₦airaland Forum

MyJoe:
I would be more circumspect about blaming the victim, JeSoul. What we have here is a sighted man extending a hand to a blind man and then using his vantage position to to lead that one into a lion's pit.There are people who are incapable of reading the Bible.Well, not everyone is capable of quiet introspection, either.

I understand your sentiments about people with herd mentality, but I think you need to reflect more on the nature of religion itself, the manner in which religious tenets are received, and the human mind. The human mind I am not smart enough to comprehend satisfactorily, but something is known of the first two. Religion is something you follow dogmatically – you don’t question it. That is the nature of religion. When people accept a system of worship, that is, a religion, they trust their lives to God and his “appointed servant”. This automatically creates a relationship based on trust between the “appointed servant” and the follower. This is why even the most intelligent people and people with Ph.D. fall for religious scam. The follower trusts the appointed servant relay the message from God correctly. If the “appointed servant” takes advantage of this position to deceive, I believe he should be held accountable for it.

The perpetrators of religious fraud are a determined lot. They know what they want and how to go about it. Folks stand no chance! Not only are they schooled in the art of deception, but they have access to the means of spreading their poisonous message. Let’s look at some of their methods. They take over the media and spurn stories of how people pay tithe and reap billions. Now, if they stop there you can blame your average Christian for lusting after lucre and thereby falling for the tithing scam. But they don’t! They go on to reel out stories of people who did not pay and had their warehouses razed by fire, came down with mysterious diseases, had their children expelled from school and generally declined. [/i]In other words, God gets positively angry and punishes you if you don’t pay your tithe.

It’s not about not reading their Bibles. I have been there. You read one verse, then listen to copious amounts of tape or read volumes written by the “servant” on that verse. He tells you what it says and gives you stories to back up his explanation. When verses contravening the doctrine are seen, they are glossed over.  Most people who attend tithing churches pay tithes. I had a Catholic friend who tithes regularly, having swallowed the message from the tithing wing of Christendom.

A potential recruit, you hear the message and realise your life has been full of problems all along and you wonder if it is because you have not found the secret which is now being revealed. You “give your life” and start paying tithe! Here is Justice Oyewole in his verdict on the infamous Rev King: [i]“The Nigerian society is already bogged down with myriads of problems ranging from poverty to corruption which has rendered many of its vulnerable elements susceptible to the wares of religious highway men such as the accused person here, who offered them stone for bread and scorpion when they demand for fish.”

The only person that is safe from the salesman of tainted spiritual goods is he that does not buy. Once you buy there is usually no room for selective consumption. The question of why people buy, I think, cannot be satisfactorily answered by anyone. What brings a man to accept a faith appears to be like what brings a man and a woman to together, keeps them together and tears them apart – it is unknown.

Religious deceivers will bear a heavy judgement.

You captured the whole thing so succintly.Wow.

I don't recall the movie too well. I'll rate it based on what I vaguely remember: 40%. I recall Denzel's acting was good. Seemed like a propaganda movie where they're not too subtle about their intent or manipulation of the audience. Not in the same way as that incredibly trashy waste of camera film, LAW ABIDING CITIZEN, but propaganda. 40%

Makes tons of sense. I did wonder why scientists stuck to calling stuff 'theories' and then operate as if those things are facts. Welcome Buzzzzzzzz, and thank you for clarifying that.

Deep Sight:
@ Nuclearboy, Mad_Max, KunleOshob -

I emphaticaly disagree. You make it appear as though the persons being fleeced are incapable of reading the bible.

You also make it appear as though those persons are incapable of quiet introspection.

These people have access to Bibles and can study the scripture if they choose to do so. Indeed I do not know what gives them the right to imagine themselves members of Christendom if they do not personally study the scriptures. The scriptures are clear that every word ministered to them should be subjected to personal study and introspection. If these people cannot read the scripture and free themselves from the lies being sold to them, then i verily submit that that is EXACTLY what they deserve. It is ridiculous to claim that people cannot reason for themselves: or that once a Pastor repeats something often enough, people should be excused for gobbling it up without personal reflection.

