other Christians are going to face the same opposition he did when they try to preach the word he was teaching them. So he needs something to counter the "philosophies of men" (aka reason) his people are bound to encounter. So I develop the imperfect analogy that reason is a disease, and it's in need of a vaccine. What's the vaccine? Verses that redirect the debate from the subject matter to the participants in the discussion. "You have the spirit of God. You get it. You took the blue pill. You have the decoder ring. Not those people. They don't understand our message because they can't. It's not because the message makes no sense. It makes perfect sense... to people with the ring, people who took the right pill, people with Spirit. People with humility. You ARE humble, aren't you? You have God's wisdom, right? Not like those people." Yeah, that is the definition of ad hominem. When you say "those people lack the capacity to even understand what I'm talking about," you have changed the debate from being about ideas to being about people. That verse, that tactic, is the vaccine. It doesn't address the conclusion reached by the natural man. It addresses the natural man himself and declares him incapable of properly assessing the evidence. Religion can employ reason, and it often does. But there comes a point when reason ceases to agree with what a religion is peddling. Where it outright rejects it. "Maybe there were six denials instead of three." No. That makes no sense. They all said three. "Maybe there was more than one cursed fig tree." No, that's just excuse-making to account for the discrepancy in the accounts. "Maybe Judas didn't immediately go and kill himself." No, Paul just screwed up when he said Jesus was seen of the Twelve. Or maybe he counted Matthias. Or maybe it was so tangential to the point he was making that he just didn't care. The point is Matthew was pretty clear on the timing of Judas' death. "There were two fields of blood..." No, there was just one. I chose examples we are most likely to agree on, but the ones that are relevant to this discussion are weightier. Like the ransom. To whom was the price paid? Why is a human sacrifice necessary in the first place? Why does redemption require a brutal death? And it gets deeper. I'm not inviting a debate on those questions, primarily because we are not going to resolve them. But Paul is terrified of that debate and needs to short-circuit it before we get there. That's why he redirects it. The rejection of his message couldn't possibly be due to a flaw in the message. It has to be a flaw in the person rejecting it. "Of course he doesn't get it! What do you expect from a natural man?" And that was the SHORT version of my reply.

Episode 1 Didn't laugh once

Lorelei Lee. No idea why i temember it. never saw Gentlemen Prefer Blondes