9 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

No.  So if they asked the questions and BK didnt respond in writing, why did none of them ask him in the open hearing?

I think we all agree this would be a good line of questioning, both for the overall knowledge of the country and it would help the Dems cause.  Unless he answered in writing and it was a big nothingburger.

 

Is there a good explanation for why the Dems let it drop?

Sex sells?

16 minutes ago, Burgold said:

This second part is an indication that we are dealing with more lying than ever. They lie when they don't need to. I think it's a tactic. If everything is a lie a nd everything is called a lie than the more outrageous lies kind of fade into the background because they're just another lie and everything has been called a lie.

 

We are systematically, consciously being desensitized to lies so that they can take greater and greater liberties at our expense. They are trying to establish a new normal.

 

The worst part is that  it  is working

Generating anxiety and creating uncertainty in the collective mind is an effective way to control people.

13 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Deny, deny, deny is the Trump and his minions' mantra.

Not really. More like Deny, Maybe, OK but not that bad, look at those bad guys! There are no cover up's anymore, because the information age has been used to sow the seeds of uncertainty like never before.

2 minutes ago, justice98 said:

The understated takeaway from all this is Trump is quite literally the worst judge of character and personnel of all time.  Probsbly 75% of the people he hires or appoints, are either a liar, a traitor, a scumbag, grossly unqualified for the position, or all of the above 

Momma always taught me "it takes one to know one" (speaking of the President, not you)

1 minute ago, justice98 said:

All you need is for just one of these allegations to be true.  And the accuser count is adding up.  I think we might be up to 4 now.  

Where there is smoke there is fire. Just like Bill Cosby.

3 minutes ago, visionary said:

What exactly are you looking for?  Someone who saw it happen?  

 

There have have been people who have said that they heard about these events later, in Ramirez’s case around an hour after it happened.  Others have spoken to the general behavior of Kav and judge in high school and college and they themselves have left a trail of comments over the years that support this.

How on earth did anybody let this guy even get to the Appeals bench, let lone the SCOTUS?

1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said:

A single corroboration would end this immediately.

Would it? I don't think it would given the history of my former party.

1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Ok, what is this about? SpicyFiles is definitely on the hunt, but for who or what and why I have no context for.

Never heard the term "Tango down." I always though the phrase was "Tango Uniform"?

23 hours ago, Destino said:

 

You're forgetting that Nick Fury is a career intelligence officer that runs a secret government organization.  He lied. 

True. As Tony Stark once said:

Tony Stark: Why did Fury call us in? Why now? Why not before? What isn't he telling us? I can't do the equation unless I have all the variables.

Steve Rogers: You think Fury's hiding something?

Tony Stark: He's a spy. Captain. He's THE spy. His secrets have secrets.

21 hours ago, Destino said:

It has to happen though.  An essential component of telling an infiltration story line is that someone has to have been an imposter long before anyone became aware of it.  It wouldn't surprise me if Marvel already put clues into moves we've seen, but in a way that isn't recognizable until after they reveal some information that makes those scenes significant. 

The thing confusing to me is that I could swear Nick Fury told Thor that his arrival let them know they were not alone in the universe. Yet clearly they knew about Skrulls and Cap Marvel.

EDIT: found it

From Avengers (2012)

Bruce Banner: I'd like to know why SHIELD is using the Tesseract to build weapons of mass destruction.

Nick Fury: Because of him!

[points at Thor]

Thor: Me?

Nick Fury: Last year, Earth had a visiter from another planet that had a grudge match that leveled a small town. We learned that not only are we not alone, but we are hopelessly...hilariously, outgunned.

Thor: My people want nothing but peace with your planet!

Nick Fury: But you're not the only ones out there, are you? And you're not the only threat. The world is filling up with people that can't be matched, that can't be controlled!

49 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

There are considerably more rules and verses regarding support for slavery then there is for abolitionism.  I would not the "used the bible to say stop slavery" without passages in the OT to show that.  Far as i can tell, slavery was normal in biblical times, Jewish slaves to this early Jews treated better then non-Jews (those are actual rules in the bible, post-Exodus from Egypt)

 

 

If any early Jews were against slavery enough to try to stop it, there's no indication they were anything more then a minority.

I would look at Paul's letter to Philemon. While Paul doesn't outright denounce slavery in the Roman Empire, you can detect his disapproval of Philemon owning slaves in an undercurrent.

As far as Mary Magdelene, I think she was a great woman and one of Jesus's key disciples. She is not listed as an Apostle. It doesn't say she was a prostitute either. That is a tradition started probably by a Pope. Hence, why we need to not value tradition equally with holy Scripture.

