All Activity

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 father. George

I remember when my sister was first diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease in 2007 and I had to explain to my mother that it was basically a death sentence (which, despite the existence of exceptions to the rule, it usually is). I asked for prayers, but not once did I ask for a prayer for healing. I said I refused to rule out a miracle, but everything I said and did was resigned to the reality of the diagnosis. I remember at some point saying the only thing I wanted to pray for was her comfort. But why should that have been? Why should I not have been expecting a miracle? In retrospect, I realize that my faith by that point had been shot to hell. Years of unanswered and underanswere prayers were taking their toll to such an extent that I was "moving the goalposts" as I prayed, making it all but impossible for God not to answer the prayer. So I didn't pray for healing. I prayed for peace and comfort. Because I could talk myself into thinking that prayer was answered, seeing as the only person who could contradict me... A good reason to become an atheist is the realization that you don't believe this stuff anymore, that your prayers are hitting the ceiling if you say them out loud, and going nowhere if you don't. When you realize the failure to answer prayers is better explained by His nonexistence than by your failure to believe, THAT is a good reason to become an atheist. In my opinion. [In case I'm not making it clear, I'm not blaming God for what happened to my sister. I'm realizing that by the time that happened, deep down, I had already stopped believing, even though I hadn't fully come to that realization and wouldn't until the week she died. What happened to my sister was not God's fault. I'm sure if he could have done something he would have].

I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume the last two active moderators (at the time) had formed a "buddyship" after years being the last two active moderators. What I find interesting is calling Modgellan's integrity into question based on his (?) association with me,after failing to document a single case of biased moderating or unfair treatment of Christians. Also, I included Modgellan in my private message to show that I wasn't hiding anything.

Thanks Oakspear! I spent the whole day online yesterday only to come up with what you so efficiently shared in three points. I'll still share my longer version with its links so I'll have something to show for my time . 1. “What agape means in ancient Greek writing somewhat differs from the word's contemporary use. The earliest references to agape in Greek writing use the term to refer to a deep love for a spouse or a close family member. Agape's Greek origin is the verb agapao ” Agape Love Meaning, Uses & Examples 2. "Agapē (αγάπη in Greek) is one of several Greek words translated into English as love. Greek writers at the time of Plato and other ancient authors used forms of the word to denote love of a spouse or family, or affection for a particular activity, in contrast to, if not with a totally separate meaning from, philia (an affection that could denote either brotherhood or generally non-sexual affection) and eros (an affection of a sexual nature, usually between two unequal partners, although Plato's notion of eros as love for beauty is not necessarily sexual). The term agape with that meaning was rarely used in ancient manuscripts, but quite extensively used in the Septuagint, the Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible." New World Encyclopedia 3. "The verb agapao is used extensively in the Septuagint as the translation of the common Hebrew term for love which is used to show affection for husband/wife and children, brotherly love, and God's love for humanity. It is uncertain why agapao was chosen, but similarity of consonant sounds (aḥava) may have played a part. It is not impossible that the Greek concept even originated as a transliteration from some Semitic tongue. This usage provides the context for the choice of this otherwise obscure word, in preference to other more common Greek words, as the most frequently used word for love in Christian writings. The use of the noun agape in this way appears to be an innovation of the New Testament writers, but is clearly derived from the use of the verb agapao in the Septuagint<ref>Agape as a term for love or affection is rarely used in ancient manuscripts." Art and Popular Culture 4. "The verb form goes as far back as Homer, translated literally as affection, as in "greet with affection" and "show affection for the dead".[2] Wikipedia I enjoyed reading The Odyssey, so I'll share this as well. Art and Popular Culture above also mentions Homer. It reads, "Although some sources claim Agape appears in the Odyssey twice, the word is in fact not used. Instead, two forms of the word agape may be found: agapêton and agapazomenoi. Agapêton is found in Book 5 of the Odyssey and means 'beloved' or 'well-loved' (referring to Odysseus and Penelope feelings for their son Telemachus). Agapazomenoi is found in books 7 (Nausicaa saves Odysseus when he is starving, battered and naked after washing ashore on her island) and 17 (lines 30-45 when Odysseus' nurse Eurycleia saw him at first upon his return and 'with a burst of tears she came straight toward him' and the other maids gathered 'and they kissed his head and shoulders in loving welcome') of the Odyssey and means 'to treat with affection." (Words in Italics are added to the quote) Pretty cool methinks .

I hear similar things frequently. I often wonder whether people who claim to consistently receive answers to prayer would be as convinced if they kept a detailed log of every prayer and every time they received what they prayed for. I disagree though, that unanswered prayers is a "bad" reason to become an atheist. I can see that it might be a first step to realizing that, at the very least, God isn't what we think he is. Lack of results from praying might cause one to question their faith, leading eventually to atheism.

