sincerely doubt there will be any ka-ka thrown his way as his world is likely the fellowship of the fallacious fearful.

check out that list. spun spuriousness signaling his slide into spooksville. the shadowlands. just the crush of it might alienate him further. w/o fox not a lot of zombie-right channels left.

just hope the most that the cognitive dissonance leads to is cake overindulgence, crying to 'country' music, and shouting at a licensed therapist.

otherwise...https://youtu.be/YedqV4Gl_us?t=61

Good question, BSR.

I wasn't a Christian until I'm in my 30's. But throughout my 20's, I occasionally get asked if I'm a Christian whenever I was just being nice/helping people. So after a dozen times getting asked that, I went to a church event from a Christian friend and got involved. I only wanted to get baptized after I read the whole Bible cover-to-cover.

I really don't get attached to the church much, although I do go every Sunday & have fellowship 3, 4 times a month. Not getting attached in the sense that knowing church is like any organization with lots of people - it's natural their hearts & minds tends to go to the daily running of the church (Getting more people into church, donations vs expenses, etc.) and communal/social side of things more than the spiritual-growth side.

I'm more of a "Jesus Follower" type of Christian I guess? not impressed with organized religion, but I just agree and put myself into practicing what Jesus preach to people, his simple commandments: Love God & my neighbors. Looking at Jesus as a humanitarian philosopher perspective, I can't believe He doesn't want us to make this Earth a better place. He's all about understanding, accepting and instill love & respect into everyone...

It's crazy to see people using and twisting religion to turn this world into - pardon my French - merde... how is this what Jesus wants? There are way too many people who just want the benefit (getting into heaven? bragging right? think Christianity is superior than others?) without the effort... these we call the "free-gift (read: cheap-fakes) gospel" that really have zero value and zero contribution to the betterment of the world.

You said it right. Jesus placed the world on his shoulder, if I call myself a Christian and I don't carry the cross as He does... I'm just lying to myself and to the world.

Man, I'm suuuper late to this party....
Anyways, Die Hard is and is not a Christmas movie at the same time. And it depends on your definition what makes a Christmas movie.
I'm gonna take an insane detour here that'll make sense.
Is Star Wars Episode 4 a science fiction movie?
That setting is futuristic, sure, must be sci-fi then. Lasers, Spaceships, Robots, the works. The checklist is done. Sci-Fi.
But what are the themes it touches upon, what is the story?
A young farmer's boy (naturally an adoptred orphan) named Luke is dragged into a rebellion against an evil king (Palpatine) by accident. When the boy get's hold of a pretty princess' (RIP Carrie Fisher) message to an old ally and menthor (Obi) through the fault of her two comic-relief servants (Robot-slaves), he decides to seek the adventure he's yearning for. He finds the old man (by fucking up) and both seek the next harbor to board a ship to join the resistance. The hire smuggler/pirate/bandit/nerfherder Han and his foreign friend Chewie and cross paths with the black knight Lord Vader, the evil kings enforcer. Hijinks ensue, princess rescued, the magic castle/ship/train of the evil king get's destroyed and everyone gets a medal.
What's exactly sci-fi here?
That could play out in medieval times. Or ancient greece. Or the wild west. Or on Christmas.
The setting and the genre are two different things and both determine what you'll label a story with.
Alien is a horror movie, a slasher. Aliens is a war movie. Alien³ is a horror movie of the animal-gone-maneater kind. Alien: Resurrection is a disaster movie (hihi).
They're all sci-fi, like Star Wars. Because of the setting.
Now look at Star Trek: The Next Generation Season 2 Episode 9 'The Measure Of A Man'.
Lasers, spaceships, robots, the usual. What is it about?
A Robot who's so sophisticated that he has to go to trial to prove he's not property but a real boy. Sure, you'll say, I've seen Pinocchio and I can see african men argue the same stuff in the 18th century. The point of the story is not only that is humanity is questioned, the point is he's an artificial lifeform. The question is not only 'What makes you a person?' but also 'When does artificial intelligence become an artificial person?'
That shit won't work in a setting without spaceships and robots. That's sci-fi because of its story.
So, setting and story are both what makes you label a movie a certain way but they're not the same.
Die Hard. Happens on Christmas. Could be Thanksgiving too. Setting interchangeable.
Story? Doesn't contain any christmas-related themes beyond two estranged family members become closer again. That could happen at a funeral as well.
I'm in my mid-thirties and I love Die Hard. It's one of the best 80's action movies. I can watch it anytime and I've seen it at least 20 times (noit joking here). But mostly in the summer. But I understand the question and its diverse answers perfectly well.
Die Hard is a christmas movie if it feels like one to you. For me, Lord of the Rings (especially Fellowship) feels like a Christmas movie to me. I've seen them all in theatres in December, I watched them on VHS and Blu-Ray only in December so far. They have fuck all to do with the occasion but this year was the first one I didn't watch any of them in December. And I feel I missed something this year. I'm not sure I can watch them at this time of the year.