Entirely aside from the Bible and Religion, it is the sacred responsibility of every human being to reflect closely on his life, his purposes, his essence and the context and meaning of his existence - and no person can be excused for failing to do this. If any person has failed to do this and is spiritually lazy enough to allow himself to become the slave of some Pastor that is entirely his fault; the karma will rest squarely with him: and it will not avail him to point to the snake or to Eve in a plaintive plea aimed at avoiding responsibility. We are each responsible for ourselves and our spirituality.

The plain truth is that many of these people are driven by their own greed and nothing else. I have painfully explained to many that a gift given with the hope and intention of procuring a reward is spiritually empty. If these people are not able to appreciate this fact then the nasty truth is that they are and remain who they are: and are fully culpable for the evil visited on them by the rogue-pastor.

I understand your sentiments. But it smacks a little of the pride that comes from a high vantage point, deep sight. You are free (like you got there by yourself and there wasn't a time you too didn't have a clue and were spiritually bankrupt). Everyone else may sink or swim. If they don't get your message, too bad. Or maybe it's not that, but exasperation when you're trying to tell them these things and they don't listen?

You're saying something subtle and deep here too. Something all of us would do well to think about. The self-interest at the heart of the booming tithing business. The fantastic idea that God must be bribed to 'bless' you. You pay this bribe to 'secure' good things for yourself. It's this self-interest these 'Men of God' are exploiting. It's a little like those who put themselves through all manner of physical torment when they want something from God, like God doesn't want them to have anything that's good for them, so they must do all sort of super-spiritual things to overcome His resistance. Why do we assume and project so much of ourselves on Him? You're so right about this.

But DS, you know no matter how much someone you love exasperates you, you're not going to passively fold your hands and let them be hurt. Self-interest is part and parcel of human nature. We can't help ourselves. There are so many voices telling us different things, and it's easy for us to be confused. We tend to give our trust too easily to anyone who calls himself a 'man of God'. Trust must be earned. These so-called Pastors may pretend they have a special hotline to God, but they're just as human and clueless as the rest of us. It's terrible to take advantage of the trust that's been placed in you, abusing your 'office' to rob others.

Be wearied or exasperated, DS. You're only human. But don't stop doing what you've been doing.

I vas talking to meester Deep Sight, ja, ja.

Deep Sight, how could you write so much and say so little? Forgive me, but your circular reasoning and peculiar, self-congratulatory logic is beyond me. When you have something to say lesser mortals may understand as digestible, I'll try and stop getting on your bad side and pay attention.  Don't let me stop you and justcool from walking off hand-in-hand into some Technicolour sunset though.

I give up on the 'war' of 'laws' and 'theories', Justcool. It's just semantics and pet definitions at cross-purposes. Changes nothing. Have it your way.

What you believe is possible or not is your own affair, dear. As is your bizarre definition of what a choice constitutes. A person is scammed because he knows no better. If he knows he's being ripped off, and then allows it, it's different. If he's offered an alternative to consider, considers it and then makes his choice, that's a different matter too, because he now has a choice. Choice enters into it only when there are alternatives to choose between. Not when the only thing there is, is being conned.

Justcool, you clearly confuse a hypothesis ('I have a theory') with scientific theories that are facts, whose predictions have been found to be correct, and with results that have been replicated independently and proven to be correct. Thousands of FACTS are discovered in science but aren't called 'laws'. They don't become any less of a fact because they're called 'theories' not 'laws'. To pick a random example from hundreds, that germs cause disease is a scientific FACT. That it is called the Germ THEORY of Disease and not the Germ LAW of Disease subtracts ZERO from its grounding as a scientific FACT. Likewise for Eistein's THEORY of Special Relativity for which he is justly celebrated as a genius, and for dozens of other 'theories'. They're facts, and whether they're tagged 'laws' or not does not confuse the scientists who work with these facts.

Mantraa. So true. Kunle said he hasn't been shown a species evolving, but the thing is he's witnessed evolution and not known it. Many of us have. When we're innoculated against, say, smallpox, we aren't given a magic potion that kills the organism causing the disease. We're given the organism itself. It's introduced into our body, and our bodies evolve the necessary defences against it.

