Raf

No, I was just making a funny.

Joke's over

This argument is precisely why I asked Allan to expound on his statement. I hope both the abstract statement and the more concrete explanations aid Java Jane in her writing

Second time they were in the same movie. First time they were in the same scene/frame.

I should add that an examination of God's morality is not limited to the law. It can and should also include his behavior before the law was given and after. I'll give you some examples of on topic v. off topic. "Raf, you misunderstand what slavery was 3000 years ago v. what it was 300 years ago. Here's a list of differences that account for why God never banned it in the Torah." That would be completely on topic. It directly addresses the issue raised in the thread topic and in the opening/subsequent posts. "I think the Bible contains God's word but not that it IS God's word. As such, some of the things that made it into the law are a better reflection of the harshness of man than they are of the so-called immorality of God." That would be completely on topic. It directly addresses the thread topic and the opening/subsequent posts. "God banned murder. So He got some things right. You're just cherry-picking the bad things." Actually, such a comment would be just cherry picking the good things. The comment is on the line, at best. The thread topic is not "Can't God do anything right?" If it were, a list of things that underscore his morality would be on topic. God banned murder. God banned usury. God doesn't like potty mouths or cheating on your wife. Sure, bring them up, but why? Do they address the thread topic? No, because they are not really in dispute. Remember, the thread topic is "Are YOU more moral than Yahweh?" It is not "Are all people more moral than Yahweh?" Why is that distinction important? Because we're not comparing Yahweh's stand on slavery to Simon Legree's. We're comparing it to yours. We're not comparing Yahweh's stand on usury to Vinnie the Fingerbreaker's. We're comparing it to yours. So unless you approve of murder, usury, adultery, and fould language, invoking Yahweh's stand on those issues does not actually contribute to the discussion. "Other cultures at the time were worse." Off topic. The question is not "Were other cultures at the time more moral than Yahweh?" "Raf, you need to read the scripture with open eyes. It's clear you can't do that anymore because you've closed your eyes to the things of God and are now influenced by demons." :offtopic:/>/> Not to mention ad hominem and deeply offensive. You're wasting your breath. And after what happened on this thread before, I'm not going to sit by while BS like that is thrown at me again, like I did last time. It will be reported and it will be dealt with instantly. I let things get out of hand by responding to them instead of reporting them. It will not happen again. Show me what you see with your open eyes and open heart. Hope that clarifies things.

It's really not hard. In my posts, I'm laying out specific differences between morality as we understand it today and Yahweh's laws and behavior as exhibited in his law. My premise is that if morality is both objective and absolute, and God is the source of that objective, absolute morality, then his law should be absolutely and objectively moral. In all points. So instances in which his law appears to not be moral according to our standards MUST be addressed. Are our standards wrong? Are we misunderstanding the scriptures? Now be careful. You talked about the eastern mindset considering the concept of an "employee" barbaric. The burden is now on you to demonstrate not just that they felt this way, but that they were correct to do so. That is, if you're equating the eastern mindset with God's will. Otherwise, we're off topic again. I'm not asking if you are more moral than Bronze Age Israelites. I'm asking if you are more moral than the God they worshipped. Personally, I don't see how you can come up with a definition of slavery that is BOTH Biblically accurate and morally defensible. The Bible doesn't just employ the word. It establishes the meaning. And God never abolished the institution. As slavery is defined and regulated in the Bible, I submit YOU would have abolished it. God didn't. Why?

At last! You're obviously on topic. Go on!

Survey says...!

Take a guess.

Let's try a different approach. If you were God, giving your law to your chosen people, and your chosen people wanted to keep slaves, would you regulate slavery, or would you tell your chosen people: "No. Under no circumstances is one human being allowed to own another. I forbid it. End of discussion. You do it, and you will make Me very angry, and you wouldn't like Me when I'm angry"? God chose to regulate slavery. If I'm right, you would have abolished it, no questions asked. That makes you more moral than God, doesn't it? I mean, can regulating slavery be MORE moral than abolishing it, if morality is absolute and objective? If you were God and you gave your law to your chosen people, and one of your laws was not to work on a particular day, what would your punishment be for that infraction? Would you require that the person not eat until the next sunset? Or would you stone him with stones until he dies? God chose to stone the poor sticker-picker-upper. If I'm right, you would not have done it. That makes you more moral than God, doesn't it? I mean, can the death penalty for the most minor offense imaginable (seriously, who, other than God's ego, is hurt when a man picks up firewood on a Saturday?) be MORE moral than a token "punishment" with no long-lasting harm other than discomfort and inconvenience? [To answer a point made on an unrelated thread, these questions do not entail atheist presuppositions. They presume that the God of the Old Testament is a real being who really communicated His will, and they evaluate His law according to our current moral values. So I truly do invite discussions that tackle these difficult questions. Dodging these questions by pointing out irrelevant information is not on topic and therefore not welcome -- NO MATTER WHO DOES IT. God banned usury. Well, that's wonderful, and it's certainly a good thing. But does it address the fact that he failed to abolish slavery and that he instituted a punishment for Sabbath-breaking that even ISIS members would say is a little on the harsh side? No. It's a dodge. Dodges are off topic].