Your video, Lord of the Lathes - The Fellowship of the Lathe, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Notwithstanding that you weren't looking for a reply, I ought at least to acknowledge my debt to you for correcting my spelling. It's always gratifying to see the lower orders of humanity display sudden and unlooked-for hints of intelligence - just like watching a monkey light a cigar.

I won't bore you with my inexplicably punctuated "opinions", knowing that "facts" and "rational thought" are always anathema to such as you. Only take my thanks in the spirit of fellowship and understanding with which they are intended.

Edward Norton - Movie Trailer (Wes Anderson Spoof) - SNL has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Wes Anderson's "Spiderman" (spot-on parody) has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

What If Wes Anderson Did The Forrest Gump Opening Sequence? has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

What If Wes Anderson Directed the Next Star Wars Movie? has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Wes Anderson's The Fellowship of The Ring has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

It's probably a really good idea to open up the endlessly raging Bombadil controversy. Well so what, Tolkienian cosmology is fascinating. To some extent he's a deliberate enigma. Personally I favour the idea, if he's explicable at all, that he's the spirit of Arda itself or at least the foremost of a number of more provincial spirits. There are competing theories, but it's not really possible that he's a Maia.

Certainly there were any number of Maiar still knocking around at the time of the Fellowship: Gandalf, Saruman, et al; Sauron; Durin's Bane; Gwaihir; arguably Shelob (half-Maia at best); and depending on how widely you want to define 'in Middle Earth', Arien & Tilion (the bearers of the sun & moon), presumably Osse & Uinen, etc.

Bombadil calls himself, and the elves agree, 'eldest', and he claims to have been around before Melkor, who was definitively the first of the Ainur to descend into the circles of the world. He's unaffected by, and not really interested in, the Ring, unlike the Maiar who come into contact with it in the course of the story.

Ilúvatar set the Secret Fire, which gives sentient creatures their fëar or souls, burning at the heart of the world. I can't see an origin for Tom that doesn't derive directly from that, given that at the point he appears in the chronology there's very little else in existence.

I don't know what all this makes Goldberry.

I thought Tom Bombadil was one of the last Maiar in Middle Earth, at the time of the Fellowship. Am I thinking of a different tier of being?

Matthew 16:26 What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?

It is written that in the last days, knowledge will increase, but it doesn't mention anything about wisdom. You can see that very clearly in the world system, that for all of mans hubris regarding his accomplishments, the character of man has not changed one iota. The evil that is done in this world is symptomatic of a disease that has no modern cure, which is called sin, and all who sin are slaves to sin. This is why Jesus came into the world, to free men from slavery to sin and death. Investigating 4 alpha decay sets and why the neptunium set doesn't appear in nature is never going to reveal that to you. There is no knowledge that you can gain from studying the natural world which is going to solve the problem of sin; it is only Jesus Christ who has solved this problem.

Yes, you're correct, the bible is not a science book; it is a salvation book. God inspires men to do great things in science; just ask Newton. Yet there are two questions science cannot answer; why am I here, and what happens after I die? No experiment will give you any revelation on these matters. They are the most important questions, and Jesus did answer them. He said we are here because God created us to be in fellowship with Him, and there will be a judgment after we die that determines where we end up. That is why, if Satan came to your door and gave you a deed to all of the nations of the world and all of their wealth (hundreds of trillions at the least), in exchange for your soul, you would have made an unprofitable deal. Everything in this world is perishing and will pass away, but those who do the will of God will abide forever.