Microbes survived undisturbed and unchanged for billions of years. Until we discovered them recently. So we manufacture what kills them, antibiotics and other drugs. Now faced with a threat, these organisms start evolving a defence,until, after a while, we have a species of the organism immune to the threat, and which continues to thrive. We grab a few, put them under a microscope, study their defences, and come up with something stronger to kill them. They start evolving a defence again, and on and on.By the time this has gone on for a while, the organism would be begin to look and be very different from its original, undisturbed, un-evolved ancestors.The HIV virus is notorious for its slipperiness and ability to evolve a myriad of forms and defences, and they haven't figure out how to overcome that and kill the thing. They keep coming up with stronger and stronger antibiotics because these organisms evolve a defence against the threat in their environment, and start thriving again. Sometimes we get lucky and eradicate them all before they can evolve a defence. There are microbes that no longer exist in large parts of the world.

Was extinction all biological unfitness though? Events happened to extinguish most of the life on earth. They've found the impact crater of the guilty meteorite that wiped off huge chunks of life millions of years ago, including those dinosaurs. The dust it generated blocked most of the sun's rays and caused an ice age and conditions where even more of the species that survived the initail impact later perished. If it hadn't happened, we would not be the dominant species on this planet. Maybe we wouldn't even have evolved at all. Or we'd look very different. I don't think man is the centre of the biological universe though, and the 'reason' why it happened. There are other creatures that co-own this planet, most of them here long before we arrived. Astronomers and other sciences have long vanquished our medieval, anthropocentric 'man is the whole point of it all and the centre of the universe' vanities.

Tonye-t:
^^^

1. Bound by Jewish customs? yes, so long as it is within the confines of my allegiance.

2. About Farm produce? yes, if my faith (inner witness) obliges to follow that accord, if no, still ok? as long as the origin has its descent as an act of giving one tenth of ALL (not just farm produce)

3. My privilege? yes, meybe i choose to found a doctrine in that ordinance and the other doesnt

4. My feelings if the rest are not obliged to follow suit? indifferent. Maybe they choose not to found a doctrine in that ordinance

       Just when did Tithing begun with the law that it should be reckoned with the law?

But seriously, my dear, you know each of us is entitled to his beliefs. But only to the extent those beliefs don't translate into actions that harm others. When Moslems attack and kill Christians and vice versa, we don't look away and say they're entitled to their beliefs. Likewise if religion is used to rob a man, we don't say he's entitled to being deceived and robbed. You're free to tithe even if you know better, but not to harm others with a belief that has no grounding in reality.

Lol. Your, um, solemnity is just killing me Deep Sight . I asked for speculations as to the cruelty in nature and why 99% of biological species are extinct. I did not ask for reasons. You're offering reasons. And strange, unfounded ones you refuse to stipulate are just your guesses, you're offering them as fact. Thumbs up. We contributed to the extinctions of some species. Like the dodos. How you managed to transmute that into humans contributed to the extinction of some species so we could find fossil fuels is beyond me. I was trying to say extinction is one thing, fossil fuel is another. You can't seem to get that.

We get fossil fuel from dead trees by an enormous margin. One of the reasons fuel is in some places on the planet and not others, though bioloigcal creatures were clearly everywhere, land, air, water.  If we do not require fossil fuel to survive, and we don't need biological creatures to provide it, and you have no idea of the kind of creatures that existed in Precambrian times, how can you give us the fact that they became extinct so you may have fossil fuel? Is there anywhere you read that all the extinct creatures on the planet turned to fuel? Of what use is this fuel when we have alternative energy sources? We may talk about the incidental benefits that accrue from long dead plants, but to imply that is a valid reason and motive for the extinction of 99% of the species is something I won't continue to argue with you about.

That millions of species thrived for millions of years and then vanished without a trace, when the PURPOSE OF BIOLOGICAL LIFE AND NATURAL SELECTION IS SURVIVAL, plainly shows all that time and effort to be a waste. 99%! Whatever incidental  and temporary benefits dead plants may have towards powering your car has nothing to do with the fact that the destruction of 99% of biological life was a waste.  They did not survive. But it's all right. You have petrol. They existed for millions of years to give the human species a recent and incidental bonus.

Extinction and death are different things. You'd have fuel if they did not become extinct. You have no idea why they became extinct. You cannot offer your speculations towards that end as fact. Sorry. Their extinction after millions of years is a waste and a tragedy, and a cautionary tale for human beings, especially since they're stocking nuclear weapons. Maybe when they blow us all to smithereens you can take consolation in the 'fact' that we did not become extinct for nothing. Our toil, sweat, science, medicine, architecture, culture, language, lives, love, history, kinship, friendships, technologies and everything else would vanish without a trace, but it's all right: Maybe some new species down the line will find our decayed bodies and use them as make-up.

