Raf

"The drivers in life being completely seeking the benefit of self or self seeking. Man does not help fellow man in general in a Darwinian construct." It looks like that, except not at all. Not even a little. It's often said atheists have nothing to live for. It's not true. We have fewer things we're willing to die for. I don't see why the absence of God should automatically entail an every man for himself, eff-all-yall mentality. We are perfectly capable of loving valuing, and living for things other than ourselves, thank you very much. And we do it with zero expectation òf a cosmic reward, crowns, or blessings from the Great Scorekeeper, Charlie Brown. Completely self-seeking? Man does not help fellow man? People who think that without God, men would be nothing but lawless savages really disclose more about themselves than they do about atheists. More later

I'm going to branch this off so as not to derail this thread, but there are three reasons off the top of my head that should cause reasonable people to doubt the "linguist witnessed and confirmed S.I.T." story as presented. 1. As is almost always the case in these stories, we do not know the identities or capabilities of key participants. Namely, two people spoke in tongues and actually produced a language. Who are they? Don't know. Where are they from? Don't know. What exposure have they had to the languages they produced? Don't know. Without the answers to those questions, it is reasonable to doubt that they did anything miraculous. Do we know the ID of the linguist? I'm of the impression that it's Dubofsky's dad, but I need to be sure to further research the claim. 2. The linguist dismissed the SIT and interpretation claim on the grounds that the interpretation was only close, not exact. Now we need evidence of the linguist's fluency in the two languages presented. There is a universe of difference between recognizing a language and being able to translate on the fly with enough precision to differentiate between a "close enough" interpretation and one that's on the nmnose. So where are the credentials? 2. The linguist's RESPONSE to witnessing this foundation shaking event defies credibility. A real linguist would have been blown away, conducted a thorough investigation, and published his results. He would be a legend in his field, not a legendary story on a message board. NOT THIS GUY. He is utterly OBLIVIOUS to the magnitude of what he just witnessed. "Sorry. There was a preposition out of place. Nice try, though." Horse hit, no matter what your presuppositions are.

I keep reading the "God's Budget" thread and coming to the same conclusion. I want you to consider this possibility, even if at first you might find it insulting. It is the byproduct of a different worldview, and not a reflection of what I think of the people on this board as people. I know we are all struggling to know, understand and accept the truth, however uncomfortable it might make us feel. TO ME: The whole thread looks like what happens when well-meaning believers try to conform reality to their faith. We want to know why the devil gets to do things and why God's ability and willingness don't really seem to align as much as we think. So we propose a God who binds himself to arbitrary rules that explain why he doesn't always seem to do what we could have sworn he promised to do in that little checkbook we used to carry around lke it was something clever. Sorry, we don't have the funds to cover the check. God's budget, doncha know. But why was the devil allowed to torment Job? Well, you see what happened was... One of the mental exercises I put myself through was asking: imagine a world in which the things we observe are brute facts, but there is absolutely no spiritual anything behind anything. What would that world look like? Natural disasters wouldn't care about the population they are affecting. The victims of a bridge collapse in San Luis Rey would be no more deserving of death than the survivors of the same incident. Bad guys would sometimes win. Bad deeds would sometimes go unpunished. Etc. In other words, posit a world without God, and tell me how different it would be from the world we actually have. The non-existence of God is the simplest explanation for the paucity and lack of predictability of "miracles." More later, maybe.

Antonio Banderas sicks more than juan language. Shrek 2, 3, 4?

On THAT, I'll go with Hotel California

Ever fit a Nissan in yhe back of a Kia?

I suppose this is where i call bs on the "my dad was a linguist who confirmed SIT produced languages bulls hit story. FYI

He played: Rudy Robles Felix Gumm Joe Dominguez

Rose and CC

We Will Rock You .... "Her lips are devil red, and her skin's the color of mocha"

Bette Mìdler

Lola was the name of the criminally underused flying car owned by Phil (his first name is Agent) Coulson on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.

Very good dissection of what I did and did not say. You are correct.

You know, Madonna is something of an actress herself. She starred opposite Willem Dafoe in the godawful movie Body of Evidence. She was also in Dick Tracy, A League of Their Own, Evita and her own documentary, Truth or Dare. It's in that last film that she made a career blunder, poking fun at an actor/director who would later have control over whether she got a certain part in an upcoming movie. The blunder? After the actor/director appeared in her documentary, Madonna turned away from him and made a finger-in-mouth gagging gesture, making it look like the actor/director made her sick. He remembered. Someone else got the part Madonna wanted. And the movie produced the best selling soundtrack of all time. Name the actor/director. Name the movie. And name the actress who got the part.

The most underused car in tv history.

Melania Trump

16 Candles Molly Ringwald Pretty in Pink

Imagining "I am serious. And don't call me Shirley" in the voices of Vincent Price or Christopher Lee. Johnny ad libbed all his lines in the original. WW is up

oh thank god

Suppose you're right. What movie do you know that COULD have been an episode of KFM but worked much better as a novie on its own. WHO WROTE KFM?

Not as prominent a role for the gay guy. More "on screen, deliver a one liner at someone else's expense, off screen." Huge hint in one of my previous replies. Previously discussed: was conceived as an episode in a separate movie by the sane writers. Not previously discussed: that movie was a recent answer to a question on this forum. Not saying it was THIS thread. Not saying it wasn't.

Confession: I find it tempting, constantly, to answer every objection to every point I make, until every point is exhausted. i'm deliberately avoiding that temptation here. Truth is, I have no idea what to say to Rocky's post. I'm not even sure what is being asserted there. But sometimes "arguments" (for lack of a better word) don't need to be "won." Sometimes the victory is in realizing you've made your point and you do not need the last word to succeed in your original endeavor. I am grateful to everyone who participated in this thread.

One actor ad-libbed literally all of his lines. His character was notable for being conspicuously effeminate (read: gay) yet not being the target of the film's jokes. Instead, he made the audience laugh at other people/situations.

And seriously, Harrison Ford? Not the actor.

This movie was originally conceived as an "episode" in a separate movie with the same writers. They decided to make it separately instead. Same overall tone, though. Most certainly NOT Star Wars. But not many years off.