>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^shinyblurry:
1 Corinthians 1:18-21
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

What does the bible have to say about the 4 alpha decay sets and why the neptunium set doesn't appear in nature? Problem is, the bible doesn't really answer any scientific questions, nor does it give any useful tools into discovering how the world works. So while I still hold that Corinthians has the best definition of love, it can't give you an understanding of the bio-chemical-neurological goings on of love, and has to deal with deformities of the working order of the body with the deus ex machina of demons. No one prayed the printing press into existence so you could even have a bible in written form, or a keyboard and the internet, or medicine, or refrigeration. Anyone who can't agree that science and technology vastly improve the quality of life on the planet more than any one other thing, including religion, has a large burden of evidence to overcome, imo. While I don't go as far as Bill Maher kind of people and say that religion is bad (I think it does do a lot of good), I will say that I think STEM has done most of the heavy lifting in our modern world in terms of doing good.

By your rhetorical suggestion: God created us with free will, then he created laws for us because following them is good for us and he loves us, then he said there would be consequences for not following those laws to encourage us to follow them because he loves us, then he determined that the consequences would be the worst possible thing that could happen, far worse than the real-life consequences for breaking the rules… because he loves us? It doesn’t add up. Don't give me some reductionist "let all rapists go free" argument. There's no way to explain the extreme severity of the consequences for breaking the law if the law itself was created so we would be better off. See?

In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve to be completely dependent on Him for everything. They relied upon God to make their decisions for them, and tell them what good and evil was. However, because He wanted His creatures to be free to love Him, ie just not just forced to obey Him, He gave them one command. That command was not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He told them that in the day they ate of it they would surely die.

What lay in the fruit of that tree for Adam and Eve was their own autonomy. The fruit represented an independence from God to decide on their own what is good and evil. Rather than sitting at Gods feet and learning from Him, they would become a law onto themselves through their own judgment. What eating this fruit did was destroy their innocence forever. It ruined the perfect relationship and fellowship they had with God by turning them into rebels who would make choices apart from God.

So, rather than the law being given for the reasons you are saying, it was given to offer them a choice between obedience to God and personal autonomy. The consequences of breaking that law not only changed their nature but brought sin and death into the world. God draws the line at His standard for goodness, which is perfection. It is a zero tolerance policy for rebellion, not only for moral guidance, but to maintain order in His kingdom.

What’s wrong with robots? You said elsewhere it’s because god wouldn’t want robots. How can he want anything? He’s perfect. Does his own existence not satisfy him? Is he lacking something? Was he bored and lonely? Are we his pets?

God created not out of need, but out of the abundance of His love. He regards us as His offspring, not His pets.

Act 17:22-31

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

But he forgave us all our sins through the sacrifice of his son. Was that a compromise of his integrity? It seems he does choose to forgive us, at least once every 4000 years or so.

No, because He laid all of our sin on His Son, who bore the punishment we deserve. It is not a compromise of His integrity so long as the sin has been paid for.

Romans 4:25

He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification

You didn’t answer my questions. I know the stated purpose of sending Jesus. My question is why the situation required exactly that. Surely God, at some point, decided, "Well, they’re bad, and I want to get closer, and the exact thing required is for me to have a son, for that son to be a perfect human, for him to preach for three years and then get executed by the other humans, and then we can be closer." God decided something like that. It’s a direct implication of saying that God created everything and that this was necessary.

Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Before the world began, God knew that He would need to send His Son.

If you want to know more about what it means in the image of God, read this:

http://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

It told me almost nothing. It says that the definition of "the image of God" is everything that makes us different from other animals, and everything intangible about us, as if that’s what God looks like. It compared naming pets and enjoying music to being God. Weird.

Because being in the image of God isn't about what God looks like, it is about being imbued with His personal attributes. We resemble Him in our better nature, not our appearance.

What I’m getting at is the arbitrariness of the consequences and why God would have created such random consequences. Look at them with a critical eye, if you can: Adam and Eve committed one sin, and for that their nature was changed forever, and that of their descendents forever, and they lost paradise. For one sin? You believe that God created such a heavy consequence for the first offence ever committed by innocent people – and people without "knowledge" mind you, because they hadn’t eaten the fruit yet. I cannot.