37 minutes ago, techboy said:

3. There's nothing wrong, per se, with a literal and strict interpretation of divine inspiration, but I'd caution against making it a central tenet of the faith, which certainly isn't supported by the Biblical texts themselves (in that you must believe it to be saved). There are many stories of people elevating a strict Biblical literalism to a central idea, then falling away from the faith when they couldn't make it work. Bart Ehrman is a very famous example of this... He's a fantastic scholar, and he just couldn't reconcile his simplistic and unrealistic view of Biblical inerrancy with his scholarly work, and rather than adjust his viewpoint on inerrancy, he tossed the whole thing.

My professor on New Testament at Seminary called this "folk inerrancy" which falls apart when confronted by the any difficulty with the text.

33 minutes ago, bearrock said:

I will say I'm nowhere close to being able to parse every truths and meaning from the text

Show me somebody who claims they do and I'll show you a liar.

10 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Well my main point was the body of my post. 

I know what your main point was, and I agree with it enough (not quite 100% though) to not respond to it.

Quote

The justification example is more to show that the bible is vague enough and conflicting enough for people to use it for their own devices.  

There is an old saying: "The main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things." The bible isn't vague in the fact that all people are made in God's image for instance. Modern black slavery was justified by claiming they were not fully human, but rather sub-human.

11 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

It's 2018, man, you really with a straight face don't want women to be pastors/elders? 

Absolutely I believe it. I stand on truth revealed, not how I feel. Feelings change, truth does not (despite misuse and abuse).

Quote

I can't support focusing on what Paul said knowing that Mary Magdalene was minimized out the Bible, her book intentionally removed, and characterized as a prostitute at best in the middle ages.  I wouldn't get with a prostitute, but not because I find them disgusting, Jesus had a couple examples of reaching out to them and there are people that real talk can't get laid.  I have no problem with it, but I don't want to get off-topic on that.  There are so many gay priests in the Catholic Church that they might as well allow it, you can argue they technically are.

The only things true in this paragraph is that Jesus did indeed reach out to prostitutes (not lie with them) and the Roman Catholic church having gay priests. The rest...not so much.

9 hours ago, bearrock said:

I believe in God.  I have no doubt that Jesus Christ is my savior.  But I reject the notion that we can figure out the answer to the universe by reading the bible as if it's some list of mathematical equations that unlocks God's will.  The history of the bible shows that such view would be farcical.  For a long time people couldn't agree whether certain books belong in the bible and now RCC recognizes Apocrypha while Protestants don't.  KJV of the bible contains sixteen verses that modern translations don't.  There are competing translations that actually result in canonically significant variation depending on the translation.  There are verses that simply doesn't lend itself to the same meaning across multiple languages.  Many Christians of yesteryears, especially in countries with short history of Christianity, labored under incorrect translations until they were eventually fixed.  The notion that every single word of the bible is the infallible word of God is as laughable as it is historically inaccurate.  God works his blessings on us despite all of our screwups, not because of it.  Humanity has done a marvellous job of screwing up the good news in every which way they can.  That there are still true Christians remaining today is a testament to God's grace and miracle.  Let us not forget it wasn't so long ago when people used the bible to justify slavery and ban interracial marriage.

Let's also not forget that in the same times there were people who use the bible as their justification to ban slavery.

Saying something is not what it is because somebody used it wrongly is a non sequitur. You wouldn't say a shovel is not a gardening tool or good for digging holes because somebody used it wrongly to wack somebody on the head and bury them.

‘Captain Marvel’ Trailer Breakdown Reveals 90s References, MCU Cameos, and Space Cats

http://collider.com/captain-marvel-trailer-breakdown/

Poster looks cool. Notice the nod to Chewie in the corner? But is he just a cat or is he something else?

5 hours ago, Dr. Do Itch Big said:

Captain marvel looks awful

I think it looks awesome.

13 minutes ago, Destino said:

Luis (from Ant-Man) will ultimately steal the gauntlet and become a god himself.  

and then literally make everyone talk in his voice.

11 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

How do you feel about something like the Catholic Church allow Gay and Female Priests, allowed to marry, and not expected to stay celibate? 

I'm a Southern Baptist (of the Russell Moore variety, not the Robert Jeffries kind), so I don't get into what the RCC does too much, except to say that I believe they have doctrinal and ecclesiastical errors. It's why I am not a member of the RCC. On the specific issue you mention, the bible is pretty clear that all Christians are part of the "priesthood of believers" (1 Peter 2) with Jesus as the High Priest (Hebrews 2:17; 4:14). So right off the bat the terminology is incorrect. Now, a Roman Catholic will tell you "well, priest comes from the same root as pastor. That's all it means." Ok. I do believe that only men should be pastors/elders (same thing) mainly because of the Apostle Paul's writings that he did not allow allow women to teach or be in authority over men in the church. And teaching is an authoritative role and a pastor/elder's main job. Obviously many churches disagree and claim cultural context, but that is a slippery slope to theological liberalism.

