The Folk Prophet

What's the shift? What was the previous paradigm?

I'd guess "racist".

How dare anyone promote shame!

Which is entirely irrelevant to whether it would bother me or not.

This still wouldn't bother me a bit. Not if it was truly color blind.

So I was just thinking earlier today about how it doesn't bother me a bit when they cast a black man as Javert or Lea Salonga as Eponine or Fantine. I wouldn't mind at all if Hamilton was actually color blind.

I don't get why people like sports, but I think some of it is based in snobbery. "Oh, look at those uppity non-sports fans. Ug, how white collar!" I also think some of it, maybe even subconsciously, is based in envy or ego. "These people are not enjoying themselves? How dare they!" or "Since I understand why sports are fun, there must be something wrong with those who don't, because surely I can't be the one who is mistaken!"

Will the black female 007 still sleep with hot babes? Probably.

BREAKING!: MEN IN SECRET COMBINATIONS WHO GET AWAY WITH MURDER GAIN LONG-TERM ECONOMIC BENEFITS, FIRST OF ITS KIND STUDY SAYS! (related: men who get away with legal fraud and theft benefit financially as well)

Preach brother!

In the spirit of wasting time I'll indulge you. I didn't say there was something wrong the "the feels". I believe there are two key words here. 1. Torture. 2. Porn.

If that's your view then that's your view.

Maybe you forgot your meds this morning.

Yeah. Because of...."the feels".

I saw nothing unfriendly in your post.

I think you need to re-read my response with more care.

But I'm talking about those who haven't been warned. Essentially I'm saying that it is not (obviously) a commandment to be warned. It is, as you point out, a commandment to warn others once we've been warned. Having a testimony is a result -- not an action. Working to develop a testimony is an action (this is exercising faith). But actually having one is a result.

1895. Edit: Unless you mean, specifically Disney, and then I'd say 1928.

And apparently you're ignoring all my responses. Why would you translate that to "all of a sudden"?

Sure. But I think both phrases have developed culturally because of a broad misunderstanding of what a testimony actually is. These phrases, or even the idea of the phrases, are not found in the standard works. Because they're not real things. Think about what the word testimony actually means outside of of religion. If you are bearing witness of something (giving testimony) it means you saw, heard, smelled, or otherwise experienced it. If you saw a murder then you saw a murder. The only way for that to change is for you to forget, either through brain damage or hypnosis or some such (thought I'm a hypnosis skeptic...but...let's assume...) Otherwise, you saw what you saw. You may talk yourself out of believing it -- that your eyes were playing tricks on you -- that we're all living in the matrix -- that it was faked -- etc -- but none of that actually changes the reality that you saw what you saw. And that means you can bear witness that you saw it (give testimony). Whether you believe it was real or not is a matter of faith. Of course witnesses are notoriously unreliable in many ways. And that plays into things, of course. But it doesn't change my point -- which is what the meaning of testimony actually is. Whether your testimony is reliable or not doesn't have any bearing on what the word testimony means.

What about it? When and if it is, actually, a problem then I'm against it. What does that have to do with my concern for homosexuality on display? Nothing. It's a pointless response. You're deflecting. Of course not. A man and woman holding hands (a display of heterosexuality) is wholesome and good and right. Two men holding hands is agenda driven corruption. Ah...useful. Let's add another irrelevant point into the mix. That'll help.