Raf

George is closer. His last hit song was released in 1994. It was a sleeper. He never won an Oscar, though he did contribute an original song to a Disney movie. Never won a Tony, though there was a jukebox musical of his hits on Broadway. Never won an Emmy, though one of his songs figured prominently in a dream sequence of a major hit comedic drama series. Yeah, he has Grammys.

He played... Matt Cassidy Willie Abbott Anthony Blake/Anthony Dorian Tom Corbett

You associate this artist with another location to the extent you'd be surprised to learn he was born in The Bronx. He started out as a boxer, and won 22 Golden Gloves fights. But he had a strong desire to play music, so he joined a heavy metal band named Attila. That didn't work out for him. Music did work out, though. Today, when he plays a concert, he doesn't allow the venue to sell the first few rows of tickets. Instead, he gives them away to real fans. Not entirely sure how he identifies them. He's written more than 50 hit songs, and the one people identify with him most turns 50 this year.

:)

Broke... every... law... wut?

I'll be here soon

oh duh

OS, I respect your perspective and thank you for sharing it. I think of God in this context as Dumbo's feather. It gives him the power to fly. Without it... Without it he can still fly, but he doesn't know it. He thought the power was in the feather. It was Dumbo all along. You believe Christ turned you around and changed you. I can't talk you out of that, and as long as you're flying, I don't want to. But I will be the guy over here in our greasy corner of the internet cheering you for turning your life around.

That was beautiful

And that's fine. But can you see how similar that sounds to "I've heard all those allegations about Wierwille before. But I'm cliser to God thanks to his ministry than I've ever been." You probably sound to Mike the way I sound to you.

oh he was bluffing should have known

The author was full of it... Yeah! Mark may as well have written about Narnia as Palestine, considering how well he knew the terrrain. Matthew and Luke flat out plagiarize his work and make up historical events we KNOW did not happen (the slaughter of the innocents, ripped off from Exodus) and the census that counted people based on where their ancestors lived rather than where they lived now. No census has ever done that. Ever. Along comes John and turns Jesus from the guy who said "shhh... don't out me until it's time" to the guy who said I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE AND ONE WITH THE FATHER! John has Jesus raise a man from the dead after four days, a man named Lazarus. Amazing that three other people give us an account of Jesus' ministry decades earlier and not one considers this anecdote worth mentioning. Almost like it was made up. Speaking of which, Paul makes up stories about learning the gospel from God and not men, as though getting information from the people who actually walked with Jesus might be a disqualifying factor rather than one that lends him credibility. Of course Paul makes up his story of the last supper and the post resurrection appearances before the gospel writers make up the story of Judas' betrayal, which better explains why he has Jesus seen of "The Twelve." Honestly, if we lived at the same time as the gospel writers and Paul, we would smell something emanating from them, and it would not be fish.

I already have multiple threads waiting for me, or I would answer. However, I cannot believe this movie is stumping anyone.

Got a lot of kids named after him. Coincidence?

Wikipedia takes the place of the absent evidence.

You guys prefer Orviĺle Redenbacher, Jiffy Pop or Pop Secret?

oh kaaaaaayyyy

Not as impressed as I hoped I would be with that first video. Part of the reason was "to whom addressed." As a follower of TWI, I would have been wholly unimpressed with the argument that Wierwille was wrong about Christology because there's a word someone made up that defines away Wierwille's point by fiat. So you see, Wierwille is wrong because of hocuscadabra! I did like how he documented Wierwille's cursory [at best] grasp of early church history, but he inadvertently exposed some of his own. To hear him tell it, the early church comprised nothing but orthodox trinitarians occasionally pestered by heretical wannabes. In reality there were a whole bunch of competing Christologies in the early church with orthodoxy winning out. Veering off topic. Veering back. As a message to a general audience, I'd give this video a B. As a message to a Christian audience, an A. As a message to a scholarly audience, a C-.

Wrong wizard, WW

Geena Davis

Once again, I am not advocating "perfect" as a definition.

lol

I apologize for my initial response to this post, but I DID just comment about the number of times I addressed it. Quickest summary: It means what YOU think it means. However you answer that question, if you include the Bible as theopneustos but exclude PFAL, why? What criteria are you using? I submit that someone else can use the same criteria to exclude the Bible as theopneustos, regardless of how YOU define that term. PFAL's definition was easiest to refute, as both PFAL and the Bible have actual errors and contradictions that disqualify them as theopneustos by PFAL's definition.. But I contend that it doesn't matter how you define theopneustos. Once you define it, explicitly or implicitly, you face the problem of deciding what to include and what to exclude, using some explicit or implicit criteria, which I contend can be used just as easily to disqualify the Bible as it can to exclude PFAL.

There is a correct answer. We may not like it.

Oh come on. How many times do I have to go pver this?