I understand what you're saying. You're not going to see the picture before you connect all of the dots. I'll keep supplying you the dots as I am able. I think I explained this particular question to you in more specific detail this time around, as to why the separation occurred.

God got to enjoy his creation for about 45 minutes before it screwed itself up, and from then on we’ve been a disappointment to him. Yet, as you’ve stated elsewhere, God created us for his pleasure. He knew what would happen, so he screwed up. He couldn’t even create himself a pleasing race of pets. Dogs have free will, understand good and bad, and are extremely pleasing as companions. Why couldn’t God create as good for himself as he did for humans? The whole story doesn’t hold water.

He knew before He created that His creation would rebel at some point, and He took the necessary steps to reconcile it back to Himself at the end of time. He didn't screw up, but He did create beings capable of screwing up. To allow for the real possibility of good, He also had to allow for the real possibility of evil.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That's a defence mechanism against whatever the opposite of apologia is. Reason, maybe.

Or it's absolutely true.

The only consistent model is that God himself created sin and evil by creating the laws, because if he hadn't created the laws, there would be no sin or evil in the world. This understanding is consistent with your statement A and in spirit with C, if you understand C to mean, "We created evil by breaking his law".

Sorry, I should have clarified this a lot more. When scripture says "the law" what it is reffering to is the Mosaic law that was given at Mt Sinai. This law was given because of sin, and sin was already in the world at that time. This really goes back to the beginning with what I described earlier. What we had in the beginning was not a law, but simply a choice. It was given not to keep us from evil but to give us freedom to choose to obey Gods will. You can't freely obey someone if you don't have a choice not to do it. You can't love someone without the choice not to love. The law came into play after all of this, and that is a whole other discussion.

>> ^messenger:

stuff

@shinyblurry

If you ask why God gave us the concept of right and wrong, could it be that He knew which behaviors were good for us and which were bad? If you ask why God gave us consequences, could it be that God wanted to discourage us from bad behavior?

By your rhetorical suggestion: God created us with free will, then he created laws for us because following them is good for us and he loves us, then he said there would be consequences for not following those laws to encourage us to follow them because he loves us, then he determined that the consequences would be the worst possible thing that could happen, far worse than the real-life consequences for breaking the rules… because he loves us? It doesn’t add up. Don't give me some reductionist "let all rapists go free" argument. There's no way to explain the extreme severity of the consequences for breaking the law if the law itself was created so we would be better off. See?

He gave them an honest choice and it was their choice that created sin. What God allowed is the condition to exist where sin was possible.

He created us and our conditions such that 100% of us (or 100% minus two, I suppose) would break those rules. It’s in our nature to break God’s rules. God made both our nature and his rules. God’s fault.

Why did God allow us to sin? Because if He didn't, we would be nothing more than robots.

What’s wrong with robots? You said elsewhere it’s because god wouldn’t want robots. How can he want anything? He’s perfect. Does his own existence not satisfy him? Is he lacking something? Was he bored and lonely? Are we his pets?

He must punish all sin...God cannot compromise His integrity to forgive us…

But he forgave us all our sins through the sacrifice of his son. Was that a compromise of his integrity? It seems he does choose to forgive us, at least once every 4000 years or so.

[me:]Why? Surely God decided that a sinless person would be required to act as a bridge? Why didn't God just make us closer to begin with? Or why didn't he just come on over himself? Couldn't he? Why did he determine that to disobey his commands would create distance?

[you:]God sent His Son over on His behalf, remember? Fellowship with God is a privilege, and to the extent that we abuse it, that is the extent to which He will remove Himself from it.

You didn’t answer my questions. I know the stated purpose of sending Jesus. My question is why the situation required exactly that. Surely God, at some point, decided, "Well, they’re bad, and I want to get closer, and the exact thing required is for me to have a son, for that son to be a perfect human, for him to preach for three years and then get executed by the other humans, and then we can be closer." God decided something like that. It’s a direct implication of saying that God created everything and that this was necessary.

If you want to know more about what it means in the image of God, read this:
http://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

It told me almost nothing. It says that the definition of "the image of God" is everything that makes us different from other animals, and everything intangible about us, as if that’s what God looks like. It compared naming pets and enjoying music to being God. Weird.

