Raf

Didn't Melania Trump sing this?

Upon further reflection: yeah, that IS plagiarism. Not deliberate, but still plagiarism.

Yup

It should be noted that an ad hominem approach (let's refrain from my earlier use of "attack") does not necessarily imply an insult. Ad hominem simply means you're arguing the person instead of the topic. Things like, "Of course he feels that way; he's a Democrat." That's ad hominem. It does not address whether the person is correct in his thinking or incorrect, whether his position has validity or not. It dismisses his argument based on who he is, not on what he argues. Whether Paul meant to say that the natural man is unable to understand the things of the spirit or unwilling to understand the things of the spirit makes no difference in terms of ad hominem. It's ad hominem either way. Whether one is more insulting than the other, I really don't know. My reason for bringing up ability v. willingness had nothing to do with ad hominem. Rather, it had everything to do with the appropriateness/inappropriateness of the "magic decoder ring" analogy. That analogy would not apply is the issue is unwillingness. For whatever that's worth.

Sean Connery Kevin Costner Taron Egerton Russell Crowe Sean Maguire Patrick Bergin

This series featured neither the first nor the last portrayals of the title characters. Self explanatory 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). Dean Cain recently complained that he would not be allowed today to say "Truth, justice AND THE AMERICAN WAY." He neglected to mention that on Lois & Clark, he promised to fight for truth and justice. Jerk. 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." Dean Cain played Kara's adoptive father in Supergirl, making him Clark's adoptive 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." You figured it out "One of the shows featuring the two title characters as the title characters is currently airing. I'm looking for the other one. You figured it out 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)." Superman, Superman II, Man of Steel, Superman Returns, etc. Lois, not so much. "On yet another show, the lead actress went on to play the mother of her character in this series. " Teri Hatcher played Lois Lane's mom on Smallville.

Correct.

On yet another show, the lead actress went on to play the mother of her character in this series.

Neither. Batman was not a character on either show. Not that I know of.

If anyone can think of how he can get any closer without giving away the answer, I'm all ears.

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.