All Activity

Bernadette Peters Pink Cadillac Clint Eastwood George

Okay...another exchange from the same movie: "Kill me before the war is over, will you? It appears that you are not the better man." "You're right. My sons were better men." George

I would have thought that one pretty easy (though the show was on decades ago). Maybe this will help: "And awaaayyy we go!" "And now, the June Taylor Dancers!" George

This was the most expensive television show to produce at the time, costing over a million dollars to make each episode, which was one of the reasons it was canceled after only 13 episodes. The actor playing the titular character based his performance on William Shatner as Captain Kirk in Star Trek (1966) of which he is a big fan. A video game based on this series produced by Bug-Byte Software was released for the Commodore 64 platform in 1985. The titular character was a hologram, but no CGI was used on the show, just traditional animation and editing techniques. The star of the show was far less famous than his Cuban bandleader father (whom the star portrayed in the movie "The Mambo Kings"). The father and his (then-) wife were TV innovators, credited with developing the three-camera technique and syndicated reruns. George

I'd like to take a stab at answering this even though it's rhetorical. In a word, experience. God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost (each individual persons) desire people to love them each personally from the heart. What do you do when you love someone? You talk to them. Ask them things. Spend time with them, think about what they want and try to do what pleases them, because you love them and want to make them happy. And they in turn love you back. All of this takes time, energy, patience, persistence, and faith. And at times, suffering and inconvenience. I believe this is how a relationship is formed with these great persons without any middleman.

I can save you some time WordWolf. That's definitely "White Room". Good for you.

Wait, that last part sounds familiar.... Cream's "IN THE WHITE ROOM".

Hear that lonesome whippoorwill? He sounds too blue to fly.

Did God prove his existence in the garden of Eden to Adam and Eve? Will he prove his existence to those in the afterlife? So why couldn't/can't he prove his existence during the period between those two times in order to directly give us his word? If I still haven't answered your question, perhaps you could state what point you are trying to make. Thank you Rocky..

Oh.

Considering the forum this thread is under, the serious point I was making relates to all the different doctrines there are around the same topic that theologians have come up with, all of which are supposedly based on scriptures. It can be exhausting dealing with them all when one is wanting to find out what is the truth which Jesus himself spoke of in John 8:32, "and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” My rhetorical question is why didn't God make himself and his true word known directly without any middlemen and then prevent it from being changed, suggesting in a fantastical way the threat of a lightning strike upon anyone who tried to do. Jeremiah 32:17 says "Oh, Lord GOD! Behold, You Yourself have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and by Your outstretched arm! Nothing is too difficult for You,"

1) Men wrote the scriptures, not God. 2) How would the scenario you suggest God should/could have used have proven his existence?

Thanks - I agree.

I suspect many people will have made that "jump" right along with JS without noticing what you have pointed out above.

So, you have what JS believes about end time punishment and on the other end of the spectrum, you have what Sean Finnegan from Living Hope (Vince Finnegan's ministry) believes. In his video The Lost Suffer Eternal Torment in Hell (after the 41:00 mark), he teaches that the lake of fire is simply the symbol for the second death and later says, “Now, you may ask the question...what about proportional justice. What if God wants somebody to experience pain for so long before they’re executed? I don’t know. I don’t have a verse on that. So maybe God is going to do that, maybe he’s just going to be merciful." Rhetorical question: Why didn't the almighty God (who is not the author of confusion) not make the one topic of end time punishment clear and concise in one piece of writing (necessarily in different languages) and preserve it forever (without any changes on the threat of a lightning bolt immediately striking anyone who tried)? That would definitely prove his existence! IMO, we have too many cooks spoiling the broth.

Hoo boy! That's a real knee slapper.

Yes, but honestly, did he seem like he had the slightest idea what he was talking about?

Charity, I think you can get a pass on calling the idea of punishment by immolation "abhorrent." I don't think that's an atheist conclusion and I do think a significant number of Christians share it. I suggest in the future you could add a qualifier to make it clear that you're interjecting your feelings, ("abhorrent to me") to make the statement a little more diplomatic. I will leave it to the page's Christians to determine whether you crossed a line in their view. In mine, you did not. But I will yield to our brethren of faith ...

Did you Turn the Page? Bob Seger

*reads the 9 verses* Even in his own version, it says people will be judged according to their works, and that's all they say. He went from those words to "they'll suffer for some time, and then they'll be annihilated." That was a heck of a jump on his part. It said they would be "judged" (HOW?) and they would be judged "according to their works" (WHAT'S THE CRITERIA, WHAT'S AT STAKE, AND WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES?) With no other verses, JS inserted his own ideas into the subject. -He footnoted and cross-referenced all sorts of things....but not when it came to that. So, it seems that his ideas were more important than being truthful on this subject. It speaks of vanity. It's the kind of thing that you would expect of a man who would publish his own version of the Bible.

Parables, from what I can see, are each meant to make a single, specific point, in a manner that almost anyone could understand it, and that's it. They are not meant to dissect in fine detail for doctrine- except possibly for the single, specific point. The parable in question is rather pointedly about forgiveness. So, in the parable, the framing story shows a person in prison until a debt is paid. As a basis for doctrine, that's missing the mark (to put it nicely.) Shame on JS if he couldn't just see that immediately, let alone catch it on a later read. As I see it, for him to miss something that obvious means he didn't WANT to see it, and was busy trying to justify something he wanted to see, even if he had to torture the verses to PRETEND that's what they said. Right now, it makes no sense to me for a punishment to be more suffering and THEN annihilation. I'll have to look over the 9 verses and see if, somehow, it makes sense to me afterwards.

*looks up from his book* I'll be back in a bit, but I want to see if anyone else gets it first. I'll keep reading in the meantime.

On a long and lonesome highway east of Omaha You can listen to the engine rolling out his one note song You can think about the woman Or the girl you knew the night before

Even VPW argued that the soul is simply your breath life.