unixknight

Can I say "My ex wife?"
In seriousness, I agree with @mikbone.  The genius of Pacino's portrayal of Satan in Devil's Advocate is laid out when he points out that at every turn, he openly, verbally recommended the proper course of action to the protagonist while at the same time setting out lures to keep him following the desired path.  That way, in the end, he could say "Hey, I didn't force you to do anything."  And he is correct.  The protagonist was in full control of his own agency the entire time, and thus bears the responsibility for all the tragedy and heartache that ensued.  
I think that's spot on.  It's a fantastic example of the paving of the road to Hell.  We all have our Achilles' Heel when it comes to temptation, and all Satan has to do is toss out opportunities for temptation.  He doesn't do anything by force.  He can't, or even if he could it wouldn't be a win for him.  If he forces us to do bad things, then we don't bear the responsibility... we were forced.  That's not sin, that's being a victim.  In order for us to sin, in order for us to do what he'd want us to do, we have to choose it for ourselves.  Then we're being disobedient to God, because we used our agency to distance ourselves from him.

It's like watching Jordan Peterson vs. Cathy Newman.

If the target audience is mainstream Christianity (which I understand to mainly refer to Protestants) I think you'll find the essay, however complete and well-researched, will be ineffective at changing minds.    
Protestants read the Bible.  They read it a LOT.  They read it more than we do because they don't have to divide their scripture study time between it and 3 other volumes.  Many of them know it backward and forward, and a Latter-Day Saint going against a Protestant in a straight-up "here's what this means" Biblical debate over interpretation and doctrine is likely to get his butt kicked up between his shoulder blades.  They have two distinct advantages over us:
Protestants have 5 centuries of study and theology behind their interpretation of the Bible, as well as drawing from an additional 1500 years of (apostate) theology that supports many of their beliefs, like the Trinity for example. Protestants only have to know the Bible.  We need to know the Bible as well as three other books, which reveal the truth in combination.  Their perspective is built on a worldview where those other resources are not a factor. They have a pretty well-entrenched worldview.  Take the Godhead v Trinity example.  I've debated this one with Protestant friends and no matter how clearly the Scriptures show us that the Savior and Heavenly Father are distinct personages, even without additional scriptural sources, Protestants already have their own perspective which accounts for the way the text in the Bible discusses this.  We may find it baffling (I do, anyway) but it isn't baffling to them and they won't be persuaded.  Yes, I even pointed out that not only does Jesus pray to Heavenly Father in the Garden of Gethsemane, He outright discusses how his own desire is in conflict with Heavenly Father's plan, before submitting to His will.  To me, there's just no way that makes any sense at all if the Trinity doctrine were true, and yet that argument gained zero traction.  Like I said, centuries of scholarly writings have ways to account for this, at least to their own satisfaction.
We view our interpretations to be more accurate because we believe the Holy Spirit helps us to understand, but that's not an argument in a debate.  
Now, if your intent is just to inform, then yeah by all means go for it, but it's hard to imagine people reading it and not wanting to present counterpoints.
 

I doubt it would work.  History shows us that all it does is strengthen the dictator.  Why?  Because invariably the dictator's forces intercept the supplies, then hand them out themselves - as rewards for loyalty to those who say the right things - or they give it out as a PR move and claim the credit.
This type of behavior is the catalyst for the events depicted in the movie Black Hawk Down.

- Earth, Hitler 1938

I'd agree with you on most of that.
The reason this language was chosen (yes, "chosen") was that Joseph felt that the language of the KJV was more regal or even more sacred than the common tongue of the era.  Whether it is or not is a matter of opinion.  But I cannot compare the language of Shakespeare with a careful translation of Shakespeare into modern English and somehow feel like it has lost something.
But you have not truly experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon.  

What a group of scumbags. Congratulations for being booted off such a group. Wear the fact as a badge of honor.

This happened to me the other day.  Random facebook group, nothing in the rules about politics, seem like nice enough people.  After one vaguely not-anti-Trump comment from me, suddenly everyone is amped up to eleven and yelling at the top of their lungs.  They demand to know what I meant, and when I explained, asking for kindness, I was accused of mansplaining.  I apologized and bowed out of the thread, and I was accused of shutting down the conversation.  Then I was banned.

 
(The last comment was because I was shooting for lightheartedness, explaining that I asked my wife if I had a heart, and she replied "I dunno - who's chest did you rip it out of?")
 
 

I would counsel them to continue conversing exactly as they normally do. If that includes complimenting the current administration or identifying falsehoods others speak, go for it, and let the chips fall where they may. Better to be wrongfully cast out than to sit silently so as not to offend the taskmasters.

