Raf

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.

😂

And that is why I had to make sure my avatar was showing what I thought it was showing. Your move, Lycanthrope.

I never said it would or should take a burning bush to get someone to check out God. I asked "by what means did God get you in..." and followed that up in the next post with "was it [something] remarkable, and that's how you knew it was God? (Like a burning bush or a talking donkey)." If a burning bush told me to check out a Bible fellowship, I would feel pretty strongly that "God got me in." I wasn't asking you to justify why you checked out God, see? I was asking you for the basis of your statement "God got me in," which you graciously provided. Your wife told you about it. My wife's word has that same "thus saith the Lord" authority, so I get it. I do. ;)

Really? Because I'm giving away the answer every time I post. I made sure of it.

Look at my post. All of it. I'm sure you recognize it.

I'm just saying how I got into it. You can judge for yourself whether it was God or man, but at least you know what happened. I can't tell you that God directed Word Wolf to me. I can tell you that was what I was told and I found the presentation of God's will and the approach to the Bible persuasive. But did God really tell Word Wolf where to find me? Not my story to tell. P.S. Allan, thank you. Snarkiness aside, you answered my question.