Raf

You have the right characters but the wrong episode. This was called Reunion. Worf learns he has a son, and the baby mama learns Worf's dad was innocent. She pays with her life when Duras kills her and Worf straight up kills Duras in the most "this is not your father's Star Trek" moment to date. So the reason this episode popped into my head was: The woman who plays Alexander's mother, Worf's super hot Klingon babe, is none other than... Marshall's Mom from How I Met Your Mother! WOW that's an actress. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0686442/mediaviewer/rm835094016/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk

I was mistaken about the last post on this thread, so let's pretend for a moment it was.... The Ensigns of Command. I'd know the "You're damn right" line anywhere. It was early season 3, new uniforms, new intro, and the first time I finally felt like I could get and stay into this show. But that's not why I'm reviving an old thread. So here's a quote. Name the episode. "A reprimand will appear on your record. Dismissed. Mr. Worf, isn't it time for the truth about your father's innocence to be told?"

Trying to remember if it's movie I saw and regret or the movie I saw and regret a little less.

Yes

Oh wow, really? Ok. "God didn't make *****. I made him." Blocked out portion is not the title, but it is part of the title of multiple sequels.

Yeah. Thanks for noticing. Oldies, come on, man. :)

Dammit!Yes, Turk 182.

Dammit I know this one.

In terms of where this thread goes, I think the original purpose of Questioning Faith is to give unbelievers a place to express unbelief without interrupting genuine discussions about doctrine with predictable arguments that would literally derail every conversation. This is middle ground. If you want to discuss whether her observations are Biblically correct, this is the right forum for that. I agree that the apparently misogynistic elements of the epistles are probably not genuinely from Paul, and as long as "that wasn't in the original -- scratch it out" is fair game within doctrinal, I think it's fair game here.

How do people not know this?

Seems because it is

"Great shades of Elvis!"

Great show. Too bad they botched their Red John storyline. The Mentalist

Actually I got it from the head crushing reference

True Lies "For me civilian life is nothing! In the field we had a code of honor, you watch my back, I watch yours. Back here there's nothing!... Back there I could fly a gunship, I could drive a tank, I was in charge of million dollar equipment. Back here I can't even hold a job parking cars!"

The Toxic Avenger

My memory failed me. 17 wasn't the score. 17 was the number of innings it took to finish the game. And of course it was a coincidence. But it was an emotionally resonant one.

This was less than two months after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting, where 17 people were killed. Anthony Rizzo, then of the Cubs, was a Stoneman Douglas alum. He said it was probably no coincidence the winning team scored 17 runs. Chills.

I believe it's 16 by the Cubs losing to the Marlins, who scored 17. This was in April of 2018.

Thank you all. You see, unbelievers and Christians have this in common: We all believe that unless people get up and do God's work, God's work will never get done. WHY we believe that is where we disagree.

Two grown steps. Two teen bio. Adopted boy, 7 Adopted girl, 2 Adopted boy, 1. The adopted boys are biological half-brothers.

I guess this is where I let folks know that earlier this year we adopted two more: a 1-year-old boy and his 7-year-old brother.

Oh EAGLE! Ok. Hi. Welcome back.

Oldiesman, There's two ways to look at this: as a believer wanting to practice what the Bible teaches, and as an outsider looking for proof that the phenomenon described has any validity to it. I went from the first to the second over a long period of time. As a believer wanting to do what the Bible teaches, I had to admit to myself that I had no reason to believe I was producing a language, or that anyone else was. And producing a language is exactly what the Bible seems to teach (IF you agree with the premise that the Bible does not contradict itself). Once you get away from faith, starting with the belief that the Bible, even if inspired, is not the perfect word of the perfect God, and that it CAN contradict itself, then you leave open the possibility that the phenomenon described by Paul and the phenomenon described by Luke are not the same thing. So Acts gives us languages people understand, and Corinthians gives us "tongues of angels" the "no man understands." Well, which is it? I submit "tongues of angels" and "no man understands" moves us out of the realm of making a testable claim. I also submit that if you are making an untestable claim, I am under no obligation to believe it. But I respect that you DO believe it, and I respect that you may think I am mistaken on every point, regardless of whether you can express that disagreement to MY satisfaction (you owe me no such explanation). All of which is to say I have no argument with you and your practice of SIT. Obviously, you think (as a believer) that I am missing out by dismissing Christianity, and I think (as an unbeliever) that you are wasting your time with worship. But we can be respectful about our RIGHT to disagree on the subject of faith, and I thank you for doing so.

Surprised that one took so long.