Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

modcat5

Moderators
  • Posts

    725
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by modcat5

  1. How did this discussion last more than three posts after "The devil ate all historical evidence of my thesis"?
  2. Have to love the cojones to build an utter lack of evidence right into your main thesis. I tell you, if the devil didn't exist, you would have to make him up to explain ... oh wait.
  3. Much easier to refute his nonsense, succeed, then just sit back while he pops up every 10 years like Davey Jones pretending his nonsense was never refuted. This is why people say holy books have "stood the test of time." Because they ignore that it hasn't. But I'll grant Mike this much: "PFAL is no less God-breathed than the Bible." You can quote me on that, Mike.
  4. OK, the verdict. This thread was doctrinal from post 1. Like, not even close. But... There IS a certain intersection between doctrinal and About the Way which has to do with how TWI's unique interpretations may have enabled the conduct this website was created to expose. To have THAT conversation, you need to accept the premise of the Original Post [that the Absent Christ is a false doctrine]. Challenge the OP, and you're in doctrinal. Accept the OP, and you're About the Way. Debate a challenge to the OP, and you're back in doctrinal. Let's call the whole thing off! Then on top of all that, this became a Mike thread. Whole new kettle of fish head soup. Yum. Mike threads are similarly problematic: Are Wierwille's writings God-breathed? Doctrinal. Did Wierwille ever make such a claim? Delusional. Sorry, I meant to say About the Way. So which conversation are we having? Pretty sure you all agree it's doctrinal. But that's not why you want to move it. You want to move it because it's getting on yo dang noives. Fine. So let it be written in pixels, so let it be moveded. So ordered this 5th day of October, 2022. P.S. Moving it to matters of faith in recognition that it's more of a Mike thread now. The OP should have been exploring the Bible. Apologies for the micromanagement.
  5. Thanks OldSkool. We all evolve. I'm not even the same person who wrote that post 8 years ago. I'm grateful for everyone's understanding. Raf
  6. Did you not read my account? What else would you like to know?
  7. Ok, so NOW i'm not in the cone at all. Not even close to it. And it you look at the lower map, it looks like i'll have perfect kite flying weather as far as wind is concerned. Not sure about rain. If you're in the path and need help, let us know.
  8. This path is actually good for me, though it would bring some bad storms. Much better than a direct hit.
  9. Why did you bring this up here? i don't see an antecedent reference
  10. Let's not discuss someone who cannot respond. Change the subject please.
  11. Raf here. Not long ago I decided to abandon the "agnostic atheist" label because it caused more arguments than it resolved. Here's how I answer now: YOUR god is a fictional character whose non-existence is his ONLY redeeming quality. When it comes to YOUR god, I am an atheist with the certainty of a typist hitting the A key and expecting the letter A to show up on the page. I can't speak about any other hypothetical gods, but they are irrelevant anyway because you only care if I believe in YOUR God. I don't. He's made up.
  12. We're well past cheat time so: Below Deck
  13. I'm asha... embarrassed at my behavior
  14. I'll give the answer if George promises to take the turn
  15. Does the avenger of the future have a complete memory of it?
  16. no. this is a movie that was remade. a movie of particular interest to those of us gathered together on this site. released to video first. then theaters. two sequels were straight to video. the remake had a much bigger budget and a genuine movie star at the helm, to mix a metaphor. the upcoming sequel has a herculean task ahead, but the new lead has some experience in that area. that last clue won't help you much, but you probably figured it out with the "particular interest" clue.
  17. There are bad movies. And there are movies that are so bad that they set new bars for awful. This movie is an example of the former. Its "remake" is an example of the latter. [They have the same name]. Both are based on the sane source material, but the first takes some significant liberties with a main character, while the remake dispenses with the minor plot point of the unmasking of the main villain and the story's climax. The original produced two direct-to-video sequels with the dame cast. The remake tried to crowdfund a sequel but fell short by roughly 85 percent. Nonetheless, such is the subject matter that the sequel has been made [though not released as of yet, and don't expect it in theaters]. Looks like none of the actors are reprising their roles for the upcoming sequel. The original was unapologetic about its genre. The remake sold itself as a thriller and downplayed the underlying genre, but no one was fooled. The authors of the book on which both movies were based thought highly of both versions.
×
×
  • Create New...