Armstrong movie leaves out important part of moon landing

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

vaggabonds? or

hoteliers?

I have heard a number of things connected to that. But the two I hear most often are "Welcome back, sir." and "How was your stay".

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by Hotrod511

In this post you generalize bible readers as thumpers

An in this post you react just like a politician, and walk back what you said in the first post, so I don't think its me that don't understand

I have not "walked back" anything.

YOU are the one who cannot seem to understand the difference between "all bible readers", vs "Thumpers", which I then defined for you when you first seemed confused. Since it was a very clear working definition I gave you, I have to assume you are now intentionally misunderstanding.

In fact, YOU claim I generalized bible readers as Thumpers, when I made no such statement, and in fact stated I thought many of the authors of the bible would find Thumper interpretations to be humorous.

And, lest I get accused of plagiarism, "Bible Thumper" is certainly not my creation--it has been around for a long time (1920s) to refer to overly aggressive religious person who is typically (but not always) a fundamentalist and a literalist.

Since you readily made the association of Thumper with bible reader, I assumed you knew the term even though I had shortened it to "Thumper" since I thought the context was evident.

Nowhere in my posts did I say "You are a Thumper...", or any more derogatory version of it. I only commented that you seemed to have some trouble comprehending what I was posting. Hopefully this clears it up for you.

Thumpers are a subset of Bible Readers.

Most Thumpers I know, read, or hear support Trump.

Not all Trump supporters are Thumpers. Nor are they all bible readers. Nor even religious.

Not all bible readers support Trump. Some are actually LWWs.

Hopefully that clears up your confusion.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict.../Bible-thumper


PS: Before some of the grammarians jump all over your post, it should be "I don't think it's me that doesn't...." Just trying to help.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

vaggabonds? or

hoteliers?

I call them wishful thinkers, lol.


Jim

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Accusing someone of having reading comprehension deficiencies could be interpreted as being a derogatory remark about someone and a violation of the "new rules" of this forum. Buy please continue to do so with punity.
I do appreciate your looking out for my well being here, I admit the new rules will take some getting used to. However, I did not claim anyone in this thread had "reading comprehension deficiencies". No, I said one individual has "some difficulty understanding". Not the same thing at all--communication is difficult and complex, and misunderstanding can occur in many places along the way.

Calling someone a "bible thumper" is also a slur and derogatory.
But I did not call anyone here a Thumper! I made a general comment about OVERLY AGRESSIVE people who try to force their religious beliefs on others. I made the comment before HotRod even appeared in this thread, so it clearly was not aimed at HIM! Or any other poster.

Is it really "weird" to interpret documents literally?
I think it is weird to interpret documents literally when the culture they were written in didn't intend most their documents to be taken literally. And when there are numerous contradictions to observed data. I do believe the bible, and other religious writings, are excellent for conveying many things--but I do not believe they are or ever were literal.

Years ago I "dated" a gorgeous young lady who did and she concluded that the Bible forbid her to engage in sexual intercourse (insertion of a "penis" into her "vagina") before marriage, but that there was no prohibition stated in the Bible that had been brought to her attention with regard to her inserting my "penis" into her mouth and enjoying it along with me to completion. I thought it was not "weird" at all, and accepted her literal interpretation without question. Besides, it was excellent birth control. I guess she was a Bible Thumper!

Ah, no! Not unless she FORCED such an interpretation of her bible beliefs upon you against your wishes. But I would guess you were a willing convert--so no, she was not a Thumper in that example.

[LexusLover]

OT: I think it is weird to interpret documents literally when the culture they were written in didn't intend most their documents to be taken literally. And when there are numerous contradictions to observed data. I do believe the bible, and other religious writings, are excellent for conveying many things--but I do not believe they are or ever were literal.

This is a rhetorical question only: How on Earth would you know what the intentions were of a "culture" over 2,000 years ago?

"Contradictions" ... anecdotal tales of what amount to parodies passed from one generation to the next before they are memorialized in writing will contain "contradictions" if they purport to reveal the same events.

There are inconsistent reviews of providers of "encounters" within days of one another. As the saying goes: It is in the eyes of the beholder.

I was just engaged in a multiple post pissing contest on a poster using the word "Yankee" to describe the resistance in Texas to the Mexican dictatorship imposed upon the area. I have the translation of the diary of a Mexican soldier with Santa Anna when he came to Texas and was defeated, which I have read, and I do not recall ever seeing him use the word "Yankee" in his writing (it would not have been in Spanish if used!).He was there ... the authors using the word were not. A "contradiction"? Yes.

There are strong positive messages in the Bible: Old and New. Some are carried forward in different "versions" others are not. Some are emphasized and others are not. But there is a general theme, which is the basis of our culture and judicial process. Christianity is our foundation.

[Yssup Rider]

You read it that diary in Spanish?

Bravo!

Now try reading the Bible in Hebrew or Aramaic ... and tell us again how our nation was founded in “Christianity.” It will be valuable debate fodder the next time the BIll of Rights is discussed, specifically the First Amendment.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

This is a rhetorical question only: How on Earth would you know what the intentions were of a "culture" over 2,000 years ago?

"Contradictions" ... anecdotal tales of what amount to parodies passed from one generation to the next before they are memorialized in writing will contain "contradictions" if they purport to reveal the same events.

There are inconsistent reviews of providers of "encounters" within days of one another. As the saying goes: It is in the eyes of the beholder.

