Raf

No, this is Children of Men One of 470 Clive Owen movies released between 2000 and 2010

Yeeee haw!!°

Ok that made it easy but I've stalled enough games

No. It was live action.

You're missing the two most obvious possibilities (actually, it's one possibility with two subcategories). The people who wrote the fan letters KNEW they could not be read by the addressee.

More than half the fan mail for this series could not conceivably be read by its addressee. One of the leads lied about his age and bluffed his origin when auditioning. He was only 18 but he said he was 24. He also faked a southern accent, though he was from NYC. The two antagonists of the title characters became such good friends that after a while many of their scenes were improvised. The series started airing as a replacement for the failed Captain America series.

Benjamin Bratt?

OoH yOu ArE pArT pF cAnCeL CuLtUrE. Allen, you cancelled me the moment I recognized you worship a fictional character and you fake your secret prayer language magic trick. You don't get to lecture anyone about cancel culture. The Holocaust happened. Six million Jews, plus millions of others, were systematically slaughtered. BuT tHeRe WeReN't ThAt MaNy JeWs In GeRmAnY. Statements like that are talking points among Holocaust deniers. They are not a part of the culture of educated people or even sincere people who admit they don't understand history. There is a distinction between honest discussion about history and disingenuous "sea lion" tactics intended to bog down discussion rather than facilitate it. BuT wHaT's A sEa LiOn? Look it up. I appreciate the comments regarding my earlier statement, but this one is going to stand. Zero, and I mean ZERO tolerance for Holocaust denial.

Because Hitler only killed Jews IN Germany. Sorry, Prof. You don't get to hand out homework assignments, and your refusal to look up readily available answers to your question does not validate your holocaust denialism. There will be zero tolerance for Holocaust denialism at GSC. Zero.

Are we back to Holocaust denialism? I thought we dispatched with that ahistorical anti-truth nonsense back in the early-aughts. 6 million Jews were exterminated by the Nazi regime during the Holocaust. This is a matter of fact not subject to debate.

NO MORE MERCIFUL BEHEADINGS... AND CALL OFF CHRISTMAS!

Nope

Oops. Sorry. This is from Manhunter, the original Hannibal Lecter movie, before Silence of the Lambs. In this scene, the agent figures out how the killer is choosing his victims. This is the agent's boss giving him a "how in the fresh actual hellfire did you figure that out" look. Excellent movie. Highly recommended. Here's an easier one:

You're assuming an interest in history rather than an interest on labeling BLM demonic.

Now I get the cross posting reference. Thanks WW.

There's a difference between being allowed to surmise something and having that thing you surmise actually make sense or be logically defensible. You can surmise there's a malevolent force at work, but you haven't demonstrated any such thing. You just decided that's the best explanation, and that's fine for you. I'm not going to argue with you at all until you try to get me to believe it or accept it. THEN your burden of proof increases accordingly. Can you demonstrate to me that this world would work differently if there were no malevolent spirit or benevolent opponent at work? What would reality look like if the cosmos were utterly indifferent to human life? Not antagonistic. Just indifferent.

He believes those verses were inserted by later, anti Semitic scribes. Paul himself was not an anti Semite. I have not vetted this claim, as my beliefs about Jesus do not depend at all on whether he actually existed.

I was away for the weekend or I would have answered.

By the way, one of the major arguments of the mythicists is that the authentic epistles never refer to the "return" of Christ or the "second coming." Always the parouisia(?) or "presence."

How about Man that drinks soft drink And Veteran who should not have drank that. different roles in different movies and different drinks. There's a word for these types of roles that should make you smack your forehead and say, OH, DUH!!! [That's not a hint].

You left out bus driver and UPS guy

3. The Rockford Files

This is a really tough one, not just for the movie, but for the particular scene. The expression you're seeing is "awe," as in "how the blazes did you figure that out?"

Ooh, I am trying to remember the song! Great movie. And she doesn't look nearly as scary... A League of Their Own

I am indeed. It's a fascinating argument I am still trying to digest. Most of it is ironclad, but there are still pieces that I find untenable. His "brothers of the lord" explanation seems a little too convenient, as does his explanation of "born of a woman." But I am not an expert in the field. The experts in the field disagree with Carrier, interestingly, but I find their arguments even less convincing than Carrier's. Some things I am sure of: Neither Luke nor Matthew had any idea of the circumstances of Jesus' birth. Their stories are irreconcilable. And the raising of Lazarus simply never took place. Think about it. How did three biographies of Jesus circulate with no mention of this astonishing miracle? Mark, Matthew, Luke... nothing at all on the raising of Lazarus. How is that even remotely conceivable? And where did Lazarus go? Again, absolutely inconceivable that he walks around for any length of time as living proof of the power of Jesus only to disappear from any future noteworthy narrative? Seriously? Why does Paul actually BRAG that he did not get any of his information from the disciples who supposedly walked with Jesus, studied under him, witnessed his wonderful works for the better part of a year (if not three)? If someone claimed to have learned everything about me from God, and you believed that person over my best friends and co-workers, who actually knew me, people would be justified in thinking something was wrong with you. But Paul claimed to have learned everything about Jesus from Jesus and God himself (themselves). The people who actually walked with Jesus? Paul swears he never learned a thing about Jesus from them. Who would brag about that? Someone who believed the story of Jesus was a spiritual one and not a historical one would brag about that. Someone who never mentioned Pontius Pilate or the Jews or the Romans but that Jesus was killed by "the princes of this world" (which did not happen). Someone who knew there was a group called "the Twelve" but did not know they were only 11 after Judas betrayed Jesus [because the story that they were physical witnesses and that Judas betrayed Jesus had literally not been invented yet]. There's a LOT about Paul that makes more sense when you remove a historical Jesus from the framework and make it a spiritual revelation instead. But in my view, there are still things that make no sense (yet?) if Jesus did not exist as a historical figure. Like James being the brother of Jesus. Why distinguish the 12 and the Brothers of the Lord? Makes little sense. I'm condensing a lot of arguments into one tiny post, but it's an interesting subject. P.S. A couple of days ago Carrier and I became friends on Facebook. Not that he has time to answer my personal questions, but I can always ask.