1986 Ferrari Testarossa--the Cheetah in "Vice City"
James Woods as Toreno in "San Andreas"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWYbh9Zs5Zw
1986 Ferrari Testarossa--the Cheetah in "Vice City"
James Woods as Toreno in "San Andreas"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWYbh9Zs5Zw
in 1 corinthians 7, paul continuously makes plain that he was speaking his own opinion:.
(1corinthians7:12-16)12 but to the others i say, yes, i, not the lord: if any brother has an unbelieving wife, and yet she is agreeable to dwelling with him, let him not leave her; 13 and a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and yet he is agreeable to dwelling with her, let her not leave her husband.
14 for the unbelieving husband is sanctified in relation to [his] wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in relation to the brother; otherwise, your children would really be unclean, but now they are holy.
"why the Governing Body view themselves as ultimate."
"Because the Governing Body believes the same about themselves. Their personal
opinions are Jehovah's thoughts"
A dozen or so distinctive policies, or relatively distinctive policies
taught distinctively, by the JWs presidents then GB, are cooked up. For an ex-
pose, you want objective evidence like Popoff's radio receiver or you just have
a cranky editorial about people who believe or don't believe differently than
you. For a researcher, the JWs' leaders' distinctive policies/teachings are
"radio receiver" gold.
http://glenster1.webs.com/gtjbrooklynindex.htm
"all the other Christian based religions speak of themselves in the same
terms."
The main tension today isn't between denominations but
conservative (God claimed as proven so possibly law of the land, defense of
perceived integrity of old interpretations of old texts, misinformation and harm
regarding cosmology, evolution, women, LGBT people, etc.--think Christian right)
vs. liberal (faith understood as such as a hope for a possible God, so
separation of church and state, up to speed regarding cosmology, LGBT issues,
etc.) stances.
when is the best time to intervene?.
ask a referee in a boxing match and he will tell you.
"when the rules are broken.".
Again, I make the analogy of ability to believe in life with ability to
believe in a God that presides over it. And owning it all He has the preroga-
tive to do what He wants with it--give life, take life, good or bad life, of any
age, innocent or guilty. as fair game. In other words, if you can believe, for
all that, in being glad for life, just add God and you've got it. Your mileage
may vary, and definitions are debated, but "genocide" defined as just the crime
of "intent to destroy...." doesn't cover all that. It would be misanthropic for
me as an outlook on life, therefore mischaracterize the basic God concept, and
wouldn't be correct about prerogative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
"that life is just to die" (not the "evil mothers" part, lol):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FdWPeHFAMk
An important distinction I'd make about Mortimer is that he provided a
thoughtful way to think about the possibility of the basic God concept. He
didn't claim to prove it, let alone particulars about God beyond that, which
could lead conservatives to punishment and law that could harm or kill.
when is the best time to intervene?.
ask a referee in a boxing match and he will tell you.
"when the rules are broken.".
For a basic idea of God I recommend M.Adler "How to Think About God." I take
Gen. as allegory and take basic meanings from it. I've read various interpreta-
tions--a few I've had:
- Tower. The story has it God told them to fill the earth (9:1) but they
wanted to stay put and build a tower instead lest they spread out and do it
(Gen.11:4), so God spread them. At the least it's taken to refer to the spread-
ing of people and their different languages, but I can see why some add it's a
rebuke of human arrogance intending to supersede God.
- Life and death and God. I make the analogy of how you can believe in life,
with the good and bad and that everyone dies, with how you could believe in a
God that presides over all the cosmos and life. All-beneficent or all bad (or
unjust) wouldn't be credible any more than for life. "Genocide" would stop all
human life, so I think that's the wrong word. (It might better be attributed to
people if they don't bring climate change under control.)
Punishing Eve after indulging herself over God but rewarding Abrahm when he
showed commitment by stopping him from killing Isaac is mentioned. I take from
it disapproval of humans overindulging the self to assume God's prerogative over
human life.
Noah--I basically take the message violent crime is bad, which the story has
it all but the eight were, but not all since.
Humans not worth much yet God loves--which? Worth less than God, who has the
prerogative to to do with them as He will (as in the view of people having that
prerogative over animals), but loved in given life and what's good in it. All-
beneficence wouldn't be credible for God or life.
Pharaoh (manipulated his intentions)--taken with 1 Sam.6:6, Pharaoh, when
confronted with it by Moses, chose a hardened heart against the God of Moses.