I can triplicate.

Thanks for your reply Oakspear. I agree with both of the reasons you gave. Being heartbroken because of unanswered prayers could also fall under a "feeling" reason similar to being mad at God. For me, it was this hurt that made me go back to the bible to study what I was getting wrong about prayer and eventually came to the conclusion that the biblical promises had too many loopholes and that prayer was always going to be a hit and miss concept - ignore the misses and count the hits. It's like the time I was on an errand outdoors and it looked like it might rain, so I prayed to God that it wouldn't because I had no umbrella. When it started to rain, I prayed that it would be a light drizzle so I wouldn't get drenched. When it became a downpour, I prayed I wouldn't catch a cold and I didn't. Praise the Lord - God was real. (True story ) This One Failed Promise Should Stop Christians In Their Tracks! "And The Sick Will Be Made Well" I listened to this 30-minute video once and thought it was excellent. I'll listen to it again today to confirm whether my first impression was correct.

According to Wikipedia, the word was used rarest in classical Greek, but was used in various ways: (as a verb) -- to greet with affection to show affection for the dead love for spouse or family I'm not sure the writers of the New Testament meant it in any way other than just "love". If I remember correctly, virtually every use of the word "love" in English is translated from "agape". (In TWI some "teacher" would breathlessly reveal that some instance of love was ...the word agape...as if it was some cosmic truth). I believe that it was retroactively assigned the meaning or interpretation of love from or for God. Biblical writers and theologians needed to present love that proceeded from God, or manifested by Christians, was somehow different than love manifested by disbelievers. I doubt you could subjectively see any difference between Christians and non-Christians in how they love. Of course any attempt to meaningfully define what God's love entails runs into the problem of any possible unloving action by God spurring a redefinition of love that includes that action.

Off the top of my head, a "bad" reason would be deciding to become an atheist because you're mad at God Another might be because of perceived hypocrisy of religious people or organizations

I have started two previous threads about love; Love when I believed in the biblical God and Sin and the Need for Perfect Love when I had stopped believing in this god Now, I am beginning a third one as a result of my post today in the Fruit of the Spirit thread where I wrote, "Although there is no specific "in crowd/out crowd fallacy," there is the bandwagon fallacy which "presumes that because a position is popular, it must therefore be correct. Bandwagon Fallacy (includes a comic about Aristotle to make the point ). It's been my experience that being told something (e.g., agape love) is not available to you (a non-Christian) that is available to others (Christians) seems to fit in with this fallacy." I admit that the topic of love has always been an emotional one for me and this time, it is no different. I had been taught about God's love since I was a child growing up in the Roman Catholic faith, and this foundation was what led me to search for it again in my troubled teens where I eventually ended up in a twi fellowship, experienced their initial lovebombing and remained for over a decade. At times, it has proven difficult as an atheist to let go of this indoctrinated beleef concerning the supernatural/spiritual origin and source of unconditional love. During those times, I did feel inferior about my own ability to love myself and others without "any" conditions. In the extreme, this feeling of inadequacy can lead to some mental health issues. It sometimes did for me and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this. So what's the deal here? Is agape love only available to Christians because biblical writers (who wanted to sell their idea for a necessary savior from God's wrath due to man's sin nature) claimed it was and millions of people have since jumped on this bandwagon and so it must therefore be true? Do Christians manifest agape love all the time and if not, then how is that different from non-Christians who do not manifest unconditional love all the time? How was the word "agape" used in ancient Greek before it took on the meaning given to it in the new testament?

Although there is no specific "in crowd/out crowd fallacy," there is the bandwagon fallacy which "presumes that because a position is popular, it must therefore be correct. Bandwagon Fallacy (includes a comic about Aristotle to make the point ). It's been my experience that being told something (e.g., agape love) is not available to you (a non-Christian) that is available to others (Christians) seems to fit in with this fallacy. I'll accept Raf's wisdom and be persnickety about the word agape on the Atheism subforum.

I don't get the post, either, unless Allen somehow references the show in his routine. (I didn't watch most of the video.) At any rate, it's not the answer. George

Oh, makes sense because he actually IS a moderator. I saw "his buddy" and thought he meant me. If you guys are actually buddy-buddy, it's news to me. Which you can be, but I'd be curious how chock knew when I didn't. I think it's more like "they're buddies because I say they're buddies", which is sadly common out there.

Do you want to read what I think about this topic of cults? Here are three of my blog posts I feel are especially helpful: Cults & Identity Theft | Charlene L. Edge The 3-D Cult Experience | Charlene L. Edge The Camouflage of Cults | Charlene L. Edge

I do not understand. Was the answer "the Dave Allen Show" or something?