Delayed reaction much?

Yup.

Totally different tone: "Hey, this is a suicide mission. We have to do something. They are not gonna land this plane."

Barney Miller

The Last Action Hero A guess, but I'd be shocked if I was wrong

Does the star of the spinoff live? Slightly exaggerated rumors to the contrary notwithstanding?

;)

That's it! I mean Scary Movie. That's it. The genre is horror. Informally, scary movie. Scary Movie was the working title of Scream. Scream spawned three sequels. Scary Movie spawned 4.

Of course you can. I never suggested otherwise. In fact, I wrote: "Which is FINE, if you don't want to answer to question. But if you do [want to answer the question], it doesn't [answer anything]." Again, in response to this, you graciously (unmerited favor from Allan, acting out of his good will, not out of compulsion and not because it was earned by me) answered the question. My request was not nice? I think you're mixing my request up with the other guy's. You know, the one who actually challenged your assertion that God got you in. I never challenged that. So clearly you have my request for information mixed up with a question that was not as nice (to use your terminology). JavaJane made a really nice request. Your response was vague (to use Word Worlf's terminology) and abstract (to use mine). So I asked you to expound on it, and you did. What exactly is the big deal here? [No comment on the rest of your post, other than that you misspelled awesome. ]

I did not mean to imply that you had anything for which you should apologize, Waysider. You don't. And neither do I, because my questions and comments were on point and on topic. THAT was my point.

The title of this movie is an informal name for a particular film genre. The movie itself is a parody of a movie in that genre. The movie being parodied originally had the same name as the parody, but it was changed before release to a reaction from either the characters, the audience, or (if all went well, and it did) both. Both the movie and the parody spawned multiple sequels, with the parody outnumbering the movie by one. I'll just assume you have to read that numerous times to even understand what it says. Once you do, I actually suspect you'll find the answer to be... not really that difficult. How many parody movies have a whole bunch of sequels?

Caddyshack I'm Gonna Be [500 Miles]

I taught a college writing course, and one of the major lessons of the course was striking the right balance between abstract and concrete language. That is, just because you are using words, it does not mean you are communicating most effectively. JavaJane's opening post is asking for anecdotes, stories, "characters and a plot," as it were. What makes a story? People. Things happening. Characters interact. Something happens. Someone changes. "God got me in" is an abstraction (in the context of what the opening post is requestion: STORIES). God got you in? How? (Which Allan graciously answered). My own story, with the few details I gave, fell perfectly in line with what JavaJane was seeking. It was an example of an "unexplainable coincidence" that I, at one time, thought was "divine intervention" because I was taught there were no such things as coincidences. Yeah, I could have said "Word Wolf witnessed to me." And it would have been true. And yet it would have communicated so little. The fact that it was cold that night was relevant. There's more to the story. I don't know how much he would care to corroborate. But it was, as a whole, persuasive to me. He addressed things that were important to me, and pointed me to the Bible for solutions, advice, etc). I could very easily turn some of these abstract sentences into concrete observations that would put you in the time and place of the setting. I'm not sure how much is needed, or how deep the interest would be, beyond what's already been said. Here's an image: it was at night, in winter. I was under a tree. I had a mop of thick, dark hair at the time. I was wearing a black leather coat and, if memory serves, black pants or jeans. It was Dec. 26, 1986, if I recall correctly. We were on City Island, a small island that is technically part of Bronx county. It was already cold, but because we were on an island, all breezes were sea breezes. The wind chill was not funny. Word Wolf wasn't wearing his coat. And it was a long talk. It's a cool story (no pun intended). The idea that there was something supernatural to kick it off...? To me, it fed the notion that our encounter was no coincidence. It was what God wanted. And I desperately wanted to know what God wanted. JavaJane asked for stories. "God got me in" "God got me out" is not a story. That's why I asked Allan to expand on the comment. My comments were not only on topic, but they improved the on-topic quality of someone else's post. Not needed? I beg to differ. Unlike another poster, I did not challenge the truth or premise of Allan's statement. Now, why isn't that other poster being rebuked? I'm just curious.

If you're going to rebuke me, please properly accuse me. I offered no comment about what Allan perceived, felt or understood at the time. I asked him a question, which he graciously answered. Your rebuke is out of line and uncalled for. All posters' comments are welcome if on topic. Problem with me? Report it.

😂