|
Post by geode on Mar 15, 2019 7:43:15 GMT
My 2nd cousin, who is a geologist like me, posted the following on Facebook: " ... The evidence is overwhelming. ... " I'm from Missouri. Would you happen to be from Jackson County, Missouri? Jackaon County link
Or is your point just that you are from the "Show Me State"...?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Mar 14, 2019 20:48:26 GMT
But even if we assume that my cousin has proven that Jesus is the risen Christ and the Book of Mormon is the word of God, how does this lead to Russell Nelson being a prophet of God, and the present day Mormon church God's kingdom on earth? I don't know that he's saying it does. The way I read it is "I've tested A and found it to be true, and I've tested B and found it to be true..." rather than "I've tested A and found it to be true, therefore B is also true". That being said, his phrasing is ambiguous and open to (mis)interpretation. The way I read it he tested "A" and there was no "B" tested. His claim that he has proven the authenticity of Christ and Joseph Smith is "A" and that knowing this he says it is proven the a person living 175 years later is also a true prophet. If he applied new experiments to prove this he doesn't say so.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Mar 14, 2019 19:14:22 GMT
I have no idea where there is anything funny in what I wrote Cody, care to elighten me? No only the bolded part. That was hilarious. I just edited my comment because I noticed the bolded part after making a reply.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Mar 14, 2019 19:05:38 GMT
My 2nd cousin, who is a geologist like me, posted the following on Facebook: "I'm a geologist and I use the scientific method every day as I work to find the energy that makes our modern lives possible. The more I learn about the earth the more I am impressed by the wonder of it. I also strive every day to learn by listening to the Spirit of God so I can have His direction for my life. When I say I know something scientifically, it's because I have asked questions, and worked to collect data to test the validity of my hypotheses. When the evidence is overwhelming, I can say that I know. Spiritual knowledge is the same way. I can say that I know Jesus is the Christ because I have studied his life and teachings. I have asked questions and conducted experiments that have taught me through my experience that this is true. The evidence is overwhelming. I can't convey my results of this spiritual learning in a spreadsheet, but it is real nonetheless. I can only invite you to conduct your own experiment upon the word of God. Because of my experiments upon the word, I know that Jesus is the Christ, that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, translated by the gift and power of God to his modern Prophet Joseph Smith. Knowing this means that I know that Russell M. Nelson is a prophet of God today and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's kingdom established on Earth once more."The last I heard my cousin was pursuing a doctorate in geology. I only have an MSc. but although I also believe in the messianic role of Jesus, I don't know how to conduct experiments to prove He is the Christ. It is easier to approach whether or not the Book of Mormon is the translated word of God. The Mormon church itself may be backing off on the "translated" part of this to favor it as "revelation" instead. There are also ways to prove or disprove the history in the Book of Mormon. It tells of massive battles using horses and steel for which no evidence has been uncovered. But even if we assume that my cousin has proven that Jesus is the risen Christ and the Book of Mormon is the word of God, how does this lead to Russell Nelson being a prophet of God, and the present day Mormon church God's kingdom on earth? LOL There are millions of Mormons that say just about the same things. It really is no more funny than your creationist comments. More sad than funny. But thank you for adding nothing relevent to this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Mar 14, 2019 12:13:57 GMT
My 2nd cousin, who is a geologist like me, posted the following on Facebook:
"I'm a geologist and I use the scientific method every day as I work to find the energy that makes our modern lives possible. The more I learn about the earth the more I am impressed by the wonder of it.
I also strive every day to learn by listening to the Spirit of God so I can have His direction for my life.
When I say I know something scientifically, it's because I have asked questions, and worked to collect data to test the validity of my hypotheses. When the evidence is overwhelming, I can say that I know.
Spiritual knowledge is the same way. I can say that I know Jesus is the Christ because I have studied his life and teachings. I have asked questions and conducted experiments that have taught me through my experience that this is true. The evidence is overwhelming. I can't convey my results of this spiritual learning in a spreadsheet, but it is real nonetheless. I can only invite you to conduct your own experiment upon the word of God. Because of my experiments upon the word, I know that Jesus is the Christ, that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, translated by the gift and power of God to his modern Prophet Joseph Smith. Knowing this means that I know that Russell M. Nelson is a prophet of God today and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's kingdom established on Earth once more."
The last I heard my cousin was pursuing a doctorate in geology. I only have an MSc. but although I also believe in the messianic role of Jesus, I don't know how to conduct experiments to prove He is the Christ.
It is easier to approach whether or not the Book of Mormon is the translated word of God. The Mormon church itself may be backing off on the "translated" part of this to favor it as "revelation" instead.
There are also ways to prove or disprove the history in the Book of Mormon. It tells of massive battles using horses and steel for which no evidence has been uncovered.