As for the trillion things their extinction did for the ecology of the planet, I'll be happy to learn about that.

So you're saying 99% of extinctions, some of which humans contributed to, happened so we could have fossil fuel. Fossil fuel is a recent find. Is it crucial to our survival as a species? What of all the ages humanity did without fossil fuel? There are alternative energy sources being researched and found as we speak. We're not the only species on the planet. Of what use is fossil fuel to other species that survived as well?

Do you realise fossil fuel is got from DEAD plants and animals, not EXTINCT ones? If 99% of biological organisms had not become extinct,WE WOULD STILL HAVE HAD FOSSIL FUEL, because the death of the organism is all that is required for that, NOT the extinction of the organism. In fact, extinction HARMS your funny argument, because EXTINCT animals cannot die and produce fossil fuel. THEY'RE EXTINCT. Another thing, fossil fuel is got MOSTLY from dead trees (plants). How you came to be privileged with the information that 99% of biological life perished so a species that hadn't arrived on the scene could drive a car millions of years later, is for you to vouchsafe. No doubt those scientists languishing in lamentable ignorance and shallowness of perception would profit from it.

And Deep Sight, there is no way for you to know the motive behind the extinction of most life on the planet. You can only speculate and guess. You can't know. Try acting like it.

Mad_Max:
If you want to be bound by antiquated Jewish customs about farm produce that have nothing to do with you, it's your privilege. Hopefully, you'll agree the rest of us is not obliged to follow suit.

Balance that.

Lol. Answer my questions jere. I can't figure the stuff out.

Lol, tonye, that is the most hilarious 'biblical justification' of tithing I've ever come across, and I've seen some hooters. Like 'It may not have applied to gentiles, but you should tithe because you're a spiritual Jew". And from which bible translation did you get that self-serving Mathew 23:23? Better repair yourself to an excellent, original translation. If you want to be bound by antiquated Jewish customs about farm produce that have nothing to do with you, it's your privilege. Hopefully, you'll agree the rest of us is not obliged to follow suit.

Churches profiting from an ancient Jewish custom even the Jews no longer practice! Some indoctrinated Nigerians are genuinely ignorant of the uselessness of tithing. I'm not saying you're in the group, but people who produce these sort of arguments are often those profiting from the practice, and not those being unfairly deceived and robbed by it.

If you corner these pastors and you're not a member of their church, some of them might tell you why they do it. They'll tell you a church needs money, but people are stingy and won't give. As pastors they can't be expected to go begging church members every single time they need money for church projects and 'visions God showed me'.  Tithing church members brings a steady flow of funds into the Pastor's pockets.

To those who deceive others with 'tithing' to rob them, they should keep it up. Balance is written in the ways of the world. You reap what you sow. They will sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind.

FL Gators:
OMG OMG OMG OMG!!!!!!


OMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

Lol. Your town dey dia?

Oniranu.

Lol Deep Sight, you seem very fond of semantics and ignore the meaning of the tense to take a word or two at their very literalest meaning, and branch off to unintended directions with that. Quantum physicits themselves called their observations 'impossible',' strange', 'bizarre',etc and by that they meant counterintuitive and nothing our everyday experience of the workings of nature would lead them to expect. They'll soon figure it out. It may just take time. As for the word falsifiable you like to pay so much attention to, lol, its meaning in science to scientists and laypeople alike is quite plain, I think.

The wastage in evolution is a fact of evolutionary science. Don't shoot me, I didn't discover it. It's one of the reasons many scientists don't believe there's a God, since natural selection is a mechanical process and words like 'cruel' mean nothing to that process. However, I believe in God and so natural selction doesn not serve me as an explanation for the cruelty and the waste. Extinction seems to be the norm, not the exception. Human beings haven't been here very long. Everything comes to an end. The sun is middle-aged now. A time will come when it will die, expanding in its death throes and swallowing nearby planets, almost certainly including this one. If you believe in God it should make you think about where we're coming from, what we're doing here, what this planet is for, and what happens far far far in the future when this planet, and humanity, is no more.

You equate food wastage with the extinction of 99% of the planet's species? O-KAY. THUMBS UP.     