Quote

 

I feel like some expectations are reasonable in regards to seeking everlasting life, salvation.  I wish I knew more to understand which rules were more strictly enforced then others.  So many laws and expectations are rooted in a time period that has very little in common with today's world, and huge history of hipocricy.  I do believe people pick and chose which rules they have to put more of an emphasis on based on their limited understanding of those expectations and context of the versus, or they intentionally interpret them to what they like the most (I try to avoid this, I don't like using scripture to excuse my actions, I try to better under what was originally meant, or even the intent).

 

Sin is sin really. All of it is breaking God's law. However, the Apostle Paul seems to put particular emphasis on sexual immorality. All other sins he says to hold your ground and resist temptation. Sexual sin however, he says to run away as fast as you can. For one because it is the hardest to resist, and second because biblically when two people have sex, they are joined as one flesh, AKA should be married. He asks the question "why would join yourself to the flesh of a prostitute?" at one point.

Homosexuality is targeted for several reasons: 1) it is the squeaky cultural wheel of the recent years, 2) the bible calls it an "abomination" which is " a thing that causes disgust or hatred" (think about how much many people feel this way about Trump for a comparison of the level of feelings of disgust (waiting for the person who says "are you comparing Trump to gay people?" and misses the point)). I don't elevate it any higher than greed or adultery or other sins. But I also don't say it's not a sin that is deadly serious to a holy God either. God isn't safe, but He's good. (which is why CS Lewis made him a lion) The unfortunate side effect can be to seek justice (remember the holiness of God and that God's law is broken), forgetting that these are still people, and doing so without love and mercy tempering it. Truth and love must always work together or the scales go out of balance. I think the topic of sexual sin is a topic that will do this thread an injustice though and we should focus elsewhere.

And, who isn't a hypocrite really, both inside or outside the church?

On 9/15/2018 at 4:31 PM, Renegade7 said:

I don't feel the same way about my faith as my religion, and a lot that has to do with who is supposed to be outside looking in (at least who were being told is in or out).  I don't think organized religion survives unless a hard look in the mirror is done as their numbers continue to decline.

A look in the mirror is good for everybody, not just those of us in "organized religion" as you put it. I find that term is an excuse or cop out by the way for those who don't like somebody potentially telling them what's what. It's dangerous when reinforced by others positively. However, it is not completely without merit, too far to one side is indeed legalism, but too far to the other is heresy as well in antinomianism.

Incidentally, on the topic of reinforced beliefs, I came across this study earlier. Interesting, and explains a lot about Trump supporters, but about his opposition as well. Think about how much time a person spends on this forum for instance and how over time, people can begin to be affected by positive or negative responses.

https://www.sciencealert.com/feedback-study-explains-why-false-beliefs-stick

2 hours ago, justice98 said:

 

That makes some sense that it's how this all started then.  From what I can tell, they don't even have any plans for Superman's next appearance.  There's not JL2 planned right now, there's no Man of Steel 2 planned, they didn't fit him in Shazam, there's nothing coming.  Lord knows when we'll see Superman again. So I think the longer it drags out, the less likely it is that Cavill comes back.  He could wind up being James Bond before we see him in a cape again.

 

Maybe they do Flashpoint in the Flash movie, and it becomes a JL 1.5.  Kinda like how Captain America: Civil War was.  Story's about the Flash, but basically everybody's in it.  Having said that, the Flash movie is perpetually in turmoil, until they start filming, I won't believe it's being made. 

 

 

The DCEU lacks a coherent vision and has from the start.

On 9/12/2018 at 12:13 PM, justice98 said:

FWIW, Cavill's agent says reports of his exit from the role are untrue.

Yeah, looks like Cavill confirmed he's still around. The rumors were due to DC not being able to negotiate a cameo of Superman in Shazam.

1 hour ago, Bang said:

As a species, we are doomed. We are already at an unsustainable rate of population growth, and it will only increase exponentially. We are completely unwilling to realize it, make any hard choices, sacrifice any comforts in order to survive.

 

~Bang

 

Bang is Thanos! lol

26 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Waiting for November 2018, Older Brother told me he wont have kids if Trump gets reelected in 2020.

He sounds like many conservatives during the Obama years. Birthing and teaching children according to your values (whatever side of the spectrum your on) is one of the ways you can change the world.