Well, I tried to do it from memory, but IMDB tells me I got it wrong. Here's their version:

Dr Ray Stantz: Everything was fine with our system until the power grid was shut off by d***less here.

Walter Peck: They caused an explosion!

Mayor (Lenny): Is this true?

Dr. Peter Venkman: Yes it's true.
[pause]
Dr. Peter Venkman: This man has no d***.

Walter Peck: Jeez!

[Charges at Venkman]

Mayor: Break it up! Hey, break this up! Break it up!

Walter Peck: All right, all right, all right!

Dr. Peter Venkman: Well that's what I heard!

Worked a playoff game a long time ago between two Christian Schools: one not affiliated (that I know of) with a denomination, and the other one attached to a Baptist church. During a timeout in the second half (good, tight game), I was over near the student section of the Baptist school, and one kid muttered, 'hey ref, you must hate baptists.' I just about lost it!

About the only churches I've gone to in my life were baptist and I've been a member of one since I was 8!

You cannot worry about what people say. These are fans that make these stupid comments. Always consider the source.

You should have immersed him in a technical foul. :D

While I get the "immersed" joke, it's important to remember that Baptists are Baptists not because of how they baptize (immersion or sprinkling), but because of who they baptize (adults, not babies).

I am a Baptist, myself.

And since we're off topic, remember that Anabaptists aren't groups that don't baptise, but groups that believe baptism is merely symbolic and not operational.

Groups that don't baptise are called Quakers, or Jehovah's Witnesses.

Now we can go back to basketball...

The "ana" means "again". Anabaptists were one of the first groups in America to re-baptize people who had been baptized as infants. They felt that baptism was symbolic, a statement of one's faith. Since an infant was unable to make that statement, they re-baptized believers as adults.

You want to put those two groups in the same breath, Juulie? :)

Well, when the topic is the mechanics of baptism, they belong in the same breath, don't they? There are a lot of differences, but some similarities, such as the "meetinghouses", the conscientious objection to war, the non-recognition of holidays (which Quakers used to practice until about the time that the Jehovah's Witnesses were beginning), and even, for some Quakers, the belief against the Trinity. Today, Quakers are a motley crew, like many mainline denominations that range from liberal-humanist to conservative-evangelical. But there was a time when we were as sectarian and anti-worldly as the Jehovah's Witnesses. The only real theological difference between the sectarian periods of the two groups is the equality of the person of Jesus Christ with the person of God the Father -- Quakers have been mostly of the conviction that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were in substance and person equal with God the Father, and the JW's have never believed that. They see the Trinity as a statement of polytheism and thus blasphemy. Jehovah's Witnesses also elevate the Bible (their version) much higher that the Quaker view, but this isn't as determinant to faith as the issue of Jesus and His death and resurrection.

Is there a way to move this to the General board? It is most certainly off-topic. Unless we start talking about the singing of the Star Spangled Banner. That's very basketball related, and an issue among Quakers and JW's.

It's important to remember that there are probably dozens of different religious belief systems and practices that have been called "Satanism." Depending upon the precise meaning given to the word, the total number of Satanists in the world can be anything from a few thousand to four billion individuals. Dialog on the topic is almost impossible because there is such variability in the meaning of "Satanism" and "Satanist."

Juulie, my dear friend, aren't you forgetting a few groups? You know, like us guys who have been around for almost 6000 years?

Wow! Ghostbusters and baptism! This thread gives a new perspective to the prhase, "I digress!" Lutheran, by the way. We baptize babies. And the d***less line was hilarious!

Depends on who wins
 

One night after a game, the home coach (a pretty good friend of mine)yelled at us on the way off the court.
"Nobody will ever call you guys Homer!"

Guess who had won the game?

Mark, isn't there some similar ritual (besides circumcision) in the Jewish tradition? Why would the earliest Christians, who were exclusively Jewish, use baptism as a symbol of faith if it weren't found somewhere in their own history? Did Christians appropriate baptism from "pagan" religions of the day? It seems more likely to me that they were familiar with baptism from their own religious backgrounds -- namely Judaism.

You shouldn't do that ;) But that's not why I replied to your post.

My favorite religious observation of all time was from a wedding reception. A Lutheran woman married a man who came from a Catholic background. All his friends were Catholic, and I happened to be sitting with a group that split about evenly. Of course the subject of the Catholic/Lutheran split came up and one of the Catholics at the table said, "Catholic and Lutheran are exactly the same, except Lutheran priests can get married." The Catholics all nodded as if this were common knowledge and the Lutherans all sat there open-mouthed as if someone had just called them Buddhists.

It might not translate well into pixels, but it was a hilarious moment.