Kunle, it's not my intention to persuade anyone about evolution, or argue Evolution Vs the writer of Genesis. I mentioned it's been proven to MY satisfaction. I see it hasn't been proven to yours lol. They'd better try harder!

Evolution takes place in fits and starts over vast expanses of time, and usually as a response to perceived changes in the environment, the climate maybe, or predators. In which case the species don't change into a new species, but evolve defences and organs that would help the species thrive in that new environment. The environment and predators don't bother bacteria much, and you see them the same as they were millions of years ago. These changes take place over vast expanses of time, in response to external change. Which means a species may have undergone several changes over time, and the species far down in time may look nothing like its ancestors. Natural selection adds things to a species, but it also tends to take things away if they aren't used. A species that dwells in darkness may not evolve vision but other means of locating itself, like sonar for some bats and other senses for cavefish.

We Africans evolved excessive melanin and became dark as a response to our environment. So we may survive and thrive in it. And we evolved blood resistance as a defence against external threats in our particular environment like malaria, for the same reason. It's a possible reason why sickle cell aenemia is found only among Africans, and no other race. Natural selection aimed only for the survival of the group at the expense of less oxygen to the cells, likely figuring it's better to have to sickle cells and be alive than normal blood cells while the group is extinguished by malaria.

Evolution having been accepted on this thread I was asking questions about aspects of it I didn't understand.

What's your alternative to evolution then? The Genesis creation myth? Come on now.
Evolution isn't a myth. It's a valid scientific theory. You can't dislike a theory merely because it contradicts unproven, cherished beliefs. As has been pointed out by Justcool, the bible is not a scientific document and has no scientific facts to offer. I understand how you feel but you can't take the parts of science that serve you and ignore the parts that are grounded in evidence, but which you dislike. That God is real has been proven far beyond my satisfaction. That evolution is valid has been proven to my satisfaction. Like much of what's in science, it has nothing to do with the existence of God, though atheists might over-reach themselves and use it to 'prove' God does not exist, when they simply don't know enough to make any such pronouncements. Religions are evolving and science plays a part in that, so the two can't be separated. But Science should limit itself to facts and not extrapolate what they don't know from scanty empirical evidence. Religionists should keep out of science and be grateful for any light it can shed on origins. Atheists should do the same, and keep their beliefs out of science as well.

I can't find the old thread anywhere. There are threads with longer pages than that, why split it? What's happened to all the posts in the old thread? And Doyin13, it isn't your thread, you're the newest contributor to it, how and why did you appropriate it? It's NOT right. Any of the old posters would be fine. You, very unseemly. What's going on here?

Deep Sight:
I positively assert to you that there is no such thing, nor has there ever been any such thing as a "fact" thay may be later "falsified" - for if it is falsified: then it clearly was never a "fact" - (unless you do not know the meaning of the word "fact." - clearly it was only a presumption.

By what inference do you assume "better morals" to also denote, connote or infer a predilection towards soft or sympathetic notions of individual survival?Please review the 2 opening posts here - https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-411142.0.html

Lol Deep Sight. English please. I think you know what falsifying a theory in science is. For a theory to be accepted as fact it would have testable
predictions and independent replication of results. Newton's Theory of General Relativity is hunreds of years old and still holds true. Yet scientists still look to falsify it, pushing it, as they do all theories, for weak links and holes. Unlike many religions where people don't want their 'truths' overturned, science works under no such obligation. It's these efforts that sometimes produce unexpected new insights, findings and applications. Einstein tinkered with newtonian theories, and found they held true as long as the objects are not moving at the speed of light. If they are, he predicted different results. Eistein's Theory of Special Relativity was born. It's been tested and found correct.

Newton's Theory is so stunningly accurate, astrophysicists can chart a space flight with incredible accuracy based on it. Hundreds of years later!

When the sub-atomic world was discovered in the twentieth century, pre-existing scientific theories were naturally applied. In the case of sub-atomic motion, Newtonian theories of General Relativity. It was discovered that the Theory, while correct elsewhere, HELD NO WATER IN THE
SUBATOMIC WORLD, AND DID NOT HOLD TRUE THERE.  The discovery led to the mind-boggling, eye-popping, counterintuitive field of Quantum Physics. The sub-atomic world operates by its own laws and its own bizarre rules and impossible things were observed to happen. There
you'd find a particle passing through TWO points in space and time SIMULTANEOUSLY. Richar Feynman said "If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics."

