Raf

Iron Man 2 Jon Favreau (sp?) Rudy

ExACTly. You know, if we had it our way, they would skip the invocations. But people insist on having them, so they need to buck up when it's handled by someone who doesn't share their faith. Next time someone prays to Jesus, she should dish out what they served her: "Point of privilege: Jesus, if he ever existed, is dead and cannot hear our prayers, so it's really up to us to get s#!% done." Watch how fast she is denounced for her rudeness.

It's annoying, but it's more far reaching than just my family.

So this came up the other day in a situation unrelated to GSC. My mother and I do not discuss religion. My brother and my cousin have all but disowned me over the issue. Apparently, it's fine for them to say God hates gay people, but it's not okay for me to say they are full of it and don't understand him nearly as well as they think they do. It's okay for them to say my son has autism because God wants to protect him from my atheism, but it's not okay for me to say any God who would inflict my son with such a disorder for such a reason is unworthy of worship, and their worship of such a piece of fecal matter is an actual character flaw. So my brother and my cousin don't speak to me, and my family wants ME to be the one to smooth over the differences. As if I'm the one worshipping a monster who would hurt their kids to protect their kids from their backward, iron age religious views. Fine. So the other day my family is gathered for a union (reunion? no, union) of sorts with a family member we've never met. Not important. And my mother kindly notes that the best way to avoid religious arguments is to keep your views to yourself. Ok, fine. Which she follows up with, of course there's a God, but people should be free to worship him however they wish. And then it struck me: "Keep your religion to yourself" only applies to atheists. It doesn't apply to theists. They can say whatever they want, in my home, in defense of monsters who worship a vindictive, petty a-hole. But I'm supposed to be the polite one. And you know what? That's rude too. The expectation that unbelievers should remain silent while believers are free to express themselves whenever, wherever and however they want is RUDE. I see it here when people post about the "miracles" of the past, while unbelievers, I presume, are expected to just accept that these outlandish stories happened as advertised. "What do you think of schmoe and schmoe" who played such a significant role in the miracle working ministry of Rev. Healed-A-Lot? You know, sorry. That's rude too.

The English Patient Ralph Fiennes Harry Potter (Goblet of Fire, Order of the Phoenix, Deathly Hallows 1 and 2).

Actually, no, the title is not a misnomer at all. As far as the main character is concerned, the title refers to an act against HIM, not to his response.

Allegedly.

Ok then: Name the actor who played: Jimmy Doyle (again? Yeah, different Jimmy Doyle) Reverend Scott Senator Kevin Keeley Nicholas Earp

Ok, so let me get this right: If the Bible is right, interpretation and prophecy are supernatural. But that is no guarantee that what we were taught and practices in TWI were supernatural. So, if that's what you're saying, without committing either way on interpretation or especially prophesy, then we are in agreement. I, of course, believe it's ALL a bunch of hooey, but that started as a deduction, not as a presupposition.

i meant B but yeah

I would say I don't disagree with you, except I can't make heads or tails of what you said.

Fine Star The Empire Strikes Back Wars

You could just say "Open Post."

This movie is based on a novel in which the main character dies, absolutely positively beyond a shadow of a doubt eliminating the possibility of sequels. Kirk Douglas was originally to be part of the cast, but he was replaced when he objected to the new ending. In the movie, the main character directly kills.... no one.

oh hello

DeNiro

I really need to sneak into one of these things.

I'll say this once so as not to derail a thread where being a believer is the expectation (reserving my right to think and post differently): Interpretation of tongues is extemporaneous speech (or, more precisely, impromptu speech). There's nothing remotely supernatural about it, and you're not interpreting what is spoken in a tongue because (news flash) your "tongue" is not another language, and thus not what the Bible describes. If you are a believer, then you want what the Bible promises. Speaking in tongues, as we practiced it, is NOT what the Bible promises. Interpretation and prophecy have perfectly natural explanations that fit the facts better than the notion that something supernatural is taking place.

You guys are mixing topics. This thread is about extended interpretation of tongues. The OTHER thread is about the exaggerated "raising of the dead" story where the guy was never dead and nothing supernatural is even alleged to have happened except in the working brain of a man in a coma.

So often these stories depend a great deal on the recipient's lack of knowledge of the terms that are being used. I glossed over all that stuff, not realizing how key it was in debunking this nonsense story. The thing that sealed it for me was, the writer of the article did not consult a single doctor. Heaven only knows why he thought the article was worth writing, but he did and that's his call, and as publisher it is his right to print it. That doesn't make it credible.

Ok, so, without the modhat: Testimonials are CLAIMS. They are not evidence for those claims. People need to understand the difference. If I tell you I stayed home from work today because I was sick, the amount of evidence you need to support that claim is minimal. There's nothing extraordinary about the claim. Therefore, there is nothing extraordinary about the amount of evidence you require to believe it. If I were to tell you I stayed home from work today because last night I was abducted by space aliens, you would demand proof. And it had better be good. My claim, by itself, would be inadequate (to say the least) as proof. I had someone look me straight in the eye and tell me she had HIV. Then she looked me straight in the eye a couple of years later and praised God because it was GONE! Hallelujah! I relied on this person to help me understand things that only someone with HIV would know. Made me look like an idiot. After a while it hit me: she never had HIV. Given the set of facts, it was the explanation that is most probable. Testimonials are not evidence of themselves. By all means, draw inspiration from them if you will. But when you start presenting them as evidence of their own veracity, buckle up. Immabout to get rude.

Oh, i missed it. ModTheOtherGuy has already been here.

Except if you're me, there's no way to distinguish. I'll discuss with ModTheOtherGuy and we'll figure it out.

One more thing: Just because an article is printed in a newspaper does not mean it has met journalistic standards. This article contains ZERO independent verification of the claims being made. The writer merelvrepeats unverified claims. Don't use the professionn's standards to enhance the credibility of the claim when the profession's standards were not followed