- Jesus sacrifice--the GB "one for one" ransom sacrifice justice idea changes
the intention. It's normally taken for God reconciling mankind to Himself, tak-
ing on punishment for their sin in the crucifixion while providing an afterlife
for followers (or all--Universalism). It's more a matter of God's prerogative
to volunteer than that it was required.
The movie is about the last four months of Lincoln's life for which that
issue is debated.
"Abraham Lincoln was born February 12, 1809, in Hardin County, Kentucky
(now LaRue County). His family attended a Separate Baptists church, which had
high moral standards and opposed alcohol, dancing, and slavery."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery
Lincoln grew up in an abolitionist church although it took him some time to
push the idea as political and not just personal. He had a common idea that
African-Americans were relatively intellectually inferior, shouldn't be jurors
or marry European-Americans (Lincoln-Douglas debates), but believed they
deserved the same legal and political rights to liberty and happiness as anyone
else. How to effect this in that place and time was something else.
Debate centers on how he managed change given strong opposing stances
socially. Change was opposed by many as going too far so was conceding to them
pragmatic or his personal view? Was the change slow because society had to be
changed carefully to preserve the Union or because he slowly changed as he
learned? Illinois was strongly prejudiced. Criticism alive since the Civil War
days emphasizes the hook or by crook methods to paint him as only concerned to
succeed as president. It's probably safer to figure he was in favor of
abolitionism at least and needed to be pragmatic about effecting change.
He held the idea of some noted abolitionists that integration wouldn't work
and sought to have African-Americans colonize several areas such as Liberia,
British Honduras, and the Chiriqui region of Panama (then Columbia). The
effort was a disaster. It's debated if he gave up the idea in 1864 only as too
difficult to execute and unrealistic or still held out for the possibility of
it.
In 1864, he also wrote to the governor of Massachusetts that "If, however, it
be really true that Massachusetts wishes to afford a permanent home within her
borders for all or even a large number of colored persons who wish to come to
her, I shall be only too glad to know it."
http://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/Library/newsletter.asp?ID=54&CRLI=134
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-11/business/ct-perspec-1111-things-20121111_1_lincoln-property-thomas-lincoln-bixby-letter
"General Benjamin F. Butler claimed that Lincoln approached him in 1865 a few
days before his assassination, to talk about reviving colonization in Panama.
Historians have long debated the validity of Butler's account, as it was written
many years after the fact and Butler was prone to exaggeration of his own ex-
ploits as a general. Recently discovered documents prove that Butler and Lincoln
did indeed meet on April 11, 1865, though whether and to what extent they talked
about colonization is not recorded except in Butler's account. On that same day,
Lincoln gave a speech supporting a form of limited suffrage for blacks."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery#Colonization
It is known that he lived in a racially mixed area, talked with Frederick
Douglass, saw that African-American soldiers were helpful in the war, and grew.
By April 11, 1865, he advocated a limited idea of suffrage for African-Americans
who were intelligent and served the country. This indicates reason to expect he
could have grown more and things would have been better if he'd lived longer,
too.
http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/16/2569927/louis-p-masur-how-great-an-emancipator.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery
so here's a link to some good music - enjoy!.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sigjqbxgxr8&feature=related.
I don't have a director I always like, and I may like a movie because of
whatever other than the director. I like some things by some of those listed
above and by some of these:
http://www.filmsite.org/directors.html
http://www.filmsite.org/moredirectors.html
http://www.metacritic.com/feature/best-film-directors-since-2000
http://movies.amctv.com/movie-guide/the-50-greatest-directors-of-all-time.php
gta v trailer #2.
(song: stevie wonder "skeletons").
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m56nsc-nubg.
GTA V trailer #2
(song: Stevie Wonder "Skeletons")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M56nsC-NuBg
PC release later
http://www.rockstargames.com/newswire/article/46011/grand-theft-auto-v-now-officially-available-for-preorder.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_V
"The Last of the Mohicans," 1992
Daniel Day-Lewis as Nathaniel Hawkeye in an update of the 1936 movie of the
James Fenimore Cooper novel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RltflxiFiE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_of_the_Mohicans_%281992_film%29
"Cobb," 1994
Tommy Lee Jones as Ty Cobb. Disputed as biography. It's agreed he was about
every kind of SOB--definately not Lincoln--but one of the few greatest baseball
players.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwsVN1v_1ak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobb_%28film%2