They were talking about Modgellan

chockfull isn't one of my favorite people, and we haven't seen eye to eye on some subjects, but I'm sorry to see him go regardless. But that's up to chock, not me. I do disagree on a few things. 1- It's obvious there's at least 3 active moderators here. chock would be off by 1 even if he was correct. 2- Raf and I have been friends since high school. Raf would never have heard of twi without me. (Sorry, dude.) We have been friends, on and off, over the decades. I'm confident I'm who he meant as "his buddy." I've posted and pm'ed people- like Raf and chock- with my opinions. To say I "protect" Raf is an exaggeration. I think it's more accurate to say that we hold each other to a higher standard, since we know each other and don't tolerate so much bs like we would most posters. I'm a more stringent critic of him, and Raf's well aware of it. If one of us crosses a line, the other is most likely to be the one to call him on it. But at the same time, we're rather PRECISE in our criticism, in how far is too far and how far is almost too far. (Other people tend to get more leeway there.) 3- chockfull and Raf had it out privately. I don't feel it's appropriate to get into their private quarrels. 4- If I really thought there was an unlevel playing field, I would have taken off. I still reserve the right to do so if it happens. 5- I know of people who got obnoxious and stormed off. Chased off by Raf? At best, an exaggeration.

"Several people chose to leave after the site rules were fairly enforced with clear explanations. One of those people (not chockfull) chose to libel me on multiple platforms because I refused to let him use this site to libel and slander other people who aren't even participants here." IIRC, that was the first person (not chocfull, the other person) who left and gave a lot of static of late. (There have always been a few people- hardcore for vpw or for some pet cause- that left in a huff and vented about the GSC.) Nobody knows this, but.... Not sure the best way to handle that person, I went to a different messageboard (completely unrelated) where I knew a moderator who was the same age as that person. I outlined the situation (without specifics on the board and the group, so, anonymously) and asked for advice on how to address the situation. I pointed out that the solution didn't seem to suggest itself from this end- the group and so on- so I was looking for some insight from someone of his generation. He gave me some general advice I thought sounded sensible and possibly useful. I thanked him and came back here. That person had already left here in high dudgeon. Oh, well. I did try. I don't think there were any easy answers there.

Dave Allen…Irish comedian

Once again: I never chased anyone off this site. Not one person. Several people chose to leave after the site rules were fairly enforced with clear explanations. One of those people (not chockfull) chose to libel me on multiple platforms because I refused to let him use this site to libel and slander other people who aren't even participants here. Yes, I did send a nasty message to chockfull. And I'd do it again. The level of dishonesty coming from chockfull is not something I am required to tolerate as a person, and my message was sent as a person, not as a moderator. As a moderator, chockfull has not been banned and remains welcome to return anytime. But I will defend myself against chockfull's lies as often as chockfull cares to spread them. And I reserve the right to private expressions of contempt for people who deliberately choose to mischaracterize how I carry out the moderation duties here.

Galatians 5 (KJV) 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. Galatians 5 (NASB) 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: sexual immorality, impurity, indecent behavior, 20 idolatry, witchcraft, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Let's see. The works of the flesh are compared and contrasted with the fruit of the Spirit. Sexual immorality, indecent behavior, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, envy, drunkenness... hey sounds like vpw's "To Do" list. He covered these pretty thoroughly. As for the fruit of the Spirit, he evidenced NONE of these. Someone with a tortured enough definition could shoehorn "faith" in, but not the others. When the cameras were off, "joy" was far away, as was "agape." The rest really sound like he was aiming for their opposites.

Hello Sunshine, Now you want to challenge the specifics of lurking. What a wonderful conversation. Between May 19 and May 31 I didn't post. That can start again and that could grow. I'm trying not to get banned. Lil' secret. If I did I wouldn't care all that much. I want everybody to be happy.

Exploring point 5, I would go even further. While Biblically defined "love" is only possible for Christians (depending on how persnickety you want to be about Agape -- its own thread, methinks), non Christians can certainly demonstrate an abundance of Phileo. We can experience and exhibit joy, patience, goodness, meekness, self-control, kindness, trustworthiness and gentleness. With the exception of Agape and possibly "trustworthiness" (again, we're depending on how persnickety we want to be about pistis), there's nothing about the fruit of the spirit that mandates Christianity. I would suspect the proper Biblical position is that anyone could exhibit the fruit of the spirit, but for the committed, faithful Christian, it's inevitable. A Christian without it would be suspect.

A) So far, 124 posts' worth of lurking. Most people wouldn't call it "lurking" when they're posting that much. If you really have been here for 6 months and only recently started posting, then you WERE lurking. B) That's open to disagreement. I suspect yours would be the minority opinion here.

You know how to read? (Snark) Spend some time doing that. (Not snark)