Raf

Many "of the" hookers and pimps is the giveaway. A comedy with throwaway hookers and pimps has to be Night Court. I'm guessing the Emmy winner has to be John Laroquette.

OldWolf, what up,?

agreed

I'm not done, but a few observations: 1. Paranoid conspiracy theory level silliness. "They were part of a secret society," then goes on to tell us all about it. Some secret. 2. Not exactly neutral. It's not that these folks were actually evil. They just were deists and not Christian. But that's not enough. Gotta be eeeeeevil. 3. Grateful to see the "founders weren't pushing Christianity" argument coming from CHRISTIANS for a change. However, it should be clear that Christians were involved in the founding and had some significant influence. Secularism was the compromise, and Oldies is right. How wonderful to have a constitution that allows Christians to be Christian as they wanna be. It also allows me not to be. Huzzah. Further exploration of this veers into politics. Let's not.

In case it got lost in the shuffle: The music producer was Berry Gordy of Motown [and banging Diana Ross] fame. NPH was famous [in part] for his character Barney Stinson who would promise adventures that were "legen--wait for it--dary. legendary." And yes, there was a Spider-man musical. He was not crashing the party.

Going to watch before commenting this time. Partway through Thomas Paine and recognizing how dangerously close to political content we are. I opened the door by talking about the Jefferson Bible in the context of this thread topic. But careful.

He hosted the Oscars once, as did Hugh Jackman. Both also hosted the Tony Awards. Neil Patrick Harris hosted in 2013. Bigger was co-written by Lin Manuel Miranda. It was ... amazing. See for yourself.

Oh trust me that is exactly where I am going.

I think the Destin Log article is, to put it delicately, laughable. It's on par with Wierwille's history of the Trinity in JCING. It will take some time to unpack.

The Jefferson Bible was an abridgment of the gospels for his personal use. I wouldn't call it atheist in any sense, but it is certainly rationalist.

What do you mean by "fundamentalist atheist"?

I just checked. Your assessment is not correct. At all. Here's what I wrote: [the formatting got thrown off here and I can't figure out how to fix it. Sorry]. That. was. literally. my. point. I think [if I may] that your question to me presumes that I have an explicit or implicit definition of theopneustos in mind. I don't. At all. I'll repeat my point: It does not matter how you define the term, whether it's God-breathed perfect down to the last preposition or "kind of God inspired," there's no way to rule out PFAL that does not rule out the Bible. On what grounds do you reject PFAL as "kind of God inspired"? Can you see how someone else might apply the same standard to the Bible and find it wanting? Etc.

Happens

Between awards show and magic trick, I think I've narrowed it down to one person. One of the lyrics was "I guarantee a truly legendary show." The singer did not make us wait for it.

Cleaning up the error: Dune, Jeffrey, A Christmas Carol. Same answer. WW is up.

ah, ok. i'll post links when I get to a computer rather than my phone. But I think you mistook my point for antagonism. You asked about the value of corroborating sources for the Bible's claims, then demonstrated the value by asking me for references. That's the point I was trying to make. For simplicity's sake I would just plug the keywords into wikipedia and see what pops up. Here's Joshua and Ai: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ai_(Canaan)#:~:text=The Ai (Hebrew%3A הָעַי%2C,day archeological site Et-Tell.

you are right

1. The Jefferson Bible is basically the teachings of Jesus stripped of all supernatural inferences and references. Save ypur money. I'm positive it's available online. 2. Why do I need references but the Bible doesn't? Evidence that I am wrong would change my mind. Why declare before researching that it would not change yours?

lol no.

What has Jackman hosted?

ok, now you're in the neighborhood. An awards show host. You've already eliminated one of four awards show hosts known to sing, Jackman. Who are the other 3?

Patrick Stewart was correct

No, it does not. It contains a mythology of the growth of that nation. See, that's the thing. Exodus is not part of Egypt's history. Or Israel's. In the Bible, Joshua is credited with destroying the city of Ai. That city had been destroyed centuries earlier. Conservative, Bible believing archaeologists came to that conclusion reluctantly.

Context: we're talking about religion compelling people to believe the unprovable, not why people read the Bible. Excellent question, OldSkool. The answer is: to an extent. It really depends on the claim being made. It should be noted that historicity is crucial to the truth claims of Christianity. If these things didn't happen, then Christianity is false regardless of the morals and priciples it teaches. Take the good and cherish it. Take the silliness and trash it. Homework: Read the preceding paragraph. Then read the Jefferson Bible. Then read the preceding paragraph again. Repeat until it hits you. Anyway, where were we? Oh yeah: I would not expect independent verification of some things. Others, yeah, there'd better be corroboration. For example, we know King David existed. We also know the size and influence of his kingdom was a wee bit exaggerated. We know Nebuchadnezzar existed. We know Daniel did not. The book of Daniel claims Belshazar was king and that he was Nebuchadnezzar's son. Neither is true. Daniel is no more real than the Kent family in the John Jakes novels: a fictional character interacting with real people from history to tell a compelling tale. Moses? No more real than Perseus. Egypt kept records, man. ... I got interrupted and you posted again while I was writing, so I'll stop here and read and respond if necessary.

For the record, that's not what I said. I said "Most Christians believe the Bible is God-breathed, whatever that means to them (or to you)." I didn't think that statement was remotely controversial. Are you saying most Christians do not believe that? And I am not saying a belief is untrue just because it's mocked. If that were the case, no belief would be true. And Mike's thesis falls under the same protection. It's not false because we mock it [and OH, I do]. The point I am making is simply that it's difficult [I contend impossible] to come up with a reason to reject Mike's arguments that cannot be used to justify a rejection of any flavor of Christianity.