Of course not. He performed with the Muppets.

Is it wrong that I'm tempted to start a pool to bet on how long before CNN runs a story blaming Trump for the Coronavirus?

As for Joe Biden, I figure the Dems will consider him Hillary part 2, and not take the risk.  Another rich old white guy who thinks he's better than everyone else?  Doesn't sound like something the Dems want. 
Besides, the impeachment hurt someone politically, and it wasn't Trump. 

Unless it was a tactic.  "Look at me!  I'm the Republican who, knowing Trump was going to get acquitted anyway, gets to go on record as reasonable because I did vote to convict on one article but not the other!  Now when the winds blow toward moderation I can say I've established my moderate cred!"
The man's become a weasel.

Unless it was a tactic.  "Look at me!  I'm the Republican who, knowing Trump was going to get acquitted anyway, gets to go on record as reasonable because I did vote to convict on one article but not the other!  Now when the winds blow toward moderation I can say I've established my moderate cred!"
The man's become a weasel.

Unless it was a tactic.  "Look at me!  I'm the Republican who, knowing Trump was going to get acquitted anyway, gets to go on record as reasonable because I did vote to convict on one article but not the other!  Now when the winds blow toward moderation I can say I've established my moderate cred!"
The man's become a weasel.

Unless it was a tactic.  "Look at me!  I'm the Republican who, knowing Trump was going to get acquitted anyway, gets to go on record as reasonable because I did vote to convict on one article but not the other!  Now when the winds blow toward moderation I can say I've established my moderate cred!"
The man's become a weasel.

Unless it was a tactic.  "Look at me!  I'm the Republican who, knowing Trump was going to get acquitted anyway, gets to go on record as reasonable because I did vote to convict on one article but not the other!  Now when the winds blow toward moderation I can say I've established my moderate cred!"
The man's become a weasel.

I respect their feelings, but not enough to go passively along while they demand I accept a logically absurd form of hermeneutics or insist that the Church shred and re-print a run of millions upon millions of study manuals. 
There are some rational, sensitive, nuanced approaches we can take to the issue.  The ones being advocated by the people cited in the Tribune are not among them.  It’s a power play, a shriek of “notice me, and bend to my will!!” that doesn’t particularly impress me in a gospel context.
The simple fact is that the original manual wasn’t wrong, as per church doctrine—incomplete and potentially subject to misuse, sure; but not wrong.  But it supports a theological view (that in the isolated case of the Lamanites, there was a visually perceivable physiological change which for a limited time functioned as a sign of a deeper divine warning) that a certain fringe within the Church has been trying very hard to shame the Church into modifying.

The Democratic power base is "Victimhood"  They promise represent/protect/defend you if you are a Victim.... And that sells very well.  But it poses a problem in fixing things.  Once things start looking better and less "Victimhoodie" Democrats have nothing.  They either have to convince you things are not better, not let things get better... or make you their next target.
Thus any kind of real progress, real solutions, is a bane to keeping the Democratic leadership in power.

Interesting things: 
- Democratic response didn't mention the impeachment.
- Democratic response wasn't a response: "Instead of talking about what [Trump] is saying, I'm going to highlight what Democrats are doing."
So, the Dem response to all that good news, is basically to ignore it?  Is that really the best play?
I mean, even I know that Trump taking credit for energy independence is silly.  Stuff decided a decade ago is why we reached energy independence.
 
And I have to admit, watching Rush's face after the President awarded him the Medal of Freedom had an emotional impact on me.  Rush's principled arguments were one of the 3 major factors in my life that swung me from my dad's left/democrat politics, to right/conservative paths.  If anyone else had a similar swing in the '80's, '90's, or 2020's, watching this video may bring a tear to your eye too.
 

Holy crap that was an awfully impressive list of record-breaking all-time-best good news.  You can also really see how wide the partisan divide has become.

The big mistake was to put May in charge. OK, I quite like Theresa May. She's a nice woman. But the whole point of a leadership change was to put someone in who could - and would - implement Brexit. Someone who believed in it the way Cameron didn't. The obvious choice was Boris Johnson; crazy though he is, he would have made it happen back then the way he has now. Failing him, Andrea Leadsom would probably have done at a pinch. She was at least on the Leave side. But no, she was chucked out of the leadership race for the stupidest reason imaginable, which was blown up out of all proportion by the newspapers. And having one remainer resign, they put in another remainer - and no prizes for guessing what happened! We remained!

Gratz on Brexit, guys.  Glad to see that the people still have the final word.  

Is it wrong that I'm tempted to start a pool to bet on how long before CNN runs a story blaming Trump for the Coronavirus?