I was just engaged in a multiple post pissing contest on a poster using the word "Yankee" to describe the resistance in Texas to the Mexican dictatorship imposed upon the area. I have the translation of the diary of a Mexican soldier with Santa Anna when he came to Texas and was defeated, which I have read, and I do not recall ever seeing him use the word "Yankee" in his writing (it would not have been in Spanish if used!).He was there ... the authors using the word were not. A "contradiction"? Yes.
You are essentially making my point: that while documents like the bible, the monuments to the pharoses, writing on Chinese dragon bones, and Mayan stelae, etc., often have some factual basis, the details are indeed seen through lenses and thus should not be taken literally--nor condemned because they are not literal.

There are strong positive messages in the Bible: Old and New. Some are carried forward in different "versions" others are not. Some are emphasized and others are not. But there is a general theme, which is the basis of our culture and judicial process. Christianity is our foundation.

Again, I completely agree--the message is important, the details of the storytelling often are not. I firmly believe in a god-created universe, I just think he is sophisticated enough that he used the tools such as evolution to do it. And that he is not limited to having done it one time in one place in the universe and took exactly 6 days to do it.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You read it that diary in Spanish?

Bravo!

Now try reading the Bible in Hebrew or Aramaic ... and tell us again how our nation was founded in “Christianity.” It will be valuable debate fodder the next time the BIll of Rights is discussed, specifically the First Amendment.

Read the 10th Amendment wherein it states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," e.g., "religion." It was, after all, a Federal system that was created, thus allowing John Adams to write in the 1780 Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

CHAPTER II.–EXECUTIVE POWER

Section I,–Governor

Art. II. The governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding; and unless he shall, at the same time, be seized, in his own right, of a freehold, within the commonwealth, of the value of one thousand pounds; and unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.

[Hotrod511]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I have not "walked back" anything.

YOU are the one who cannot seem to understand the difference between "all bible readers", vs "Thumpers", which I then defined for you when you first seemed confused. Since it was a very clear working definition I gave you, I have to assume you are now intentionally misunderstanding.

In fact, YOU claim I generalized bible readers as Thumpers, when I made no such statement, and in fact stated I thought many of the authors of the bible would find Thumper interpretations to be humorous.

And, lest I get accused of plagiarism, "Bible Thumper" is certainly not my creation--it has been around for a long time (1920s) to refer to overly aggressive religious person who is typically (but not always) a fundamentalist and a literalist.

Since you readily made the association of Thumper with bible reader, I assumed you knew the term even though I had shortened it to "Thumper" since I thought the context was evident.

Nowhere in my posts did I say "You are a Thumper...", or any more derogatory version of it. I only commented that you seemed to have some trouble comprehending what I was posting. Hopefully this clears it up for you.

Thumpers are a subset of Bible Readers.

Most Thumpers I know, read, or hear support Trump.

Not all Trump supporters are Thumpers. Nor are they all bible readers. Nor even religious.

Not all bible readers support Trump. Some are actually LWWs.

Hopefully that clears up your confusion.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict.../Bible-thumper


PS: Before some of the grammarians jump all over your post, it should be "I don't think it's me that doesn't...." Just trying to help.

One thing I'm not confused about you rant like another poster in this forum
But it's entertaining
Google rant so you will know what it means

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by Hotrod511

One thing I'm not confused about you rant like another poster in this forum
But it's entertaining
Google rant so you will know what it means

Sure. Whatever you say, Boss.

[gnadfly]

Damn, I didn't know Chuck Yeager was still alive at 95. Salute!

[friendly fred]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

This is a rhetorical question only: How on Earth would you know what the intentions were of a "culture" over 2,000 years ago?

"Contradictions" ... anecdotal tales of what amount to parodies passed from one generation to the next before they are memorialized in writing will contain "contradictions" if they purport to reveal the same events.

There are inconsistent reviews of providers of "encounters" within days of one another. As the saying goes: It is in the eyes of the beholder.

I was just engaged in a multiple post pissing contest on a poster using the word "Yankee" to describe the resistance in Texas to the Mexican dictatorship imposed upon the area. I have the translation of the diary of a Mexican soldier with Santa Anna when he came to Texas and was defeated, which I have read, and I do not recall ever seeing him use the word "Yankee" in his writing (it would not have been in Spanish if used!).He was there ... the authors using the word were not. A "contradiction"? Yes.

There are strong positive messages in the Bible: Old and New. Some are carried forward in different "versions" others are not. Some are emphasized and others are not. But there is a general theme, which is the basis of our culture and judicial process. Christianity is our foundation.

I believe you are correct.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2018/...erican-moment/

there was wide criticism of the movie leaving out the planting of the U.S. flag on the moon.

Gosling defended the decision to not portray an American flag being planted on the moon by saying Armstrong would have wanted it that way

Chuck Yeager weighed in on this and says in the 2 tweets:

That's not the Neil Armstrong I knew
— Chuck Yeager (@GenChuckYeager) August 31, 2018

More Hollywood make-believe
— Chuck Yeager (@GenChuckYeager) August 31, 2018

looks like Canadian actor Gosling got bitch slapped!

More Hollywood revisionist history. Just like they got rid of "the American way" in the Superman "Truth, justice and the American way."

The American flag triggers too many people now. They could have made a cut for the US and one for the rest of the world.

Pretty soon they'll portray a UN flag planted on the moon by Neil Armstrong and Wakandans storming the beach at Normandy.

"Where have you gone Joe Dimaggio a lonely nation turns its eyes to you?"

[rexdutchman]

This is the soft way that socialists rewrite history, Hollywood social justice warriors at there best.

Unfortunately most people are unaware of real history and "learn " from movies and the TV.
^^^^^^^^^ Ganadfly is 100 % correct in above post. ^^^^^^^ "snowflakes hint , The Truth hurts"

[Tsmokies]

It was a movie for entertainment purposes. Kind of like trump and his ass kissers...entertainment in a really weird way like faux news