Why why why why why why? First, read some of the things I've said and connect the dots.

Because because because because because because your dots don’t connect. When I ask about a connection between two dots, you cite another totally new dot from scripture. When I ask about how to connect that dot, you assert another one with a rhetorical question. When I ask about that dot, you get frustrated and tell me to go study theology. Except within the same comment before you’ve had a chance to answer, I don’t believe I’m asking you the same question again and again. I’m asking you to justify the new information you’re giving me. If it’s frustrating for you, imagine how hard it is for me to accept it.

[me:]And why did they become corrupt? That must have been one of God's rules, that when you sin the first time, you corrupt your DNA (or whatever) for all generations to follow. He created that consequence as much as he created the physical rules of the universe. Why?

[you:]They lost their innocence when they disobeyed God and ate of the fruit. Their nature fundamentally changed as a consequence. Also, death came into the world. The human experience went from paradise to paradise lost, and humans had to fend for themselves. The corruption was a confluence of all of these different factors.

You missed the question. What I’m getting at is the arbitrariness of the consequences and why God would have created such random consequences. Look at them with a critical eye, if you can: Adam and Eve committed one sin, and for that their nature was changed forever, and that of their descendents forever, and they lost paradise. For one sin? You believe that God created such a heavy consequence for the first offence ever committed by innocent people – and people without "knowledge" mind you, because they hadn’t eaten the fruit yet. I cannot.

God got to enjoy his creation for about 45 minutes before it screwed itself up, and from then on we’ve been a disappointment to him. Yet, as you’ve stated elsewhere, God created us for his pleasure. He knew what would happen, so he screwed up. He couldn’t even create himself a pleasing race of pets. Dogs have free will, understand good and bad, and are extremely pleasing as companions. Why couldn’t God create as good for himself as he did for humans? The whole story doesn’t hold water.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That's a defence mechanism against whatever the opposite of apologia is. Reason, maybe.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^ant:
>> ^VoodooV:
decent trailer. Was that the music from Fellowship of the Ring when Gandalf falls at Moria?
I like how they didn't reveal very much, but yeah. I was thinking the same thing. Superman's origin has been done to death.
Still...kinda had to expect it though. Superman is one of my least favorite superheroes since he's been turned into a virtual deity and thus any sort of conflict does not inspire me to the edge of my seat.
But he is rather iconic like it or not and so his story is going to beaten like a dead horse.

Teaser trailers often don't show much.

I think my point is that all trailers should be like that. I really don't place much distinction between teasers or regular trailers...a trailer is a trailer.
One of the worst movies in the world, Darkman, had one of the best trailers. "Who is Darkman?" No one fucking knew so they all went go to see it.
A trailer should really tell you nothing....so that you want to go see the damned movie!


I have never even heard of Darkman movie. Heh. If it didn't show much, then I probably won't see it. Haha. I am fine if it didn't show too much from the movies with no spoilers. I hate it when trailers show too much!

>> ^ant:

>> ^VoodooV:
decent trailer. Was that the music from Fellowship of the Ring when Gandalf falls at Moria?
I like how they didn't reveal very much, but yeah. I was thinking the same thing. Superman's origin has been done to death.
Still...kinda had to expect it though. Superman is one of my least favorite superheroes since he's been turned into a virtual deity and thus any sort of conflict does not inspire me to the edge of my seat.
But he is rather iconic like it or not and so his story is going to beaten like a dead horse.

Teaser trailers often don't show much.


I think my point is that all trailers should be like that. I really don't place much distinction between teasers or regular trailers...a trailer is a trailer.

One of the worst movies in the world, Darkman, had one of the best trailers. "Who is Darkman?" No one fucking knew so they all went go to see it.

A trailer should really tell you nothing....so that you want to go see the damned movie!

>> ^VoodooV:

decent trailer. Was that the music from Fellowship of the Ring when Gandalf falls at Moria?
I like how they didn't reveal very much, but yeah. I was thinking the same thing. Superman's origin has been done to death.
Still...kinda had to expect it though. Superman is one of my least favorite superheroes since he's been turned into a virtual deity and thus any sort of conflict does not inspire me to the edge of my seat.
But he is rather iconic like it or not and so his story is going to beaten like a dead horse.


Teaser trailers often don't show much.