If there's a pointer, however vague, that atheists shouldn't hold those who believe to be fools, it's in quantum physics. Nothing discovered therein surprises a spiritual person who knows there's more to life than meets the empiricist's laboratory and who, while appreciating
and accomodating his religion to science, does not allow science to dictate those beliefs. Because there are realities beyond the present tools of science to investigate, scientists naturally favour explanations that fall within the tools they DO have. No one can blame them for that. But science is not the beginning and end of all knowledge, and there are things far beyond their tools to investigate for now.

Scientists seek to falsify theories, however established. But I think the question I was asking about evolution is pretty straightforward, unless you want to get bogged down in semantics. Human beings have a moral sense, a sense of justice, a notion of good and evil. We're appalled by acts of cruelty, and there is cruelty in nature, brought about by natural selection. Does the designer of evolution lack a moral sense in letting these things
come about? Afterall we labour under the assumption that He/It is good. Is he good but incompetent, or competent but not benign? And evolution is terribly wasteful. They hazard that fully 99% of life forms that existed in Pre-Cambrian times are now extinct. The seemingly rich diversity of biological
we seem to have now is a mere one per cent of what applied before. Why is evolution cruel and wasteful, and yet 'designed'? Any speculations?

Just saw this thread. I like how you think, Justcool.

However, evolution is a 'theory' only in the sense that Newton's theories of gravity/ inertia or Eistein's theory of special relativity is a theory: It's a fact. A scientific theory is always falsifiable. Scientists todays relentlessly look to overturn the theories and facts of ages before, and there are no doubt many looking to falsify evolution, like they're trying to falsify Einstein's theories. That's one of the glories of science and what makes it so great. No complacence or resting on oars or laurels. If the theory of evolution is ever invaliated, we look forward to new facts that may emerge. For now, it is a FACT, and leading to revolutions and uniting many fields in Science, from biology to psychology to anthropology. There are new academic disciplines like Evolutionary Biology and Evolutionary Psychology.

Why is the process wasteful and cruel though? Why does it appear so incompetent, why the terrible cruelty in nature? There's nothing benign about nature itself, it's dog eat dog. The famous example is the wasp that paralyses a living spider, lays its eggs and they hatch and feed on the flesh on the still living spider. We kill things. Things kill us if they get the chance. I can understand why a mechanical process like natural selection would program a species to look out for number one at whatever cost to others, but why would a Creator do the same? We assume He has better morals than we do, naturally. What do you think happened there?

Isn't John Q a Denzel movie? Missed the part where three movies from an actor will be reviewed?

I guess. He's only human. Still fishy though. 'Gay urges' because he was 'molested as a child'. Wonder where he got his 'straight urges' from.

lwkmd!

Oily. See his face like fish.

No they're not that bad! They're just cuts. Don't fret about it. Wait for the skin to heal completely, microdermabrate and it's gone in a month or so.

Pastorchris-tianity.
Just kidding.

No-oooooo! Did someone actually say that?! Good God. I wish there was a link to the complete thing. See psychosis! He and Hitler are practically ideological brothers. Those poor Palestinians. Guilty guilty guilty of being Muslim and on land Jews wanted.

I remember Virtuosity! Crappy! Man, is there a movie you haven't seen? I've not seen Fallen but I hear it's good, with a twist ending.
V, leave JK to Fox a beg. Their romance is the stuff of legend.

I know what your intentions were, honey. You're not guilty at all, or at worst, only a little, same as most of us. There are far worse self-conceited culprits, believe me. Who believe the 'Truth' is whatever they think and appoint themselves Vanguards of Christianity.

Papercut. Ei-yah. Did you instantly put aloe vera on the cut? Not from a plant, the refined pure concentrated aloe? It prevents scarring when the wound heals. Scars fade with time. If the scar's still there, you can try microdermabrasion as discussed two pages back.

Will you get over the creature already? Abbott and Ababio don't have the latest scientific findings.

Yeh, V, the wind's blown me back here. A poster and synopsis of the movie would be good. Saw it long ago. I've forgotten what it was about, though I remember he was good in it. A hospital thingie with his wife or his kid in danger or something.