But even if we assume that my cousin has proven that Jesus is the risen Christ and the Book of Mormon is the word of God, how does this lead to Russell Nelson being a prophet of God, and the present day Mormon church God's kingdom on earth?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Mar 13, 2019 18:51:35 GMT
The original film is a 1981 sports drama starring Michael Caine, Sylvester Stallone, and Pele was about a group of Allied POWs putting a team together to play soccer against a German national team in occupied Paris during WW2. How the hell did I never hear of this one before? www.darkhorizons.com/collet-serra-to-remake-escape-to-victory/I saw it in Bangkok in first release, When I talked about it with my brother in California he said that it sounded like "Victory" and refused to believe me about the title. Apparently in The United States and Canada it had the one word title. Is Pele going to reprise his role? Sorry, I don't like remakes.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Mar 12, 2019 18:18:33 GMT
Don't get hot and flustered.
|
|
|
So...
Mar 12, 2019 12:08:49 GMT
Post by geode on Mar 12, 2019 12:08:49 GMT
*bump* to keep the stupidest thread on the entire site company.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Mar 11, 2019 15:42:46 GMT
What war effort? The United States was in an isolationist mode at the time of release and years away from being at war. Well, let's say anti-Hitler messages then. Even the Fox film House of Rothschild alludes to him, and that was a 1935 film. Write-ups on The Sea Hawk make reference to the obvious political message.
There's considerable data about Roosevelt's administration wanting to get into the war however, such as the McCollum memo.
Roosevelt had no desire to get into a war with Germany in 1937 when "The Adventures of Robin Hood" went into production. This was years before The McCollum Memo was generated in 1940, when WW II had been underway for over a year with Britain fighting for life during the London Blitz. The situation in the world was dramatically different in 1940 than in 1937-38. "The Sea Hawk" came out about the same time in mid-1940. By that time there were other films basically attacking Hitler such as Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" and others like "The Mortal Storm"...
Does "The House of Rothchild" really allude to Hitler? It certainly has a message about anti-Semitism that had parallels to the situation in Germany, but directly to Hitler?
I doubt there was any political motive in the production of "The Adventures of Robin Hood"...with no references to Hitler.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Mar 11, 2019 14:03:32 GMT
It's a film that would never be made now. I think Jack Warner probably saw it as a boost for the war effort (THE SEA HAWK is much more obvious with its "Hurrah! we have money for a war!" ending) but it has little that would be considered a propaganda message except perhaps the "Maid Marian is a Norman" angle. The character of Robin Hood is WAY too positive/heroic male for modern studios. There's zero anxiety or doubt in his behavior, presented as a good-natured guy and landowner. He even gives a speech about needing to protect the homeland from foreigners who attack the women! If modern superhero films tried to channel the same energy, they would be better received. Given how old this film is, and yet it is still well-regarded, shows that traditional character portrayals have longevity. What war effort? The United States was in an isolationist mode at the time of release and years away from being at war.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Mar 11, 2019 13:50:21 GMT
The People that Time Forgot. Land isn't bad but for some odd reason, it never clicked proper as well as People did.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Mar 11, 2019 13:47:22 GMT
Captain Kronos - Vampire Hunter (1974) Such an underrated cult film.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Mar 11, 2019 6:59:20 GMT
The Constitution bars establishing a state religion. This is interpreted as advocating a separation of church and state. This student having ashes on his face is hardly his advocating or preaching religion. The teacher apparently was reacting not to a religious symbol, but what she saw as a dirty face. Women where I live commonly wear necklaces with a small cross as a pendent. Should this be banned? They are usually not even Catholic, but Buddhists. I don't think relatively minor indications of affiliation with a religious faith such as a cross or the ashes is in violation of the Constitution. Actually I think banning headscarves or crosses in schools is violating the individual's rights under the First Amendment. This thread is about secular State schools in America, right? Your comments about those women are therefore red herrings and off topic. Re 'minor indications of affiliation with a religious faith being permitted, this is a slippery slope. IMHO it should be in general acknowledged that in secular state schools there is an understood policy ( administered by State School Governors/Principal and or P and C) which takes into account local issues and the make up of the general school population. Here in Australia, almost ALL schools (private and State) have uniforms and uniform codes to which pupils are expected to comply. The school has the right to adjust these to local and social conditions e.g in schools where there is a large ethnic or religious concentration they have similar uniforms which are optional for all to choose between. The colours and school emblems are the same just a difference in type e.g Muslim headscarf or school cap or hat, turban etc. It is up to the Prinicpal to administer it at his/her discretion in consultation with parents. The discussion had broadened to the separation of church and state so my comments about the women were very much on topic. It seems to me that you are deflecting away from addressing the point I made.
