Raf

You're missing and making my point at the same time. We don't use that faulty reasoning to cling to BC as opposed to BCE. I agree with you. Tyson does use that reasoning. At least, he does in the video. That reasoning is what I'm criticizing.

I am impressed too. And I think showing appreciation is warranted. I simply don't believe that declining to switch from BC to BCE is a reasonable method of showing that appreciation. That DOES give the church "points," as you put it. Anyway, I'm splitting hairs here. The church deserves a lot of credit not only for commissioning this important work but also convincing the world to go along with it. Could you imagine the discussion coming up on the House floor today? "You want us to do WHAT? Get the church's hands off our calendars! You're telling me the all-wise scientists had it wrong all this time? My calendar, My choice!"

I think there are some things we can fix if we have the will to do it. Other things, maybe not so necessary. B.C. to B.C.E. = not necessary. I would discuss things I think are necessary, but it would veer too much into politics. Let's just say I favor changing SOME location names so they honor something we, today, deem worthy of honor. And some names just have to go ("Atlantic goliath grouper" is a perfectly fine name for a fish. The name it replaced is not). All of which is to say: I agree with you, Bolshevik, but that wasn't really what I was disputing. If someone wants to switch to BCE for culturally sensitive or historically accurate reasons, more power to them, as long as the general public understands, which more and more people do. I could see secular, Jewish or Muslim communities favoring BCE and CE. I could even see Christians favoring BCE on the grounds that the calculation was off (Jesus almost certainly wasn't born in 1 AD, which means ALL the numbers are off). I could also see, just as easily, not giving a flip, the way we all feel about Odinsday, Thorsday and Friggaday. I'm just rejecting the logic expressed in the video, because it's not reasonable. "I don't want to change because..." The reason you give has to make sense. His doesn't. There is nothing wrong with giving religious people credit when it's due... for following science. A religious person came up with the big bang theory. Religious people came up with all sorts of terrific things by employing or attempting to employ the scientific method to a problem. That does not mean we owe the religion any deference (for the same reason we don't owe Newton's alchemy or Ford's anti-Semitism any deference). Nothing wrong with sticking with BC. It's just that Tyson's "why" is BS.

How someone can simultaneously be so smart and so dumb is astonishing to me. You don't want to be called an atheist because of the way some atheists act? That's stupid. Atheism doesn't address behavior. It addresses one answer to one question: Do you believe in God (or gods)? If the answer is no, you are an atheist, as he acknowledged. The end. Now, if he had just said, "I am an atheist, but I shun the label because it comes with sociological baggage that I regret," then that would make some sense. But "some atheists prefer BCE and I prefer BC" is no reason to say "I'm not an atheist." So much to unpack here. So he's saying some religious folks used science to fix the calendar for tens of thousands of years of accuracy, and for that he doesn't want to switch from BC to BCE. ONE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER! Why does religion get deference when religious people properly employ science? Makes no sense. Now, if he doesn't want to be called an atheist, that's his prerogative. But his reasoning is not logical or sound. He employs non sequiturs, straw man arguments and ad hominems. I expected better.

This should be easy: "Hello. Hi. I'm lookin' for a friend of mine. He's supposed to be there." "What's his name?" "His name's Michael Hunt... uh, Mike, Mike. Yes, Mike." ... "Is Mike Hunt here? Is Mike Hunt here? Has anybody seen Mike Hunt?" "Practically everybody in town, from what I hear."

Nope. ???? Most of the actors from this movie outgrew their roles by the time the sequel rolled around 6 years later. The roles were all recast. That doesn't explain everyone. The bookstore owner was played by the same guy, but the main character's father was recast. Not entirely sure why. The original movie was a financial failure, though it is now beloved in and considered a classic in some circles. It's theme song didn't do will on initial release, but it did become mildly popular when it came out on Betamax and VHS. It became even more popular in 2016.

PEDAL? PEDAL????

According to the source material, the climactic scream near the end of the movie is "Moonchild!" *** The theme song is sung by the lead singer of the group Kajagoogoo, known in the U.S. for its hit "Too Shy." *** The movie actually adapts only half of its source material, teasing more to come, which, honestly, should have been expected even without the teaser.

"Fool. Your fare is the only thing stopping me from breaking your face."

Having never been involved in circular chatter on this site before, I can only feign sympathy.

"Where to?" "I'm the Angel of Death. Take me to hell." "Got any luggage?" *** "Don't think I feel sorry for you 'cause your daddy died. My father came back from the Korean War with his brains so scrambled, he thought he was Jesus! They put him in a nuthouse for five years, when he came out, he didn't think he was Jesus no more, he thought he was God. Which made me Jesus." *** "You are a pitiful b****."

Again, I had to go on "movies about murder I have not seen," so no clues would have helped. I had to stumble on it.

And how do we know this story happened? Easy. Jonah told someone when he got out. RIght? And that person said, "wow, Jonah, that's the ONLY possible explanation for where you've been this week. Yup." Come on, really?

Not The Verdict. The Juror. Trial by Jury (same movie different actors). Is it Murder in the First with Christian Slater?

So many of the Bible's stories crumble when you look at them that way. Hey, Jonah! Where you been?

I love how he adds 250 miles to The Word. Does The Word say 250 miles? Nope. How about putting it in Australia? Make it hard for him to find. Put it somewhere so that the sin would take actual work to commit. Why did that tree exist in the first place? And if another religion approached you saying the reason for suffering is that someone ate from a magic tree at the suggestion of a talking snake, how much serious consideration would you give it?

Ok. So. It's a remake. And it probably involves a historical place that is easy to visit in more than one capacity (casually or in a bit more depth). This is not helping me. My extrapolations could be off base.

