modcat5

To be clear, I use the belly buttons as a tongue in cheek example of the things over which Christians disagree. I do not think it is much of an exaggeration to say that no matter what issue you choose, there are Christians on both sides of it. Baptism, the Trinity, immediate life after death, the reality of hell, the shape of the Earth, the necessity of works, the permanence of salvation, the need to keep kosher, military service and the pledge of allegiance, drinking, smoking, marriage, divorce, the sabbath... name the issue, serious or petty, and there are Christians who have killed each other over it. What resolves disagreements when two followers of Christ, each claiming to walk by the spirit, contradict each other on a matter of doctrine or practice? Someone has to be wrong! Who judges? It has to be something outside the populace. The Word? Hypothetically, yeah. If it serves no other purpose shouldn't the Bible define Christianity? Etc

Only Costello was a ghost. Great movie.

"Oh my God. I'm back. I'm home. All this time... YOU MANIACS! YOU BLEW IT UP! AWW DAMN YOU! GOD DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!!" Or something like that. Landon, one of Taylor's crewmen, got an involuntary lobotomy. Human, you're up.

Returning to topic: I believe the Bible teaches an absent Christ [more accurately, an absent Jesus] in ways that are consistent with what Wierwille taught. That Wierwille exploited the concept for his selfish gain no more negates what the Bible teaches than does the fact that I think it's all fabricated superstitious snake oil.

I think you're overanalyzing what I wrote. The Bible teaches that Isaac had two sons, Jacob and Esau. The Bible teaches that, whether I believe all three are historical figures or all three are mythological archetypes [take a wild guess]. That does not mean the Bible interprets itself. That's a believer's position. My position is that the Bible is completely unaware of itself as a collection of books. The gospels weren't written to complement each other like a rhetorical jigsaw puzzle you could piece together to suddenly find two entries into Jerusalem four cricified with Jesus, six denials of Peter, etc. The gospels were written to replace the inadequate gospels that came before. Mark was written by someone in desperate need of a Palestinian atlas. Matthew and Luke each told a virgin birth story, but the tales are utterly incompatible. And none of them found the raising of Lazarus worth mentioning. If the Bible interprets itself, and if it is inerrant, those observations require explanation. Drop those presuppositions and the explanations are easy: the earlier gospel writers don't mention the raising of Lazarus because the story hadn't been made up yet. But the stories are all there. The Bible teaches what it teaches. Unbelief relieves me of any compelling reason to reconcile its narratives with each other or with reality. How many times did Peter deny Jesus? Matthew says 3. Mark says 3. Luke says 3. John says 3. Clearly the answer is 6! No it's not. Assuming this bs story actually took place, and the likelihood of it is miniscule, there were three denials, not six. "But the accounts are contradictory!" They are?!? The vapors! [faints]. Seriously. The scriptures teach what they teach, whether I accept it as gospel or reject it as fantasy. I can discuss it as easily as I discuss Marvel movies, Greek mythology, The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. Doesn't mean I accept any of them as gospel, nor does it mean I reject every lesson taught by any of those works of fiction.

No. "Oh my God. I'm back. I'm home. All this time..."

Nope.

Yes!

Africa Screams Mexican Hayride The Time of Their Lives [FYI: Either of two actors would be correct. Both would be what I have in mind].

"You did that to him, damn you! You cut out his memory! You took his identity! And that's what you want to do to me!"

Magnolia

Also, Grant's character was distorted in history by the same people who made Robert E. Lee out to be a patriotic hero fighting for states' rights rather than a traitor fighting to preserve slavery. Not politics. History.

If I were invested in this emotionally, I would respectfully suggest we'd moved the goalposts, from disallowing any reference to an absent Christ to saying "oh of course he's absent physically! But not this way or that way," completely ignoring the fact that TWI taught the presence of Christ in those precise ways. Christ in you! Christ in you! Christ in you! What did that mean? Wierwille taught that. But he ignored that Christ is present through the spirit! No, he did not. I'd love to find fault with VPW, believe me. But I can't

No. The movies have been around for a long time. The TV series inspired by the original movie is not on broadcast television. Neither are its verious existing and planned spinoffs. The original movie and its first official sequel are classics. The remaining sequels from the writer/director are ok, but not on the same level. The unofficial sequel by the co-writer took a more comedic approach and actually mentions the original movie as a "true story" whose details were altered to prevent a mass panic. Needless to say, that's as fictional as the original. We hope. When the original writer-director died, my original response was... are... we... sure?

Not Mad Max. One of the current TV shows recently aired its seties finale. It has spinoffs thatvare still going [and still to come]. Human, you're being a jerk about this and I don't get why.

correct. and correct to all the puzzle pieces. Victor French was the costar [he was Mr. Edwards on Little House]. Guest stars of Highway to Heaven included Lorne Green, Matthew Labyorteaux, Moses Gunn and Shannon Doherty [Little House was her first big role]. Landon played Jonathan Smith as an angel. In life, he died a couple of decades earlier as Arthur Thompson.

i understand. but there were two actors before her

You're in the wrong decade(s) There was more than one prior show. Both were period pieces. But THIS show took place in the present day (or, at least, the present day at the time the show aired). The main character operated under a pseudonym, having left his previous life behind. In one episode, he did encounter his wife from his previous life. For various reasons, all relevant to the plot and premise of the show, she did not recognize him. One episode featured the main actor dressed as a wolfman to help a kid get over his fears. The name of the episode was "I Was a Middle-Aged Werewolf."

Not known for her beauty. I don't see anyone scoring a number one hit song singing about YOUR eyes, Human. Bette Davis. Who was not the first actor to be so honored, but was the first actress.

No.

it is. it was. The Witches of Eastwick

Sorry for the delay. No. The show had a lot of opportunity for guest stars. Among them were former costars of the lead actor. It was interesting to see them in [at the time] contemporary clothing.

Negative

Hank Azaria Steve Zahn Melanie Lynskey Rosario Dawson Chloe Sevigny

Can I refuse to answer?