We were not discussing school uniforms so I could just as easily say this is off topic. But my thinking is not as yours, so I think it is allowable in this discussion. I have argued for school uniforms in the past. But what is allowable with them? Could a student wear a small cross as a pendent? I would allow it, but then again I don't wish an Orwellian society to emerge where there is no freedom of religious expression.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Mar 11, 2019 6:52:49 GMT
I am not, nor have ever been a Catholic. But I do admire faith in those of various denominations or religions. To me the ashes on the foreheads of Catholics is a quiet and reasonable demonstration of faith. When I was the same age some of my Catholic friends did the same with no incidents. I understood what it meant and respected their doing this. It was hardly even noticable. Faith in what? Faith in whatever they choose to have faith in.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Mar 11, 2019 6:51:34 GMT
Glad that it turned out well. Remember Sikh guys in turban in our schools, Christians in crosses, Muslims in Tabeez and some Hindu girls wearing mehedi......things very rarely get confrontational in Indian schools. We should have mutual respect for each other and yes better knowledge about people of other communities. I agree, HOWEVER, to be fair it should be EVERYONE wearing their religious symbols or NONE and in America, due to the alleged secular nature of the Separation of Church and State, it should be none IMHO. This is an interesting viewpoint, but one that has sort of a forced conformity to it and "all or nothing thinking" as well. Once again, I think you misunderstand what is entailed in the seperation of church and state in The United States. It does not say that people cannot belong to a religion and have this indicated by their outward appearance. The First Amendment protects this as a right. To restrict it would basically be imposing atheism as sort of a state religion.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Mar 10, 2019 19:17:49 GMT
Not to be a NAG .. ok I am nagging... this is NOT a "Franchise" ... it is TWO VERSIONS of the same story. Vits FRANCHISES :Indiana Jones Pirates of the Caribbean Batman Star Wars Star Trek NOT FRANCHISESThe Producers Chinatown and The Two Jakes Carrie Hamlet A Christmas Carol
ok then... returning to the regularly scheduled: The Producers (1967/2005) Personally I don't think a set of only two movies is ever a "franchise" even if they consist of an original film and a sequel with a different story, it really takes more entries. For instance I don't think "Funny Girl" and "Funny Lady" or "Love Story" and "Oliver's Story" constitute franchises.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Mar 10, 2019 19:05:44 GMT
I think it was in the early 70s that I encountered this in a theater as a projectionist. I found I couldn't watch it due to the use of color filters in many song sequences. This was not at all subtle, but very saturated and deep.
Anyway, today I realized I have three blu-ray copies of this in collections. Two of the theatrical version and one of the roadshow. I put one in and looked at some scenes.
"Some Enchanted Evening" has a sickly yellow cast. A very deep red blots out some of "Bali-Hi"... I have read that this idiotic choice was done to simulate stage lighting. There are "day for night" scenes that only have a strange saturated green and blue coloration, along with purplish greys for skin tones. Mitzi Gaynor looks purple in one scene with green hair. She looks like an alien out of a sci-fi film.
Once again I was so turned off that I stopped watching. I am thinking that I might try turning the chroma off and watching it in B&W.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Mar 10, 2019 15:37:35 GMT
Glad that it turned out well. Remember Sikh guys in turban in our schools, Christians in crosses, Muslims in Tabeez and some Hindu girls wearing mehedi......things very rarely get confrontational in Indian schools. We should have mutual respect for each other and yes better knowledge about people of other communities. I totally agree, however this was in 'Murica'? … the place that has in its Constitution freedom of religion yet a secular State in their Constitution? WTF is this about? The Constitution bars establishing a state religion. This is interpreted as advocating a separation of church and state. This student having ashes on his face is hardly his advocating or preaching religion. The teacher apparently was reacting not to a religious symbol, but what she saw as a dirty face. Women where I live commonly wear necklaces with a small cross as a pendent. Should this be banned? They are usually not even Catholic, but Buddhists. I don't think relatively minor indications of affiliation with a religious faith such as a cross or the ashes is in violation of the Constitution. Actually I think banning headscarves or crosses in schools is violating the individual's rights under the First Amendment.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Mar 10, 2019 15:12:02 GMT
The teacher should have known better, but my guess is that she didn't realize the significance of the ashes on Ash Wednesday. Ash Wednesday misunderstanding Glad that it turned out well. Remember Sikh guys in turban in our schools, Christians in crosses, Muslims in Tabeez and some Hindu girls wearing mehedi......things very rarely get confrontational in Indian schools. We should have mutual respect for each other and yes better knowledge about people of other communities. You basically have stated what my next comment was going to be, only better than I would have done.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Mar 10, 2019 15:09:36 GMT
The teacher should have known better, but my guess is that she didn't realize the significance of the ashes on Ash Wednesday. Ash Wednesday misunderstanding You admire it because you are Catholic? I am not, nor have ever been a Catholic. But I do admire faith in those of various denominations or religions. To me the ashes on the foreheads of Catholics is a quiet and reasonable demonstration of faith. When I was the same age some of my Catholic friends did the same with no incidents. I understood what it meant and respected their doing this. It was hardly even noticable.
|
|