Wait, Space Jam wasn't a remake either. I imagine the thing only 1 1/2 people did was to watch the original. That would mean no one felt a need to rewatch it. So it's not Citizen Kane or Romeo and Juliet or Hamlet. So I need a remake where the original is not required viewing. "Animated" sequence that might give someone [presumably] motion sickness. I'm gonna go with Total Recall. Final answer.

Ok, it's not Tron because that's not a remake. Maybe Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or Father of the Bride, though I can't think of how either fits all the clues. A remake with an animated landscape scene... Space Jam?

No need to get into it. I think the only reason to bring it up here is in recognition of the role of shared experiences in group cohesion. I don't foresee this new class being any different from the original in that regard. By the way, if anyone is interested in Vince Finnegan's variation on all this, it's in a class called "His Story: God's Purpose of the Ages." The class materials are online and free. Speaking in tongues is about 2/3 of the way through the class, which I think is cool in that it takes the emphasis off the gimmick at the end. I'll post a link to this FREE class when I have time to look it up.

Or a pet.

As respectfully as I can address a premise I now find ridiculous... How do we account for a God who creates a tree whose main purpose in existing is to kill man, places it in a garden, then creates man.... and places him in the same F---ing garden? He could have put the tree in Australia. Or some other life-supporting planet in some other solar system. But no. Puts the tree right in front of the man and says don't eat of the delicious fruit of this here yummy tree. You did WHAT?!?!?! Well, without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin... according to whom? Who came up with THAT idea? Doesn't God get to decide the wages of sin? Why couldn't the wages of sin be $1.50. Because that wouldn't be just??? Who said shedding blood is just? Isn't it just because He said it is? I thought He decides what is just and what is not. The notion that the death of Christ served some independent standard of justice neglects Him as the author of justice. Who did Christ's death pay? God? Why not just forgive the debt? What do you mean, he can't? Sure he can. He's omnipotent. Of course he can. Unless the plot prohibits it. That's the only thing that makes sense.

While we're at it, there is no Biblical basis for "fluency in SIT." There is a skeptical basis for "increasingly convincing bullsh!t," but that is totally the same damn not the same thing.

Rocky, Thank you. I trust more than one person shares your opinion, but you and Word Wolf are the only ones I know to say it out loud (that the conversation prompted a change in opinion). Others... See, when I was a believer, if someone asked me the Biblical basis for a belief, I would cite a chapter and verse with maybe some exposition. "What is the scriptural basis for excellor sessions?" If the answer isn't "here's the chapter and verse," then it's either, "I don't know," which is fair, and "there is none," which is accurate. WW: I accept that we are not on the same page and I am grateful that you approached this subject the way I did at first: as a believer who looked at the evidence and realized what we did was not the same as what we thought we were doing. My post extrapolated from a set of facts. My extrapolation is arguable. The facts are not. Thank you for seeing the distinction. [If I'm reading right, this applies to T-Bone as well, but I need to read their posts more carefully]

The worship manifestations were the ultimate "how" of how TWI "brainwashed" us all. Once they were able to convince every last one of us that we weren't faking tongues (we were, every time), they got to work convincing us we weren't faking interpretation and prophecy. The group cohesion that was accomplished by this shared self-deception was worth its weight in bullsh!t. Whenever someone new was initiated, the entire church came to reinforce him. That's exactly like the first time I did it! No, no, no, you're not faking. It can't be counterfeited, remember? Now on to interpretation. Here's how to fake it manifest it. We don't fake it of course. People who fake it say things like "muck and mire." If you find yourself saying "muck and mire," you're faking it. If you call God "Heavenly God," you're faking it. But if you sound like someone ran inspiration catchphrases through a Psalm-bot generator on Twitter, that's not faking it. Got it? Good. Now don't fake it! If you stumble, don't worry. It's because you've got stage fright. It's totally not because you're faking it and this practice is no more inspired of God than the average burp. Wow, you sound exactly like the tape we just played to plant sample messages for you to emulate as you learn to fake it I did when I first interpreted. Well done! God is working in you just like He worked in everyone else in this room who totally didn't fake it like you just did because you didn't because none of us are faking it and if you shout that the emperor is naked we will ostracize you as a devil spirit possessed lying liarface and you'll be the only one to admit faking it because the rest of us totally are not. Prophecy time! Now this is important. It's going to sound just like interpretation because it's faked in the exact same way the Bible says they produce the same exhortations, edifications and comforts. So what you're going to do is make sh!t up rely on God to provide the words. Unless the words are muck and mire. God hates muck and mire. YOU DID IT! ISN'T GOD WONDERFUL! Man, nothing blesses me more than knowing that the power that created the rings of Saturn and the diamond rains of Jupiter took the time to bless us with a message specifically for the people in this room, a message of such generic banality it sounds like it came from a random Biblical baby food of the day calendar. Hang on, now, hang on. See, something amazing just happened. See, I just joined an offshoot, and they think interpretation is going to sound different than prophecy, because interpretation should be a perfect prayer and praise to God and stuff like that, so, without faking it now, let's all adjust our interpretations to provide messages that are not the same as the interpretations we've been producing all along. Holy sh!t that worked? I mean Hallelujah! Just like the Word says, interpretations and prophecies are different after all! By the way, I know we said prophecies should be generic banalities, but did you know that they can be personal, too? Yup! See, the Bible says prophesy should leave the hearers amazed at the precision. Banalities don't do that, but personal prophecies do. How about that! You're producing personal prophecies just like the suggestion I planted in your head the Word says! Once you have hundreds and hundreds of people backing each other's bullsh!t, it becomes an act of shame to admit you knew it was BS all along. You can't buy that kind of loyalty. "You can say what you want about TWI, but they're the only ones who teach the accuracy of speaking in tongues." Yeah, sure they do. Sure they do.